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 102
1) ONE WHO OBLIGATES HIMSELF WITH A DOCUMENT
(a) Rejection: No, it is a case of a document of committal,
as Rav Gidal taught.
1. (Rav Gidal): Reuven agreed to marry his son to
Shimon's daughter. Each father agreed to give a
certain amount to his child. The children got
engaged right then - the verbal promises are
(b) Question (Mishnah): Reuven (who has a firstborn son to
redeem) wrote to a Kohen, I owe you 5 Sela'im - he must
pay him, and his son is not redeemed (we see, the
document obligates him)!
(c) Answer: That case is different, since the Torah obligated
(d) Question: If so, why did he bother writing a document?
(e) Answer: To clarify to which Kohen he will give the
(f) Question: If so, why isn't his son redeemed?
(g) Answer: As Ula taught.
1. (Ula): mid'Oraisa, his son is redeemed when he gives
(h) Suggestion (Rava): R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue as
the following Tana'im.
2. Chachamim said that he is not redeemed, lest people
say that one can redeem with documents.
1. (Mishnah): A guarantor written below the signatures
on a document - the lender may collect from his
property, but not from property he sold;
(i) Suggestion: R. Yochanan is as R. Yishmael, and Reish
Lakish is as Ben Nanas.
2. A case came before R. Yishmael - he said, he may
collect from his unsold property.
3. Ben Nanas: He cannot even collect from unsold
4. R. Yishmael: Why not?
5. Ben Nanas: Reuven saw the lender choking the
borrower - he told him, leave him, and I will give
you - Reuven is exempt, since the money was not lent
on expectation to collect from Reuven.
(j) Rejection: Granted, we must say that R. Yochanan cannot
hold as Ben Nanas.
2) AN ACQUISITION THROUGH WORDS
1. However, Reish Lakish can hold as R. Yishmael.
i. R. Yishmael only said that he must pay in the
case of a guarantor, where there is a Torah
obligation to pay - but obligating oneself in a
document, he can agree, he is exempt!
(a) (Rav): Reuven agreed to marry his son to Shimon's
daughter. Each father agreed to give a certain amount to
his child. The children got engaged right then - the
verbal promises are binding.
3) WHO RAISES A DAUGHTER?
1. (Rava): Presumably, this only applies when Shimon's
daughter is a Na'arah, and Shimon benefits (he gets
the engagement money) - but if she is a Bogeres, no.
(b) Question (Ravina): Are these promises standing to be
written in a document? (Rashi - if they are written, may
the recipient collect from land sold afterwards? Tosfos
(Nisnu) - must witnesses consult the parties before
writing a document? Tosfos (Hacha) - are these promises
binding even if a document is not written?)
2. In truth, Rav said this even by a Bogeres - we see,
Reuven's promise is binding, even though he gets no
i. It must be, through the happiness that they are
marrying their children together, they
absolutely decide to give as they promise, and
this is binding.
(c) Answer (Rav Ashi): No.
(d) Question (Mishnah): Clever men would write, 'On condition
that I will feed your daughter for 5 years, the whole
time you are with me'.
(e) Answer: This was said, not written.
1. Objection: Would the Tana say 'They write' if they
only say it?
(f) Question (Mishnah): Documents of engagement and marriage
may only be written if both parties agree.
2. Answer: Yes! The following is an example.
i. (Mishnah): One who writes to his wife, 'I have
no claim to your property'.
ii. (R. Chiya): The case is, he said this.
1. We infer - if they agree, they may be written.
(g) Answer: No - it literally means, documents of engagement,
as Rav Papa and Rav Sharbiya.
2. Suggestion: 'Documents of engagement' refers to
documents of committal.
1. (Rava and Ravina): A document of engagement was
written in order to engage Leah, without her consent
- it is valid;
(h) Question (Mishnah): If the husbands die, their daughters
are fed from unsold property, and the wife's daughter is
fed even from sold property, since she is as a creditor.
2. (Rav Papa and Rav Sharbiya): It is invalid.
(i) Answer: The case is, the commitment was acquired through
(j) Objection: If so, their daughters should also be fed from
(k) Answer: The acquisition was only made for her daughter.
(l) Question: Why does the Tana establish the case this way,
without specifying - is it always the case that
acquisition is only made for her daughter?!
(m) Answer #1: Since her daughter is alive when he commits
himself, acquisition helps for her; their daughters have
not been born yet, acquisition does not help for them.
(n) Question: Doesn't the Mishnah include the case when their
daughters have been born - i.e., he divorced his wife and
is now remarrying her?
(o) Answer #2: Rather, no enactment of Beis Din says that her
daughter is fed, so an acquisition helps for her; an
enactment of Beis Din says that their daughters are fed,
so an acquisition does not help for them.
(p) Objection: This is illogical - why should the enactment
of Beis Din weaken her?!
(q) Answer #3: Rather, the reason his daughters may not
collect from sold property is because we are concerned
that the father set aside money for their food, because
an enactment of Beis Din says that they must be fed.
(a) (Mishnah): The 1st husband cannot say ... (but he sends
her food to where her mother is).
(b) (Rav Chisda): This teaches that a daughter is raised by
(c) Question: How do we know that the Mishnah deals with an
adult - perhaps it deals with a minor, and because of the
incident which happened!
1. (Beraisa): Someone died, leaving a small son. The
father's heirs and the child's mother both want to
raise him - we let the mother raise him.
(d) Answer: If so, the Mishnah should have said, he sends
food to where she is.
2. There was a case (when he was left by the father's
heirs) and they slaughtered him.