ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 51
(a) A young Yasom whose inheritance was in the hands of an Apotropos (an
administrator), came before Rava together with his sister to ask about
Mezonos. Rava ruled - that the Apotropos should give the Yasom extra Mezonos
to feed his sister too.
(b) Rava maintains - that a woman cannot claim sustenance, Kesuvah or
clothes from Metaltelin.
(c) He nevertheless justifies his current ruling regarding the Yesomah - by
pointing out that if the Yasom had asked for money for a maidservant
(incorporating the necessary provisions) to serve him, the Apotropos would
have been obligated to fulfill his request. And his sister (who will
certainly help him to keep house) is surely not worse than a maidservant.
(a) Rebbi says in a Beraisa - that widows and daughters are entitled to
claim Mezonos from the sons who inherited only Metaltelin.
(b) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar says in this regard - that the daughters cannot
claim from the heirs Mezonos from Metaltelin.
(c) We ought to rule like Rebbi - because whenever Rebbi argues with a
contemporary, the Halachah is like him.
(d) In fact, we rule like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar - because Rava rules like
him (and it is the prerogative of the Amora'im to rule as they see fit -
though it is not common for them to ignore the principles involved.
(a) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar says that if a man died leaving only ...
1. ... boys, and the older sons took control of their inherited Karka - we
take the younger sons' portion away from the older ones and give it to the
(b) When a man dies, leaving Nechasim Mu'atim (insufficient property for the
boys to inherit and the girls to be fed until they become Bogros) - then it
is the girls who inherit, and the boys who have to go begging.
2. ... girls, and the older girls took control of their inherited Karka - we
(c) Still regarding Karka, Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar says - that when the
father leaves ...
1. ... Nechasim Merubim (sufficient property), and the girls claim Mezonos -
they are entitled to it.
(d) We learned above that, if the father left Metaltelin, sons and
daughters, the girls cannot claim Mezonos. Regarding the other three cases
(if the older boys took control of the property when there were only boys,
or the older girls took control of the property when there were only girls,
or if the girls took control of the property, and there were also boys) -
the respective claimants are entitled to claim.
2. ... Nechasim Mu'atim, and the boys claim Mezonos - they are not.
(a) A woman may claim a Kesuvah even though her husband did not write one -
because it is a T'nai Beis-Din (a condition of Beis-Din).
(b) If a man ...
1. ... designates a field worth one Manah for his wife who is a Besulah, and
then, when he divorces her, he insists that she must accept it in full
settlement - the Din is that all his property is mortgaged towards her
Kesuvah, whether he likes it or not. Consequently, she may claim the
outstanding Manah from the rest of his property.
(c) If she is a Kohenes - he must add a clause obligating himself to return
her to her country of origin (seeing as she will not be permitted to return
2. ... fails to write in his wife's Kesuvah that he will redeem her in the
event that she is captured - he is nevertheless obligated to do so, because
this too, is a T'nai Kesuvah.
(d) In the event that a woman is captured, her husband is not permitted to
present her with a Get together with her Kesuvah and with instructions that
she redeem herself - because he was already obligated to redeem her from the
time that she was captured. He is however, permitted to do so, should his
wife fall ill and require medication - because he is not obligated to
sustain his divorced wife (and medication is considered a part of
sustenance - nor is the medication that she requires now the same as the
medication that she required at the time that she fell ill, as is the case
with the money for her redemption).
(a) We initially contend that the author of our Mishnah (which requires a
Kesuvah of two hundred Zuz for a Besulah and of a Manah for an Almanah) must
be Rebbi Meir - who holds (in Perek Af-al-pi) that the woman is not even
permitted to forego part of her Kesuvah. Rebbi Yehudah however permits
foregoing part of the Kesuvah, provided she writes a receipt to the effect
that she has received the amount that she is willing to forego.
(b) On the other hand, we think that the author of the Seifa (which says
that even if he designated in her Kesuvah a field of one Manah for her
Kesuvah, all her property is mortgaged) must be Rebbi Yehudah - because he
is the one who holds (in a Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a) 'Acharayos Ta'us Sofer
Hu' (failure to accept responsibility (to reimburse the purchaser or the
creditor in the event of theft or earlier creditors claiming it) is
considered a Sofer's error, and the seller is nevertheless responsible to
reimburse the purchaser.
(c) Rebbi Meir disagrees with this principle. He says that if a person finds
a document of debt which does not have Shibud Nechasim (responsibility)
specifically written in it - he should return it (assuming the debtor agrees
that he has not paid), because there is no fear that the debtor colluded
with the creditor in order to reclaim a field that he sold (seeing as there
is no Shibud Nechasim).
(d) The Chachamim (Rebbi Yehudah) say - 'Acharayos Ta'us Sofer Hu', and the
finder may not return the document, because we *are* afraid of collusion.
