Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) A KESUVAH FROM KIDUSHIN

(a) Question (Mar Kashisha brei d'Rav Chisda): How does Abaye know that a widow from Kedushin receives a Kesuvah?

1. Suggestion (Mishnah): A woman was widowed or divorced, whether from Kedushin or Nisu'in - she collects everything (her full Kesuvah).
2. Rejection: Perhaps that is only when he wrote her a Kesuvah!
3. Question: If so, this is obvious!
4. Answer: It comes to argue on R. Eliezer ben Azaryah, who says that an addition (over the minimal Kesuvah) was only written on condition that he will make Nisu'in.
5. Support: It says, 'she collects everything' - we understand this if he wrote her a Kesuvah (more than the standard);

i. If he did not write a Kesuvah - she gets 100 or 200 (if she married him as a widow/virgin), what does it mean 'everything'?

(b) Answer #1: Abaye learned from the following.

1. (Rav Chiya bar Ami - Beraisa): A Mekudeshes wife - if she dies, he does not become an Onen, he does not become Tamei to engage in her burial, nor does she become an Onenes or become Tamei if he dies; if she dies, he does not inherit her; if he dies, she collects her Kesuvah.
2. Rejection: Perhaps that is when he wrote her a Kesuvah!
3. Question: If so, this is obvious!
4. Answer: We need to hear that when she dies, he does not inherit her.

(c) Answer #2: Abaye did not have a source that a widow from Kedushin gets a Kesuvah - rather, he retracted because of the Mishnah itself.

1. If the Mishnah is in a place where people do not write Kesuvos - the Get is the Kesuvah, and it does not say that she collects 100 or 200!
2. Suggestion: Perhaps - since Chachamim enacted 100 or 200, it is as if this is written in the Get!
3. Rejection: If so, the heirs could claim that they paid!
4. Suggestion: Perhaps that is no claim, for then they should have torn the Get (to stop her from collecting again).
5. Rejection: They cannot tear it, she needs it to remarry!
6. Suggestion: Beis Din should have torn the Get, and written that the tear just shows that the Kesuvah was paid, not that the Get is invalid!
7. Rejection: They can say, they paid her outside of Beis Din (therefore, it is not torn)!

(a) (Mishnah): One who finds a Get of divorce or freedom, a document of a gift or a receipt - he should not return it, perhaps the giver reconsidered and never gave it.
(b) (Gemara) Inference: The only concern is that he reconsidered - but if he would say to give it, we would give it - even if found much later!
(c) Contradiction (Mishnah): One who brings a Get and lost it - if he found it immediately, it is Kosher; if not, it is invalid.
(d) Answer #1 (Rabah): If it was lost in a place through which caravans pass, it is only valid if found immediately; if caravans do not pass through, it is Kosher even if found later.

1. Even where caravans pass - it is only invalid (if found later) if we know that another couple in the city have the same names as on this Get - if we do not know, it is Kosher.
2. If we would not say this, Rabah would contradict himself.

i. A Get was found in Rav Huna's Beis Din; it said 'in the city of Sheviri, on the Rachis River'.
ii. Question (Rav Huna): Are we concerned that there are 2 cities 'Sheviri' on the Rachis River (and this Get belongs to a man of the other city, so we do not return it)?

iii. Answer (Rabah - Mishnah): Any document of actions of Beis Din - we return it.

3. Even though Rav Huna's Beis Din is (frequented by many people) like a place where caravans pass, Rabah ruled that we return it!

i. We must say, if we do not know that 2 couples have the same name (or that another city has the same name), we are not concerned.

(e) Rabah ruled this way on a document found in the flax district of Pumbadisa.

1. [Version #1: It was where flax is sold, caravans pass there - he returned it because we did not know of someone else with the same name.]
2. [Version #2: It was where flax is soaked - he returned it even though there was someone else with the same name, because caravans do not pass there.]

(f) Contradiction (R. Zeira - Mishnah): One who brings a Get and lost it - if he found it immediately, it is Kosher; if not, it is invalid.

1. (Beraisa): A Get was found in the market - if the husband says to give it, we give it to his wife; if not, we do not return it to either of them.
2. Inference: When the husband agrees, we give it to her - even if it was found long after it was dropped!

(g) Answer #1 (R. Zeira): If it was lost in a place through which caravans pass, it is only valid if found immediately; if caravans do not pass through, it is Kosher even if found later.

1. [Version #1: Even where caravans pass, we are only concerned if we know of someone else with the same name - this is as Rabah.]
2. [Version #2: Where caravans pass, we are concerned even if we do not know of someone else with the same name - he argues on Rabah.]

(h) Rabah did not ask as R. Zeira - it is better to ask a contradiction between Mishnayos.
(i) Question: Why did R. Zeira prefer to ask the contradiction between the Mishnah and Beraisa?
(j) Answer: Only 1 Mishnah explicitly says that we give it even if found much later - perhaps the other Mishnah only permits if found immediately.
(k) Question: According to Version #2, where caravans pass, R. Zeira is concerned even if we do not know of someone else with the same name - on what do he and Rabah argue?
(l) Answer: Rabah explains, when the Mishnah says 'all actions of Beis Din, we return them' - this implies, it was found in Beis Din, which is like a place where caravans pass;

1. We must say, only when we know of someone else with the same name, we do not return;

(m) R. Zeira argues - the Mishnah does not say they were found in Beis Din - they were found outside (which is not like a place where caravans pass).

(a) Answer #2 (to contradictions 2:c and 2:f - R. Yirmeyah): The Mishnah permits returning a Get when the witnesses say that they only signed on 1 Get for a man of this name.

1. Question: Obviously, we may return such a Get!
2. Answer: One might have thought, we should be concerned that other witnesses with the same names as these witnesses signed a Get for another couple with the same names - we hear, this is not so.

(b) Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): The Mishnah permits returning a Get when the loser tells us (an infallible Siman, such as) a hole in the Get next to a particular letter.

1. This is only if he says the letter the hole is near - if he just says that there is a hole, we do not return it.
2. Rav Ashi is in doubt whether the Torah allows returning lost objects when the loser gives a mediocre Siman (if so, this also suffices for a Get), or if this is only a Rabbinical enactment (regarding money - but by a Get we require an infallible Siman. Because of his doubt, he requires an infallible Siman.)