In Kesuvos 56a we learn about the principle of where one makes a stipulation on something that was written in Torah. For example:

דתניא האומר לאשה הרי את מקודשת לי על מנת שאין ליך עלי שאר כסות ועונה הרי זו מקודשת ותנאו בטל דברי רבי מאיר ר' יהודה אומר בדבר שבממון תנאו קיים

as it is taught "one who says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me on the condition that you have no [ability to claim] from me food, clothing, or conjugal rights, she is betrothed and his stipulation is void- this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says [by] monetary matters [ie food and clothing] his stipulation stands.

To my understanding, we tend to pasken that for one who does this their stipulation is invalid.


If someone were to make a stipulation for one of the mitzvos of Purim (ex: to not hear the megillah) would we say this is valid?

There's discussion about מתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה by a d'rabanan in this yeshiva.org.il link (there are opinions for both sides), but my question is:

  • Would Purim fall under this application? Along with Channukah it's kind of like a "super" d'rabanan - namely, we say "אשר קדשנו במצוותיו וצוונו" and "shehechiyanu"- ie stipulating about it may not be allowed.


  • You asked if there is maybe... For Al ma shetsivu chachamim? – kouty Mar 5 '19 at 7:15
  • I don’t get the question. 1. A condition means “X transaction will take place IF Y takes place” - such as the cited Gemara in Kesuvos. Saying “I’m not going to hear Megillah” is a Shevuah. Perhaps a better example would be “I will sell you my car if I don’t hear Megillah.” 2. Even R’ Yehudah in the cited quote agrees that by non-monetary matters one may not make a condition against them; he agrees that a man cannot make a condition removing the woman’s claim to intimacy, only to food and clothing. So there’s nobody who would say that one can stipulate against hearing the Megillah. – DonielF Mar 5 '19 at 18:48
  • @DonielF so you're saying I should delete the question :/ – alicht Mar 5 '19 at 18:57
  • 1
    @alicht No, I'm saying you should clarify, or perhaps make a different example. Keeping in the theme of Purim, I see no reason why making a sale conditional on Shaloch Manos wouldn't be subject to the dispute between R' Meir and R' Yehudah. Or perhaps take out Purim altogether and ask whether we hold like R' Meir or R' Yehudah, or perhaps, in line with kouty's earlier comment, ask whether the rule of מתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה extends to מתנה על מה שגזרו חכמים. – DonielF Mar 5 '19 at 19:00

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .