POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Kesuvos 83
***** PEREK HAKOSEV L'ISHTO *****
1) A MAN THAT WAIVES RIGHTS TO HIS WIFE'S PROPERTY
(a) (Mishnah): A man that writes to his wife, 'I have no case
or words in your property' - he eats the fruits of her
property in her lifetime, and inherits her if she dies;
1. Question: If so, why does he write this?
(b) A man that writes, 'I have no case or words in your
property nor in its fruits' - he does not eat the fruits
in her lifetime, but does inherit it if she dies;
2. Answer: If she sold it, the sale stands.
(c) R. Yehudah says, he always eats the fruits of the fruits,
unless he writes, 'I have no case or words in your
property nor in its fruits nor in the fruits of its
fruits ad infinitum'.
(d) 'I have no case or words in your property nor in its
fruits nor in the fruits of its fruits, in your lifetime
and after your death' - he does not eat the fruits in her
lifetime, and does not inherit it if she dies;
(e) R. Shimon Ben Gamliel says, if she dies, he inherits it,
because he made a stipulation contrary to Torah, and
anyone that makes a stipulation contrary to Torah, his
stipulation is void.
(f) (Gemara - R. Chiya): The Mishnah applies (even) if he
only said this.
(g) Question: Even if he wrote this - why should it take
1. (Beraisa): A man that writes to his friend, 'I have
no case or words in this field, I have no business
in it, my hand is removed from it'- these words are
(h) Answer (d'Vei R. Yanai): The case is, he wrote to his
wife during engagement.
1. This is as Rav Kahana's law.
(i) Question: If this is similar to the laws of Rav Kahana
and Rava - it should apply, even if he wrote during
i. (Rav Kahana): An inheritance which does not
come to a man through his ancestors (e.g.
inheriting his wife), he may stipulate not to
2. This is also as Rava's law.
i. (Rava): One who says, 'I do not want
Chachamim's enactment' - in a case like this,
we heed him.
ii. Question: What case did Rava refer to?
iii. Answer: Rav Huna's law - A woman may tell her
husband, 'Do not feed me and I will not work
(j) Answer #1 (Abaye): During Nesu'in, the husband is an
equal partner with his wife in her property.
(k) Answer #2 (Rava): During Nesu'in, the husband has greater
rights than his wife in her property.
1. The difference between Abaye and Rava is relevant to
a Shomeres Yavam.
(l) Question: If he made a formal acquisition to waive his
rights (Rashi - to the field, in the Beraisa; Tosfos -
during Nesu'in), is this binding?
(m) Answer #1 (Rav Yosef): He only waived rights to words,
but the property is still his!
(n) Answer #2 (Rav Nachman): He waived his rights to the
1. (Abaye): Presumably, Rav Yosef only said his law in
a case when he immediately protested; but if he only
protests later, he agrees that he waived his rights
to the property.
2) FROM WHAT DID HE WAIVE HIS RIGHTS?
2. (Ameimar): The law is, he waived his rights to the
3. Question (Rav Ashi): Is this when he protested right
away, or if he only protested later?
i. The difference is, does Ameimar hold as Rav
4. Answer (Ameimar): I do not hold as Rav Yosef.
(a) (Mishnah): If so, why did he write to her? ,,,
3) CAN HE WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO INHERIT?
(b) Question: Let her tell him, you waived all your rights!
(c) Answer #1 (Abaye): One holding a document has the lower
hand (we say, he waived the smallest rights, i.e. that if
she sold it, the sale stands).
1. Suggestion #1: Let us say, he waived the rights to
(d) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): He wrote, 'in your property' - and
not in its fruit; 'in your property' - and not after her
2. Rejection (Abaye): It is better to have a small
gourd now, than rights to a large one later (i.e. it
is better to have fruit now, and to allow a future
sale to take effect).
3. Suggestion: Let us say, he waived the rights to
inherit her property!
4. Rejection (Abaye): A person waives his rights to
something which is uncommon (that she will sell her
property), and not to something common (that he will
(e) (Mishnah): R. Yehudah says, he always eats fruits of the
(f) (Beraisa): If she brings in land and it yields fruits,
these are fruits; if he sold the fruit and bought land,
the produce of that land is called fruits of fruits.
(g) Question: According to R. Yehudah, what must he say:
'fruits of fruits' or 'ad infinitum', or both?
1. Question: If he must say 'fruits of fruits' - why
does the Mishnah say 'ad infinitum'?
(h) Question: If he wrote, 'I have no case or words in your
property nor the fruits of its fruits' - does he eat the
2. Answer: This teaches that saying 'fruits of fruits'
is like saying 'ad infinitum'.
3. Question: If he must say 'ad infinitum' - why does
the Mishnah say 'fruits of fruits'?
4. Answer: This teaches that even though he said
'fruits of fruits', he must say 'ad infinitum'.
5. Question: What is the rationale to say that he must
6. Answer: If he only said 'fruits of fruits' - we
would think, he does eat fruits of fruits of fruits;
if he only said 'ad infinitum' - we would think, 'ad
infinitum' refers to the fruits (i.e. he will never
eat fruits, but he does eat fruits of fruits).
1. Did he only waive his rights to fruits of fruits,
but not from fruits?
(i) Answer: Clearly, he totally removed himself - if you
would say, he retains rights to the fruits, he will eat
them, and there will not be any fruits of fruits!
2. Or, perhaps he totally removed himself from the
(j) Rejection: If so, how will you explain the Mishnah, 'R.
Yehudah says, he always eats the fruits of fruits' -
since she eats the fruits, there will not be fruits of
1. Rather, you must say, the Mishnah teaches the law if
she leaves fruits over; likewise, the Mishnah
teaches the law if he leaves fruits over!
(a) (Mishnah): R. Shimon Ben Gamliel says ...
(b) (Rav): The law is as R. Shimon Ben Gamliel, but not for
(c) Question: What does Rav mean by this?
1. Suggestion #1: Rav agrees, the law is, if she dies,
he inherits her; but R. Shimon Ben Gamliel's reason
is, one who stipulates contrary to Torah, his
stipulation is void, whereas Rav holds that such a
stipulation is valid;
2. Rav holds that a husband inherits mid'Rabanan, and
Chachamim strengthened their enactment more than
Torah laws (and stipulation on a Rabbinic law is