Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHO MUST BE REDEEMED

(a) A Mamzeres or Nesinah married to a Yisrael, he does not have to redeem her, since it does not apply what he wrote, 'I will return you as a wife'.
(b) (Rava): Whenever the captivity caused her to be forbidden to her husband, he must redeem her; if something else forbade her, he is exempt.
(c) Suggestion: The Tana'im argued on this also.

1. (Beraisa): One who forbids his wife with a vow, and she is captured - R. Eliezer says, he redeems her and gives her a Kesuvah; R. Yehoshua says, he need not redeem her, but must pay a Kesuvah;
2. R. Nasan: I asked Sumchus - is R. Yehoshua dealing with a case the vow preceded the captivity, or when it came later?
3. Sumchus: I did not hear - presumably, the vow came first - if not, he will come to scheme (he will vow to exempt himself of the obligation to redeem her)!

(d) Suggestion: The Tana'im argue by the wife of a Kohen; Abaye holds as R. Eliezer, and Rava as R. Yehoshua.
(e) Rejection: No. The case is, she vowed, and he confirmed the vow.

1. R. Eliezer says, he put her finger in her mouth (it is his fault); R. Yehoshua says, she is to blame.
2. Objection #1: If R. Yehoshua says that she is to blame - he should not have to pay a Kesuvah!
3. Objection #2: If R. Yehoshua says that she is to blame - why did R. Nasan ask if the vow preceded the captivity or not - it makes no difference!

(f) Retraction: Rather, the case is, he took the vow. Abaye and Rava argue according to both Tana'im.

1. Abaye says that all agree that a Kohen Gadol must redeem a widow, but a Yisrael need not redeem a Mamzeres or Nesinah. A Kohen that vowed must redeem his wife - just as the Kohen Gadol.

i. The argument is by a Yisrael that vowed. R. Eliezer goes after the beginning (when he wrote the Kesuvah, it applied 'I will return you as a wife'); R. Yehoshua goes after the end (when she was captured, he could not return her as a wife).

2. Rava says that all agree that a Kohen Gadol need not redeem a widow, nor a Yisrael married to a Mamzeres or Nesinah.

i. The argument is by a Kohen or Yisrael that vowed. R. Eliezer goes after the beginning - (when he wrote the Kesuvah, there was no other prohibition); R. Yehoshua goes after the end (without the captivity, the vow prevents him from returning her as his wife).

(g) (Beraisa): If she was captured in his lifetime, and he died - if he heard that she was captured, the heirs must redeem her; if not, not.

1. Levi was ready to decide a case as this Beraisa. Rav: R. Chiya said, the law is not as this Beraisa, rather as the following.
2. (Beraisa): If she was captured after the husband died, or even during his lifetime and he died, the heirs need not redeem her, since it does not apply 'I will return you as a wife'.

(a) (Beraisa): The captors are asking up to 10 times her value - the 1st time, he must redeem her; after this, it is his choice;

(b) R. Shimon Ben Gamliel says, we decreed not to redeem captives above their value.

1. Up to their value, we do redeem, even if it exceeds her Kesuvah!

(c) Contradiction (Beraisa): The captors are asking up to 10 times her Kesuvah - the 1st time, he must redeem her; after this, it is his choice; R. Shimon Ben Gamliel says, if her redemption does not exceed her Kesuvah, he must redeem her; if it is more, he is exempt!
(d) Answer: R. Shimon Ben Gamliel is lenient both ways (he need not pay more than her value, nor more than her Kesuvah).

(a) (Mishnah): If she gets sick, he must heal her.
(b) (Beraisa): A widow is fed from the orphans; medical expenses are like food;
(c) R. Shimon Ben Gamliel says, medical expenses with a limit are taken from her Kesuvah; if there is no limit, they are like food.
(d) (R. Yochanan): In Eretz Yisrael, bloodletting is considered to be unlimited.
(e) R. Yochanan's relatives lost their father; his widow had daily medical expenses.

1. R. Yochanan: Get a doctor to fix a price for her treatment.
2. R. Yochanan: I acted as a lawyer (which is wrong).
3. Question: Why did he first give the counsel, and later regret it?
4. Answer: Initially, he felt he should fulfill "Do not hide from your flesh (kin)"; later, he felt that an important person should not give such counsel.

(a) (Mishnah): If a husband did not write in the Kesuvah 'Sons you will have from me will inherit the money of your Kesuvah together will their portion with their brothers (from other wives)' - it still applies, by decree of Beis Din;
(b) If he did not write 'Daughters you will have from me will live in my house and be fed from my property until they get married' - it still applies, by decree of Beis Din;
(c) 'You will live in my house and be fed from my property all the days of your widowhood in my house' - it still applies, by decree of Beis Din;

1. In Yerushalayim and Galil, they wrote this. In Yehudah, they wrote 'Until the heirs want to pay you your Kesuvah'; therefore, if they wanted, they would pay her Kesuvah and end her privileges.

(d) (Gemara - R. Yochanan): 'Kesuvas Bnin Dichrin' (that her sons inherit her Kesuvah) was enacted to encourage men to give property to their daughters, as to their sons.

1. Question: Do we ever find - the Torah says, a son inherits and not a daughter - and the Chachamim enact that a daughter inherits?
2. Answer: The Torah did say that a man should give to his daughter - "Take wives for your sons and give your daughters to men".

i. It is normal for a man to pursue a girl (for his son).
ii. Question: It is not normal to pursue a man (for his daughter)! iii. Answer: We learn, he should give her clothing and property, so men will want to marry her.

(e) Question: How much should he give?
(f) Answer (Abaye and Rava): Up to a tenth of his property.
(g) Question: (If the purpose was so men should give dowries to daughters,) the enactment should be that her sons inherit what her father gave (the dowry), but not what the husband pays (100 or 200)!
(h) Answer: If the sons would not also get from the husband, the father would not want to give.
(i) Question: We should say, when the father gave a dowry, the sons inherit what the husband pays; when the father doesn't give, the sons do not inherit!
(j) Answer: Chachamim made a uniform decree.
(k) Question: If she has a daughter but no sons, the daughter should inherit the Kesuvah, even when the father has sons from other wives!
(l) Answer: Chachamim made their enactment as an inheritance.
(m) Question: When the father has only daughters, a daughter should inherit her mother's Kesuvah!
(n) Answer: Chachamim made a uniform decree.
(o) Question: It should be collected from Metaltelim as well!
(p) Answer: Chachamim made the enactment like a Kesuvah.
(q) Question: The mother should be able to sieze (on behalf of her sons) property that the father sold!
(r) Answer: The Mishnah says, they *inherit* (heirs to not receive property that was sold).
(s) Question: The enactment should apply, even if the father does not leave more property than his wives' Kesuvos!
(t) Answer: Chachamim did not enact this in a situation that inheritance of the Torah will be uprooted.

(a) Rav Papa was marrying off his son to a daughter of Aba Surah; he went to write the Kesuvah. Yehudah Bar Meremar went with him, but did not want to enter the house.