ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 48
(a) In a Beraisa cited by Rav Yosef, the Tana explains that She'er comes to
preclude from the practice of the Persians - who who be intimate with their
(b) Rav Huna says - that someone who insists on being intimate with his wife
whilst they are both fully-clothed must divorce his wife (should she demand
it) and pay her Kesuvah.
(a) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah obligates a man to bury his wife. Rebbi
Yehudah adds to that two obligations - a minimum of two flautists and a
woman who laments (sings dirges).
(b) If this was normal practice, then it would be obligatory even according
to the Tana Kama, and if it was not, then even Rebbi Yehudah would not
obligate him. Where they argue is - when it is his custom to do so, but not
(c) 'Olah Imo ve'Eino Yoredes Imo' means - that she raises her standards to
match his, but does not lower them to match his.
(d) In that case, the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the
Tana Kama is - whether the first half of the principle applies even after
her death (see 6c.); Rebbi Yehudah holds that it does; the Tana Kama holds
that it does not.
(a) Rav Chisda Amar Mar Ukva rules like Rebbi Yehudah - that 'Olah Imo
ve'Eino Yoredes Imo' applies even after her death.
(b) Rav Chisda Amar Mar Ukva also says - that one sustains the wife and
children of someone who went out of his mind from her husband's property.
(c) The Beraisa says that if someone went overseas ...
1. ... one sustains his wife from his property ...
(d) The meaning of ...
2. ... but not his (older) children - seeing as a man is obligated to
sustain his wife, but not his older children (from the age of six).
1. ... Zanin - is feeds.
2. ... Mefarnesin - clothes.
(a) Rav Ashi resolves the apparent discrepancy between the Din of the father
who went out of his mind (whose children *one does sustain* from his
property) and the one who went overseas (whose children *one does not*) - on
the grounds that, whereas we presume that the former would want his children
to be fed from his property, we cannot presume the same of the latter,
because then the father should have indicated this before he left.
(b) The Tana adds 'Davar Acher' to the Din of sustenance. According to Rav
Chisda, this means ornaments - according to Rav Yosef, it means 'Tdedakah'
(that they give her money to distribute to Tzedakah).
(c) Assuming that they refer to the Beraisa (which rules *'ve'Lo* Davar
Acher'), Rav Yosef will agree that she always receives ornaments - because
we assume that her husband would not wish her to look ugly (i.e. to lose her
(d) In the case of Rav Chisda Amar Mar Ukva - both will agree that she
receives both ornaments and Tzedakah.
(a) Alternatively, Rav Chisda and Rav Yosef are referring to Rav Chisda Amar
Mar Ukva (where the husband went out of his mind - and not to the Beraisa,
where he travelled overseas). They argue over 'Tdedakah' - which according
to Rav Yosef she receives, but according to Rav Chisda, she does not.
(b) They will both agree however, that, in the case of the Beraisa, where he
could have left instructions but did not - his wife receives neither
Tzedakah nor ornaments.
(a) Rav Chiya bar Avin Amar Rav Huna rules that if a man goes overseas and
his wife dies, Beis-Din bury her in accordance with his Kavod, a statement
we cannot accept - because it implies 'in accordance with *his* Kavod, and
not with *her's'* (when in fact, even those who hold 'Ein Olin Imo' after
her death, agree that we do not say 'Yordin Imo'?)
(b) So we amend the statement to - ' ... Beis-Din bury her *also* in
accordance with his Kavod'.
(c) We learn from Rav Chiya bar Avin Amar Rav Huna's ruling - that the
Halachah is that, even after her death, not only do we say 'Ein Yordin Imo',
but that we also say 'Olin Imo' (like Rebbi Yehudah).
(a) Rav Masna rules that if a dying man orders his children not to bury his
wife with funds from his property, they are permitted to obey his
instructions. There is no obligation to bury her from his property after his
death - because then the onus falls upon whoever inherits her Kesuvah.
(b) What is then strange about Rav Masna's ruling is - that, in that case,
why do we need his insructions to arrive at this Halachah? The children are
not obligated to bury her from their father's property anyway (seeing as she
will have already claimed her Kesuvah - Tosfos Rid)?
(c) We therefore amend it to read - that if he instructs them not to bury
*him* with funds from his property, they are not permitted to obey his
(d) His children are forbidden to obey his instructions - because a man is
not permitted to enrich his children at the expense of the community.
(a) A girl (who is not yet a Bogeres) remains under her father's
jurisdiction - until she becomes a Bogeres.
(b) Apart from the money issues involved, this restricts a girl who becomes
betrothed - inasmuch as a bas Yisrael who is marrying a Kohen remains
forbidden to eat Terumah.
(c) If her father ...
1. ... handed her over to the Chasan's Sh'luchim to take her to the Chupah -
she enters the domain of her husband.
