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;
2) A TACIT ADMISSION
(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;
(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.
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.
(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!
(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;
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!
1. In every place that R. Gamliel agreed with Admon,
the law is as Admon; in all other places, not.
(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
(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.
(c) (Mishnah): If this field was used to delineate an
adjacent field ...
3) ONE WHO LOST THE PATH TO HIS 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.
(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.
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.
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
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
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
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
(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
(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.
(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.
2. Admon holds, Reuven's path is definitely by the
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.
1. (Rav Yosef): This is just as our Mishnah!
(g) A dying man said that his daughter should receive a date
tree; he died, leaving 2 trees in which he was a
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
(h) Question (Rav Yosef): Are 2 halves of a tree called a
(i) Answer (Rav Mordechai): Yes.