ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 97
(a) According to Rebbi Daniel bar Ketina Amar Rav Huna, the Almanah would
sell her husband's property once a year. According to Rav Yehudah - once
every six months.
(b) They both agree though, on the manner of payment. The purchaser would
pay her in monthly installments, to enable her to purchase her Mezonos month
(c) Each of them has the support of a Beraisa. Ameimar however, ruled like
Rav Yehudah. When Rav Ashi quoted him Rav Huna - he replied that he did not
hold like him.
(a) They asked Rav Sheishes - whether an Almanah who sold property (with
responsibility) for Mezonos would then be permitted to claim it back from
the purchaser for her Kesuvah.
(b) Had a third person claimed the field from him - the purchaser would have
turned to the Yesomim, who are ultimately responsible for the Almanah's
(c) Rav Yosef, who asked the same She'eilah as the B'nei Yeshivah asked Rav
Sheishes, explained the She'eilah like this. Perhaps the Almanah would not
be able to claim her Kesuvah from the purchaser - because the Yesomim can
counter that it is only when *a third person* claims from the buyer that
they accept responsibility (so that the Almanah will be able to receive her
Kesuvah), but when *she* is the claimant, why should *they* accept
responsibility for her actions?
(a) Rav Sheishes resolves the She'eilah from the Mishnah that permits her to
sell the property up to the amount of her Kesuvah, so that she will be able
to claim her Kesuvah later ('ve'Samach Lah she'Tigbah K'suvasah min
ha'Sha'ar') - implying that if, rather than leaving the property for her
Kesuvah with the Yesomim, she sells it, she will not be able claim it later.
(b) We reject the suggestion that the Mishnah is merely giving good advice,
so that the woman should not cause herself to be labelled as someone who
sells and then retracts - on the basis of the final words of the Mishnah
've'Samach Lah she'Tigbah K'suvasah min ha'Sha'ar', which clearly means that
that is what she is entitled to, but not to sell it and reclaim it.
(a) They asked whether - someone who sells a field because he needs the
money, will be permitted to retract when he discovers that he no longer
needs the money.
(b) There is no proof from Rav Papa, who returned a field that he had bought
under exactly those circumstances - because Rav Papa went 'Lifnim mi'Shuras
ha'Din' (beyond the letter of the law).
(c) When, on one occasion, everyone sold their mansions because of a
terrible draught which resulted, in turn, in an acute shortage of food, Rav
Nachman permitted everyone to retract - when a shipload of wheat arrived,
saving them from starvation.
(d) They could not resolve the She'eilah from Rav Nachman's ruling - because
it transpired that the boat was already on the way when the sales took
place, only the swell of the river caused the sailors to take a roundabout
route. Had the sellers known then that the boats were already on the way,
they would never have sold their mansions, rendering the sale a false one.
(a) We prove our previous statement from the discussion between Rami bar
Shmuel and Rav Nachman. When Rami bar Shmuel told Rav Nachman that on his
account, the residents of Neherda'a would no longer agree to purchase
houses - he replied that draughts in Neherda'a were hardly common
occurrences (that one had to worry that people might react so strongly).
(b) Rami bar Shmuel retorted - that they certainly were common, and that his
fear was therefore justified.
(c) This proves that Rav Nachman's ruling must have been a question of the
boats being delayed and was therefore a false sale - because if it was a
question of wheat appearing suddenly out of the blue, or that it might
arrive only on behalf of the sellers, leaving them with no more need for the
money, that would again be uncommon, and would have given Rav Nachman the
(a) According to the Tana Kama, both an Almanah min ha'Eirusin and an
Almanah min ha'Nisu'in have the authority to sell outside of Beis-Din
(without their specific authority). Rebbi Shimon says - that an Almanah min
ha'Eirusin may only sell in Beis-Din (with their permission).
(b) The reason for this is - because an Almanah min ha'Nisu'in only sells
outside Beis-Din because she needs Mezonos (and Chazal do not expect her to
wait until Beis-Din have time to deal with her), but there is no reason
(according to Rebbi Shimon) for an Almanah min ha'Eirusin, who only receives
a Kesuvah, but no Mezonos, to sell outside Beis-Din.
(a) According to Ula, the reason that the Tana Kama permits an Almanah min
ha'Eirusin to sell outside Beis-Din is because of 'China' - meaning that it
will encourage her to re-marry (in the knowledge that she will be able to
sell her Kesuvah freely).
(b) Rebbi Yochanan explains the Tana Kama on the grounds that a man wants to
spare his wife the embarrassment of going to Beis-Din. According to him,
this concession will not extend to a divorcee, whose husband no longer
really cares about her embarrassment - whereas according to Ula, it will
apply to a divorcee no less than to an Almanah.