(d) The Tana of our Mishnah said '*Le'olam* Hi bi'R'shus Avihah ad
she'Tikanes le'Chupah'. He used the expression 'Le'olam' - to preclude from
the Mishnah Rishonah, which permits the girl to eat Terumah as soon as the
twelve-month preparatory period (from the time that the Chasan requests the
marriage) for a Besulah are over (provided the delay is due to the Chasan).
2. ... or his Sh'luchim accompanied the Chasan's Sh'luchim - she remains in
the domain of her father.
3. ... handed her to his Sh'luchim, who in turn, handed her over to the
Chasan's - she enters the domain of her husband.
(a) According to Rav, handing over his daughter to the Sh'luchim of the
Chasan renders her married in all rspects except for that of being permitted
to eat Terumah - because the reason that a betrothed girl cannot yet eat
Terumah (in case the Chasan finds a blemish that renders his sale invalid -
because min'ha'Torah, she is permitted to do so) still applies.
(b) Rav Asi argues with Rav and says that she may eat Terumah, too -
because, in his opinion, the reason that Chazal forbade a betrothed girl to
eat Terumah is in case she hands a cup of Terumah-wine to her brothers and
sisters, and that suspicion no longer applies, from the moment she leaves
her father's house.
(c) Rav Huna or Chiya bar Rav asked on Rav Asi from a Beraisa which states
'Le'olam Hi bi'R'shus ha'Av ad she'Tikanes le'Chupah' - implying that she
remains forbidden to eat Terumah even after her father has handed her over
to the Sh'luchim of the Chasan.
(d) Rav was unhappy with the Kashya - because he explained 'ad she'Tikanes
le'Chupah' (according to Rav Asi) to incorporate 'the handing over to the
Sh'luchim of the Chasan'.
(a) Shmuel disagrees with both opinions. When he says (following the handing
over to the Sh'luchim of the Chasan) 'li'Yerushasah' - he means that should
she die, it is the Chasan who inherits her dowry, and not her father
(because her father automatically forewent it from the moment he saw the
(b) It is not effective however - with regard to the eating of Terumah,
nullifying her vows and her findings (in respect of which she remains in her
(c) Resh Lakish says 'li'Ke'suvasah'. Taken literally, he seems to be saying
the same as Shmuel. Ravina therefore explains 'li'Kesuvasah' to mean - that,
should her husband die, and someone else marries her, she is considered an
Almanah min ha'Nisu'in, whose Kesuvah is only one Manah (and not two, as is
that of an Almanah min ha'Eirusin).
(d) Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Chanina - hold like Rav Asi, who says that
handing over the girl to the Chasan's Sh'li'ach is equivalent to Chupah in
(a) A Beraisa elaborating on the Halachos of our Mishnah, concludes 'Ein
ha'Ishah Ocheles bi'Terumah ad she'Tikanes li'Terumah' - posing a Kashya on
all those who argue with Shmuel (and Rav, permitting her even to eat
A woman who commits adultery whilst she is going with the Sh'luchim of the
Chasan - is Chayav Chenek (like a married woman).
(b) We can infer from the Beraisa which states that if the Kalah went with
the Chasan into ...
1. ... her Chatzer *to stay overnight* and she subsequently dies, then, even
if her dowry is already with Chasan, her father inherits it - that if they
entered it S'tam (without any particular intention), *they are considered
married* (bearing in mind that Chupah basically entails the Chasan taking
his Kalah into his domain for the sake of marriage).
(c) These two inferences appear to contradict each other. Rav Ashi
resolves this contradiction - by establishing that both Beraisos speak when
they went S'tam into their respective Chatzeiros. When they went into *her*
Chatzer, then S'tam is considered as if they only had in mind to stay
overnight, whereas when they went into *his*, then even S'tam is considered
as if they entered it for the sake of marriage.
2. ... his Chatzer *for the purpose of marriage*, then even if the dowry is
still with the father, when she dies, her husband inherits it - that, if
they entered it S'tam, *they are not married*. (Note: It appears from here
that Chupah does not need to be performed in the Chasan's domain, unless we
assume that she lends him her domain for the occasion).
(a) Rav Ami bar Chama Darshens from the Pasuk "li'Z'nos Beis Avihah"
(written in connection with the S'kilah of a Na'arah Me'urasah) - to
preclude a woman whose father already handed her to the Sh'luchim of the
Chasan, who will receive Chenek.
(b) We know that the Pasuk does not come to preclude a woman who has already
entered the Chupah (but not one who has only been handed to the Chasan's
Sh'luchim) - because that we already know from another Pasuk (as we shall
(c) We learn from the Pasuk (written in connection with the punishment of
S'kilah) "Ki Yih'yeh ...
1. ... Na'arah ... - 've'Lo Bogeres'.
(d) "Me'urasah" 've'Lo Nesu'ah' cannot be understood literally - because
then, it would mean the same as the previous D'rashah (Besulah ... - 've'Lo
2. ... Besulah ... - 've'Lo Be'ulah'.
3. ... Me'urasah" - 've'Lo Nesu'ah', who has already entered the Chupah
(even though she has not yet consummated her marriage).