(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


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 109

1) ONE WHO RETRACTS HIS PROMISE TO GIVE A DOWRY

(a) (Mishnah): A man promised to give a certain amount to his son-in-law; before the Nesu'in, he said that he will not (or cannot) give the money; his son-in-law can say, I will not make Nesu'in until you give the money, your daughter will be unable to marry;
(b) Admon says, she can claim - had I promised myself, this would be proper; but my father promised - what should I do? Marry me, or divorce me!
1. R. Gamliel: I agree with Admon.
(c) (Gemara): Our Mishnah is unlike the following Tana.
(d) (Beraisa - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah): Admon and Chachamim didn't argue by a man who promised money to his son-in-law, and then retracted - she can say, my father promised - what should I do?
(e) They argue when she promised, and then retracted.
1. Chachamim say, her husband can say, I will not make Nesu'in until you give the money;
2. Admon says, she can say, I thought that my father would give - now that I see that he will not (or cannot), what can I do? Marry me, or divorce me!
3. R. Gamliel: I agree with Admon.
(f) (Beraisa): When does this apply (Rashi - the law of this Beraisa; Tosfos - our Mishnah)? When she is an adult; but if she is a minor, we force.
(g) Question: Whom do we force?
1. Suggestion: If we force her father - to the contrary, it is more reasonable to force him if she is an adult!
(h) Answer (Rava): We force the husband to divorce her.
(i) (R. Yitzchak Ben Elazar): Every place that R. Gamliel agreed with Admon, the law is as Admon.
(j) Question (Rava): Does this even apply to the Beraisa?
(k) Answer (Rav Nachman): He did not say, in the Mishnah - he said, in every place!
(l) (R. Zeira): The 2 laws Chanan said, the law is Kayotzei Bo (Rashi - as the one who agrees with him; Tosfos - this is also the law in similar cases); the 7 laws Admon said, the law is not as Kayotzei Bo.
(m) Question: What does this mean?
1. Suggestion: If it means, the 2 laws Chanan said, the law is as him and Kayotzei Bo; the 7 laws Admon said, the law is not as him nor as Kayotzei Bo - but R. Yitzchak Ben Elazar said, every place that R. Gamliel agreed with Admon, the law is as Admon!
2. Suggestion: Rather, the 2 laws Chanan said, the law is as him and Kayotzei Bo; the 7 laws Admon said, the law is not as Kayotzei Bo.
i. This implies, the law is as Admon in all 7 - but R. Yitzchak Ben Elazar said, every place that R. Gamliel said that he agrees with Admon, the law is as Admon - but where R. Gamliel did not say this, the law is not as Admon!
(n) Answer: Rather, the 2 laws Chanan said, the law is as him and Kayotzei Bo; the 7 laws Admon said, sometimes the law is as him and as Kayotzei Bo; sometimes, it is not as him, but as Kayotzei Bo;
1. In every place that R. Gamliel agreed with Admon, the law is as Admon; in all other places, not.
2) A TACIT ADMISSION
(a) (Mishnah): Reuven claims that Shimon stole a field from him; Reuven signed on the document in which Levi bought this field from Shimon. Admon says, Reuven did not forfeit his claim - he signed the document, because he would rather take Levi to trial than Shimon; Chachamim say, he forfeited his claim.
1. A sale document delineates an adjacent field by saying it borders on Shimon's field. If Reuven signed (Rashi; Tosfos - authorized) this document, he forfeits his claim that Shimon stole the field from him.
(b) (Gemara - Abaye): This only applies to signing as a witness - but if a judge signed (validated) such a document, he does not forfeit his claim.
1. (R. Chiya Bar Aba): Witnesses may not sign a document unless they read it, but judges may sign a document even without reading it.
109b---------------------------------------109b

(c) (Mishnah): If this field was used to delineate an adjacent field ...
(d) (Abaye): This only applies if the adjacent field was sold to someone else; but for himself (Rashi - he himself bought the field from Shimon; Tosfos - he sold the field to Shimon) he does not forfeit his claim.
1. Had Reuven objected to calling the adjacent field Shimon's, the sale would not have gone through.
2. Suggestion: Reuven should have told witnesses that he does not admit that the field is Shimon's.
3. Answer: Everyone has friends - had Reuven done so, word would have spread, Shimon would have heard, and the sale would have been impeded.
(e) Reuven signed (authorized) a document selling the field north of Shimon's field, and later claimed that Shimon stole that field (the southern one); Reuven died. A caretaker was appointed for the orphans.
1. Abaye: Reuven forfeited his claim to the field.
2. The caretaker: If their father was alive, he would claim, Shimon only owns 1 furrow's width of the south field - this was used to delineate the north field - the rest of the south field is mine!
3. Abaye: Excellent! We make this claim for the orphans!
i. (R. Yochanan): If Reuven claims, Shimon owns only 1 furrow's width of the south field, and this was used to delineate the north field, he is believed.
4. Abaye: Give Shimon a furrow's width of the field.
i. There was a row of date trees on the furrow (making the furrow very valuable).
5. The caretaker: If their father was alive, he would claim, I later bought back the furrow!
6. Abaye: Excellent! We make this claim for the orphans!
i. (R. Yochanan): If Reuven claims, I later bought it back - he is believed.
7. Abaye: One who appoints a caretaker should appoint a man like this, who knows how to argue for the orphans!
3) ONE WHO LOST THE PATH TO HIS FIELD
(a) (Mishnah): Reuven went overseas; he returned, and there is no path to his field (it was annexed to the adjacent field, he does not know where). Admon says, he is entitled to a small path to his field;
(b) Chachamim say, he must pay as much as the neighbor demands, or will have no path to his field.
(c) (Gemara) Question: Admon's law is reasonable - why do Chachamim's argue?
(d) Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah): The case is, 4 neighbors surround his field, 1 in each direction.
1. Question: If so, what is Admon's reason?
(e) Answer (Rava): If 4 neighbors own the surrounding fields, whether there were originally 4 neighbors or only 1, all agree that Reuven has no claim against any of them.
1. They argue when 1 person bought the 4 surrounding fields from 4 people.
2. Admon holds, Reuven's path is definitely by the neighbor!
3. Chachamim say, the neighbor can threaten Reuven.
i. If you do not pay as much as I want - I will return the fields I bought, and you will have no claim against any of the neighbors.
(f) A dying man said that his daughter should receive a date tree; he died. His sons divided the estate, and did not give her a tree.
1. (Rav Yosef): This is just as our Mishnah!
2. Objection (Abaye): No! In the Mishnah, each neighbor can dispel him - your path is not by me. Here, the sons divided her tree among themselves!
i. They must give her a tree, and divide up from the beginning.
(g) A dying man said that his daughter should receive a date tree; he died, leaving 2 trees in which he was a half-owner.
(h) Question (Rav Yosef): Are 2 halves of a tree called a tree?
(i) Answer (Rav Mordechai): Yes.
Next daf

Index


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,
daf@shemayisrael.co.il