(a) When we propose that the author of the entire Mishnah is Rebbi Meir and
that he differentiates between other documents and Kesuvos - we mean that
maybe he only holds 'Ach'rayos La'av Ta'us Sofer Hu' by documents that are
self-obligated, but by Kesuvos, which are a T'nai Beis-Din, he will concede
that 'Ach'rayos Ta'us Sofer Hu'.
(b) Rebbi Meir says in a Beraisa - that there are five things that one can
only claim from B'nei Chorin (property that is actually in the debtor's
domain - but not from Meshubadim [property that was sold]), among them
Kesuvas Ishah, discounting the above proposition that Kesuvos are different.
(c) We finally establish our Mishnah entirely like ...
1. ... Rebbi Yehudah - who says later that 'Hiskabalti' is effective,
whereas our Mishnah speaks when she did not say 'Hiskabalti'.
2. ... Rebbi Meir, who holds 'Acharayos La'av Ta'us Sofer Hu' - and when he
says in our Mishnah 'Chayav', he means that he is Chayav to pay from B'nei
Chorin and not from Meshubadim.
(a) Two of the five things that one can only claim from B'nei Chorin are
Peiros and Sh'vach Peiros for which the buyer claims reimbursement from the
thief who sold him a stolen field. 'Peiros' and 'Sh'vach Peiros' - are the
fully-grown fruits which grew in the field and the various improvements that
the purchaser made in the field, respectively.
(b) The buyer cannot claim them from Meshubadim (like he does the field
itself) - because the amounts are not fixed.
(c) Besides a Sh'tar Chov which does not contain Ach'rayos and a Kesuvah -
the remaining one is someone who undertakes to feed his wife's son or
(d) They (like Peiros and Sh'vach Peiros) cannot claim them from
Meshubadim - because the amounts are not fixed, making it difficult for the
purchaser (from whom they would claim) to guard himself against their claim.
(a) Shmuel's father maintains that the wife of a Yisrael who has been raped
is forbidden to return to her husband - on the grounds that, at the end of
the Bi'ah, she is likely to have condescended, and a married woman who
condescends to Bi'ah with another man is forbidden to her husband.
(b) Rav brought a proof against Shmuel from our Mishnah - which obligates a
man to insert in his wife's Kesuvah that, in the event of her being taken
captive, he will redeem her and take her back.
(c) In spite of the Pasuk in Iyov (stating that sometimes even great men
must swallow their words), Shmuel's father remained unperturbed - because he
made a distinction between rape and being taken captive, which, even by the
wife of a Kohen, is only a Chumra, since one does not know for certain that
the woman was even raped.
(d) He establishes the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei permitting a woman who was raped,
to her husband - when witnesses testify that the woman protested during the
entire period of the rape.
(a) Rava disagrees with Shmuel's father. According to him - even if the
woman who is being raped instructs the witnesses to leave the rapist alone
because, if he had not raped her she would have hired him, she is
nevertheless permitted to her husband ...
(b) ... because that is all part of the O'nes - since the initial rape
instilled her with the Yezter-ha'Ra to continue.
(c) The Beraisa Darshens from the Pasuk "*ve'Hi* Lo Nispasah (Asurah)" that
there is another woman who is not taken by force, but who is nevertheless
permitted - and that is a woman who was initially forced, but who ultimately
(d) A second Tana Darshens from the same Pasuk that there is another woman
who was taken by force, yet she is forbidden to her husband - and that is
the wife of a Kohen.
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel quoted Rebbi Yishmael, who makes a third
D'rashah from "*ve'Hi* Lo Nispasah (Asurah)", permitting a woman whose
Kidushin was negated retroactively to the man to whom she is currently
'married', due to a condition that was not met. He says - that even if her
son is riding on her shoulders she can just walk out of the marriage,
because their marriage is not valid anyway.
(b) Rav Yehudah permitted women who were kidnapped and raped by their
captors to return to their husbands , in spite of the fact that they (the
women) would provide them with food - because, as he explained to the
Rabbanan, they did so not willingly, but out of fear.
(c) Nor did he relent when they pointed out that they would even help them
in wartime - by handing them the arrows to shoot, because even that, they
did out of fear.
(d) Rava conceded however, that a woman who was captured would become
forbidden to her husband - is her captor offered her her freedom, and she
declined the offer.
(a) One Beraisa permits royal captives to return to their husbands, but
forbids those taken captive by robbers. Another Beraisa forbids royal
captives, but permits those taken captive by robbers. The former - refers to
kings like Achashverosh, who took the women by force; the latter - to kings
such as ben Netzer, who were basically robbers, but who captured towns and
ruled over them by force. Women would offer to marry him for the privilege
of marrying a ruler.
(b) Women captured by robbers are forbidden - when they are royal robbers of
the caliber of ben Netzer (as we just explained), and they are permitted -
when they are captured forcibly by ordinary robbers.
(c) The Tana of the second Beraisa refers to ben Netzer as a king, because
he is contrasting him to an ordinary robber - whereas the Tana of the first
Beraisa compares him to a robber, because he is contrasting him to a king.