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 94
1) MUST THE LAST WOMAN SWEAR?
(a) Answer #1 (Shmuel): The case is, one of the husband's
fields was not really his; they argue, if collection of a
later creditor before an earlier creditor is a valid
2) 2 DOCUMENTS WITH THE SAME DATE
1. The first Tana holds, the collection is invalid (so
there is no harm to let the 4th woman collect
without an oath); Ben Nanas holds, the collection
(b) Answer #2 (Rav Nachman): (He also learns, the case is,
one of the husband's fields was not really his.) All
agree, collection of a later creditor before an earlier
creditor is void. They argue, whether we are concerned
that the 4th woman will decrease the value of the field.
1. The first Tana holds, we are not concerned; Ben
Nanas holds, we are concerned.
(c) Answer #3 (Abaye): They argue on the law of Abaye
1. (Abaye Kashisha): The orphans referred to (that one
must swear to collect from them) are adults - all
the more so, minors.
(d) (Rav Huna): 2 brothers or partners that have a case with
someone, and one of them took him to Beis Din and
received a verdict - the other brother/partner cannot
say, I was not party to that ruling - rather, his partner
acted on his behalf.
2. The first Tana does not hold as Abaye Kashisha; Ben
Nanas holds as Abaye Kashisha.
1. (Rav Nachman): We learn this from our Mishnah! The
1st woman swears to the 2nd, and the 2nd to the 3rd,
but the 1st need not swear to the 3rd.
i. Suggestion: This is because when the 2nd made
the 1st swear, she acted on behalf of the 3rd
2. Rejection: No - it is because an oath to 1 is as an
oath to 100.
i. In Rav Huna's case, the partner could say, I
would have argued better.
ii. This only applies if the partner was not in the
city - if he was in the city, he should have
come to Beis Din. (By not coming, he accepts
whatever verdict his partner receives.)
(a) 2 documents (of sale for the same property) have the same
(b) (Rav): The recipients split the property.
(c) (Shmuel): Shuda (Rashi - the judges decide who they think
he wanted to give the property to; Tosfos - they give the
property to whichever they want).
1. Suggestion: Rav is as R. Meir, who says that
witnesses that sign on a document are the essential
ones; Shmuel is as R. Elazar, who says that
witnesses that see the document given to the
recipient are the essential witnesses.
3) A DOCUMENT WITH A VAGUE DATE
2. Rejection: No, all hold as R. Elazar.
(d) Question (Beraisa): 2 documents with the same date - they
divide the property - this refutes Shmuel!
i. Rav holds that it is better to divide the
property; Shmuel says, Shuda is better.
3. Objection: We cannot say that Rav holds as R.
i. (Rav Yehudah citing Rav): The law is as R.
Elazar in Gitin.
4. Rather, as originally suggested, Rav holds as R.
Meir, and Shmuel as R. Elazar.
ii. (Shmuel): The law is as R. Elazar even by
iii. We may infer that Rav does not hold as R.
Elazar by monetary documents.
(e) Answer #1: The Beraisa is as R. Meir; Shmuel holds as R.
(f) Objection: The Beraisa cannot be R. Meir - the end of the
Beraisa says, if he wrote to one (first) and handed over
to the other, the one to whom he handed over first
1. If it is R. Meir - why does he acquire - R. Meir
says, the witnesses that sign the document are the
(g) Answer #2: (The Beraisa is R. Elazar) - Tana'im argue
which is better, division or Shuda.
1. (Beraisa): Chachamim say, they divide the property;
here (in Bavel) they said the entrusted party does
as he wants.
(h) Rami Bar Chama's mother wrote her property to him in the
morning; in the afternoon, she wrote it to Mar Ukva Bar
Chama. Rami Bar Chama went to Rav Sheshes, who ruled that
Rami Bar Chama receives the property; Mar Ukva Bar Chama
went to Rav Nachman, and he ruled in his favor.
1. Rav Sheshes: Why did you act thusly?
2. Rav Nachman: Why did you act as you did?
3. Rav Sheshes: Because his document was written first.
4. Rav Nachman: Only in Yerushalayim do we care which
document was written earlier in the day!
5. Rav Sheshes: Why did you rule as you did?
6. Rav Nachman: The law is Shuda, I decided as I felt.
7. Rav Sheshes: My ruling may also be considered Shuda!
8. Rav Nachman: No - firstly, I am ordained to judge by
the Exilarch and the Yeshivah, and you are not.
i. Secondly, your ruling was not intended to be
(a) 2 documents came before Rav Yosef. One was dated Nisan 5;
the other only said Nisan.
1. Rav Yosef gave the property to the bearer of the
document dated Nisan 5.
2. The other man: I should lose?
3. Rav Yosef: You have the bottom hand - perhaps yours
was given on Nisan 29.
4. The other man: Please write a document saying that I
may take property sold from Iyar and onwards.