ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 43
(a) Rav Avina asked Rav Sheishes whether a girl whose father died and who is
fed by her brothers, must give them what she produces, in the same way as
she has to give her father whilst he is alive. If her brothers instructed
her to feed herself from the produce of her hands - she would not be
obligated to comply, because of the condition that her father inserted in
her mother's Kesuvah, that in the event of his death, their daughters would
be fed from his property.
(b) The reason to say that what the girl produces should not go to the
brothers is - that it is not from *their* property that she is fed but from
*his* (as a result of a condition of Beis-Din).
(c) Rav Sheishes answered the She'eilah with a Mishnah in 'Almanah
Nizo'nes'. The Tana there says - that the produce of a widow who is fed by
the heirs belongs to them.
(d) Rav Avina rejects Rav Sheishes' proof from there that the same would
apply to a daughter - on the grounds that it is the husband who spells out
the condition, and, although a man does not generally want his wife to be
pampered, he does want his daughter to.
(a) When a man dies leaving behind ...
1. ... sons and a widow, and Nechasim Mu'atim (insufficient property to
provide for both) - the daughter is fed from the property, and the sons must
go begging if need be (because the shame of a woman is greater than that of
(b) True, Rav Avina just said that, when it is a matter of priority, a man
prefers his daughter to live comfortably rather than his widow. But when it
comes to something degrading (such as begging) - he would rather that his
daughter was degraded than his wife.
2. ... a widow and a daughter, and Nechasim Mu'atim - then it is the widow
who is fed, and the daughter who has to go begging.
(c) Rav Yosef tries to disprove Rav Sheishes from the previous Mishnah,
which stated that what a girl produces or finds goes to her brothers after
her father dies, even though she has not yet claimed it From this, Rav Yosef
infers - that what she produces after her father's death belongs to herself.
On the assumption that the Tana is speaking when she *is being fed by them*,
this presents Rav Sheishes with a Kashya.
(d) We refute Rav Yosef's proof - by establishing the Mishnah when she *is
not fed by the brothers*.
(a) A man is permitted to say 'Work for me but I will not feed you' - to his
Eved Cena'ani, but not to his Jewish servant (since the Torah writes in
connection with him "Imach" (and the brothers may certainly not say it to
(b) The problem that this creates with our Mishnah, which, to answer Rav
Yosef's Kashya on Rav Sheishes, we just established when the daughter is not
being fed by her brothers is - what is then the Chidush (seeing as the
brothers cannot say to her 'Work for us but we will not feed you' (any more
than they can to an Eved Ivri)?
(c) The Chidush cannot be the statement itself (that what she produced
during her father's lifetime belongs to her brothers in the event of his
death) - because, seeing as it is pure Mamon (and not K'nas), that too, is
(a) To answer Rav Yosef's Kashya, we establish our Mishnah by Ha'adafah -
meaning what she produces over and above what she needs for her livelihood.
(b) The Chidush now lies in the inference (that what she produces after her
father's death belongs to herself) - that they cannot claim the Ha'adafah
(leaving her with sufficient to eat). We might otherwise have thought that
the brothers inherit their father's rights in their sister.
(c) The problem that Rava has with this answer - is precisely the fact that
it is too straightforward! It is not feasible that Rav Yosef would not have
overlooked such an obvious answer.
(a) So Rava relearns Rav Yosef's Kashya on Rav Sheishes. The problem that
Rav Yosef had with our Mishnah, is with the statement 'Ma'aseh Yadehah
*u'Metzi'asah*, af-al-pi she'Lo Gavsah ... '. Since when does a person need
to claim something that they find?
(b) Rav Yosef interprets the Tana's words to mean - that what she produces
after her father's death, like what she finds then, belongs to her (proving
Rav Sheishes wrong).
(c) It is obvious that what a girl finds after her father's death does not
belong to her brothers - because even during her father's lifetime it is
only to avoid strife (with her father) that they instituted that it belongs
to him, and even then, only if she is eating at his table (seeing as min
ha'Torah, he is not obligated to feed her).
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav also learns like Rav Yosef, though, according to
Rav Kahana, his source is the Pasuk "ve'Hisnachaltem *Osam li'V'neichem*
Achareichem" (written in connection with Avadim Cena'anim) - from which he
extrapolates "Osam li'V'neichem" 've'Lo Benoseichem Achareichem'.
(b) Rabah disagrees with Rav Yosef and with Rav. He interprets the Pasuk
"ve'Hisnachaltem *Osam ... * " - with regard to K'nas, Pituy and damages,
but not with regard to what their sister produces.
(c) The reason that the brothers inherit these, but not the produce of her
hands is - because the latter is common and because correspondingly, they
are losing the sustenance that they have to pay her.