(c) Ula establish the next Mishnah, which forbids a Gerushah to sell the
property outside Beis-Din - like Rebbi Shimon (who does not hold of Chi'na
by an Almanah, either), but according to the Rabbanan, a Gerushah, will be
permitted to sell the property outside Beis-Din, just like an Almanah, as we
(d) Rebbi Shimon has already taught us that he does not hold of the concept
of Chi'na in the Reisha, where he forbade an Almanah min ha'Eirusin to sell
the property outside Beis-Din. Nevertheless, he needs to repeat it in the
Seifa, by a Gerushah, seeing as she has been married, and has experienced
Chibas Bi'ah. Perhaps there, he would concede that 'Chi'na' applies.
(a) In the Seifa of our Mishnah 've'Chol she'Ein Lah Mezonos, Lo Timkor Ela
be'Veis-Din', Rebbi Shimon is not coming to teach us that even a Gerushah
may not sell her ex-husband's property - but that a Gerushah ve'Einah
Gerushah may not do so.
(b) Rebbi Zeira said - that as long as the 'Megureshes ve'Eino Megureshes'
(a Safek Megureshes [e.g. a woman to whom her husband threw a Get, and we
are not sure whether it landed closer to her or closer to him]) and her
husband are still married, he remains obligated to feed her.
(c) We can deduce from Rebbi Zeira's statement - that after her husband's
death, she is no longer fed from his property.
(d) The reason for the distinction is - that whereas after his death, a
'Megureshes ve'Eino Megureshes' will no longer receive Mezonos, because of
the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro Alav ha'Re'ayah', during his life he
will remain obligated to feed her, due to the fact that it his continued
marriage to her, prevents her from remarrying.
(a) The Beraisa states that the Almanah's heirs, like herself, are permitted
to sell the property outside Beis-Din - which goes well with Rebbi
Yochanan's explanation that her husband would not have wanted her to be
embarrassed in Beis-Din, as this would apply equally to his heirs; but how
would Ula's reason of Chi'na, extend to the Almanah's heirs?
(b) Ula succeeds in reconciling the Beraisa with his explanation - by
establishing 'her heirs' to mean her daughter or her sister, who need
'Chein' just like she did.
(a) The Tana Kama forbids an Almanah to sell the rest of her Kesuvah for
Mezonos, once she has sold part of it, or given part to her creditor as
collateral or given it away as a gift. According to the Chachamim - she may
sell in as many installments as she pleases.
(b) The Tana Kama is Rebbi Shimon - who says that even if a woman sells or
gives as collateral just half of her Kesuvah, she loses her rights to
(c) The Seifa of our Mishnah says that ...
1. ... a woman who sells her deceased husband's property for Mezonos -
outside Beis-Din - is advised to record into the document of sale that she
sold the field for Mezonos.
(d) According to ...
2. ... a Gerushah who sells her ex-husband's property - may only sell with
the sanction of Beis-Din.
1. ... Rebbi Yochanan ('Ein Adam Rotzeh she'Tisbazeh Ishto be'Veis-Din') -
this final statement is unanimous.
2. ... Ula (Chi'na) - the author is Rebbi Shimon.
(a) Rebbi Shimon says that the moment the Almanah has sold some of the
property, she loses Mezonos (even though some of her Kesuvah is still
owing), whereas the Rabbanan say that she does not (precisely *because* it
is). The basis of the reasoning of ...
1. ... Rebbi Shimon - is that he does not consider some of the money like
the whole sum ('Miktzas Kesef ke'Chol Kesef').
(b) Rebbi Meir, in a Beraisa, forbids a Kohen Gadol to marry a Bogeres -
Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon permit it.
2. ... the Rabbanan - is because they hold 'Miktzas Kesef ke'Chol Kesef'.
(c) Initially - we explain that Rebbi Meir does not consider 'Miktzas
Besulim like Besulim (since a Kohen Gadol may only marry a Besulah); whereas
Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon hold 'Miktzas Besulim ki'Besulim' (an apparent
contradiction to their opinions in our Mishnah (assuming the Rabbanan in our
Mishnah to be Rebbi Meir).
(d) We basically reconcile the Beraisa with our Mishnah - by establishing
their opinions as being based on Pesukim (which in turn are based on their
very opinions in our Mishnah, as we shall now see).
(a) Based on the fact that Rebbi Meir interprets "Besulah" to mean a partial
Besulah, he learns from ...
1. ... "Besulah" *"Besulehah*" - that a Kohen Gadol can only marry a woman
whose entire Besulim still remain (but not a Bogeres, who is only a partial
(b) Based on the fact that Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon interpret
"Besulah" to mean a full Besulah, they learn from ...
2. ... "*bi*'Vesulehah" - that if she only lost her Besulim through an
unnatural Bi'ah, a Kohen Gadol is still permitted to marry her.
1. ... "Besulah" *"Besulehah*" - that a Kohen Gadol is permitted to marry a
Bogeres (a partial Besulah).
2. ... "*bi*'Vesulehah" - that he is not permitted to marry a woman who lost
part of her Besulim through an unnatural Bi'ah.