For the source text click/tap here: Shavuot 48
To download, click/tap here: PDF
Rav Shemaya said: The mishna is in accordance with Rav and Shmuel’s ruling because it teaches the administration of an oath disjunctively. The heirs can administer an oath to her when she is receiving payment of her marriage contract as a widow, or they can administer an oath to her heirs when she is a divorcée who died after the divorce and before her husband died. Since she died first, her heirs were not bequeathed an oath to her husband’s heirs.
Rav Natan bar Hoshaya raises an objection from a baraita: Sometimes the power of the son is greater than the power of the father,
יָפֶה כֹּחַ הַבֵּן מִכֹּחַ הָאָב
How can a legal system maintain fidelity to its foundational sources while adapting to new circumstances and evolving moral sensibilities? This question haunts both secular legal theory and religious jurisprudence, manifesting in debates about constitutional interpretation, the role of precedent, and the nature of legal authority itself (3,4).
The Talmudic principle "יָפֶה כֹּחַ הַבֵּן מִכֹּחַ הָאָב" (the strength of the son is greater than that of the father) offers a unique lens through which to examine this paradox. Far from being merely a technical rule of halakhic interpretation, this principle embodies a sophisticated understanding of how legal systems evolve through what we might call "generative fidelity"—a process by which later developments not only remain faithful to their sources but actually enhance and fulfill them.