(a) Rabah included 'Chavalos' in his list of things that her brothers cannot
claim. But surely - 'Chavalos' are considered personal injury, which does
not go to her father in the first place?
Neherda'i and Rav Ashi dispute whether the Halachah is like Rav Sheishes or
like Rav. The final conclusion is like Rav - that the produce of the hands
of a girl who is fed by the brothers belongs to herself (like the ruling of
(b) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina establishes Rabah when the assailant wounded
her in the face - making her ugly and causing her value to depreciate. This
is also a direct loss to her father, who will obtain less should he sell
her, explaining why he is entitled to *this* Chavalah.
(c) When Rav Masna quoted Rav like Rav Yehudah did on the previous Amud, Rav
Avimi bar Papi commented that Shakud said it. 'Shakud' is a nickname of
Shmuel, who was 'diligent' to issue statements regarding money matters that
were Halachically correct, which is why the Halachah is like him in areas of
Mamon (see also the Aruch, quoted by the Mesores ha'Shas).
(a) The Tana talks about a father who arranged the betrothal of his daughter
twice: initially, and again after her divorce. Finally, her second 'husband'
died, leaving her still a Na'arah or a Ketanah. This Tana holds that a
betrothed girl is eligible to receive a Kesubah.
(b) It is the father who receives both Kesuvos.
(c) If she was already married to her second husband before he died, both
Kesuvos belong to the girl herself - because we go after the time that she
claims her Kesuvah, not after the time that the Kesuvah was written.
(d) Rebbi Yehudah says - that the first Kesuvah goes to her father.
(a) The Tana presents the case of a girl who was divorced once and widowed
once, and not when she was widowed twice - because then she would be called
a 'Katlanis' (a woman who causes her husbands to die, who is forbidden to
marry a third time), and where it can be avoided, the Tana prefers to avoid
speaking about cases of punishments.
(b) This is a S'tam Mishnah like Rebbi - who says in Yevamos that a woman
has a Chazakah already after two times (and not after three, like Raban
Shimon ben Gamliel).
(c) Rabah and Rav Yosef initially explain Rebbi Yehudah, who says in our
Mishnah that it is the girl's father who receives the first Kesuvah -
because the Chasan became obligated to pay her a Kesuvah from the time of
betrothal, and it is from then on that her father already acquired the
rights over it.
(d) Nevertheless, he does not receive the second Kesuvah, too - because from
the moment that she married the first husband, his rights over her
(a) Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa concedes - that where the father arranged his
daughter's betrothal, but she married after she became a Bogeres, he does
not receive the Kesuvah.
(b) If, as Rabah and Rav Yosef maintain, the father already receives the
rights over the Kesuvah from the time of the betrothal (according to Rebbi
Yehudah), why should he not argue with the Rabbanan in this case too?
(c) The real criterion according to them, is - the time that the Kesuvah is
(d) The Kesuvah is written - at the time of the marriage.
(a) When we ask from when the Kesuvah is claimed - we mean from which point
on is the father permitted to claim the Kesuvah from Meshubadim (people who
bought fields from her husband any time after that).
(b) According to Rav Huna, he may claim the Manah (of a widow) and Masayim
(of a Besulah) from the Eirusin - because it is a T'nai Kesuvah (giving it
the power of a documented debt), and the Tosefes, from the time of writing -
since it is voluntary (resembling any other oral debt).
(c) Rav Asi says that he may only claim both from the time of writing -
because the girl foregoes the earlier right to claim (once the Sh'tar is
written at the time of marriage).
(a) Rav Huna speaks about a woman who produces two Kesuvos, one of two
hundred Zuz, the other, of three - the former one is dated first.
(b) Rav Huna rules - that if the woman wants, she can claim from the buyers
with the first Kesuvah from the earlier date; whereas if she prefers, she
can claim with the second Kesuvah, but from the later date.
(c) We counter the Kashya that, according to Rav Huna's ruling in the
previous question, she ought to be able to claim two hundred from the first
date and one hundred from the second date - by retorting that, in that case,
why can she not claim five hundred Zuz, two hundred from the first date, and
three hundred, from the second?
(d) In fact, she cannot claim ...
1. ... the full five hundred in Rav Huna's second ruling - because by not
specifying that he was adding the second Kesuvah to the first, her husband
indicated that he was only giving her the option of using whichever Kesuvah
2. ... the full three hundred in his first ruling - for the same reason:
because, by not specifying that he was adding the second Kesuvah to the
first - he indicated that she had the choice of either claiming from the
first Kesuvah from *his* property exclusively, or from the second Kesuvah