ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 56
KESUVOS 55 & 56 - have been dedicated by Rabbi Avi Feldman and his sisters in
memory of their mother (yahrzeit: 11 Iyar), ha'Rabbanit Sara Dvasya bas Rav
(a) We conclude that both Rav and Rebbi Nasan go after Umdena.
Nevertheless, one of them rules like the Tana Kama in our Mishnah, and not
like Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, who assesses the Chasan's intentions (to only
give his betrothed Masayim once they are married) - because a Kesuvah of
Masayim is based on the assessment of the closeness that a man feels towards
his wife who is a Besulah. The Tana Kama too (this opinion holds), assessed
that that closeness begins already with the betrothal.
(b) 'Amar Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi Mishum Rabeinu, Halachah ke'Rebbi Elazar
ben Azaryah' - Rabeinu refers to Rav (see Tosfos DH 'Amar').
(c) Rav and Shmuel (among others) rule like Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah. Rav
Nachman among others, not only rules like the Tana Kama - but actually
pronounces a curse against those who rule like Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah.
(d) The Halachah is nevertheless like Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah.
(a) According to Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, Eirusin does not acquire the
Kesuvah of Masayim. Ravin is not sure then what *does* acquire it - whether
it is the love of Chupah or the love of Bi'ah.
(b) We try to prove from the Beraisa of Rav Yosef, which states that he only
writes the Kesuvah because of 'the love of the first night' - that it must
be the love of Chupah that acquires, because if the Tana meant Bi'ah, does
Bi'ah take place only on the first night and not on subsequent nights?
(c) We counter this however, from the Tana's reference to night - which
suggests that he is referring to the Bi'ah, because the Chupah can just as
well take place in the day, which Bi'ah generally does not (despite the
concession of performing Bi'ah by day in a dark room).
(d) We refute this latter proof - by establishing the norm to perform Chupah
too, at night, seeing as S'tam Chupah is for the purpose of Bi'ah. In any
event, the outcome of Ravin's She'eilah is that it is the love of Chupah
that acquires the Kesuvah of Masayim.
(a) Rav Ashi asks what the Din will be if the woman becomes a Nidah during
the Chupah - because even though we just concluded that, according to Rebbi
Elazar ben Azaryah it is the love of Chupah that is Koneh, perhaps he
requires a Chupah that leads to Bi'ah, but not a Chupas Nidah.
(b) The She'eilah - remains unresolved.
(a) In a Mishnah in Bava Basra, Rebbi Yossi holds that, if someone pays part
of a debt, the creditor writes him a receipt. According to Rebbi Yehudah -
they tear up the original document and write him a new one for the balance.
Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with the concept of writing a receipt, since it
forces the debtor to have to guard it against mice.
(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah resolves the apparent contradiction between Rebbi Yehudah
in Bava Basra and Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah (who permits the woman to
write her husband a receipt for part of her Kesuvah) - by establishing that
the receipt in our Mishnah is actually written into the Kesuvah itself, and
not in the form of an independent document.
(c) Abaye establishes Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah by a regular receipt,
dispensing with the Kashya in a different way. He maintains that it is in
Bava Basra that Rebbi Yehudah argues with Rebbi Yossi - because there the
debtor definitely paid, and to write a receipt places him in jeopardy of
having to pay again; whereas in our Mishnah, where the husband has not
actually paid anything, we are not so concerned that he might lose the
receipt and have to pay. On the other hand, should the creditor wish to
avoid this happening, he has the option of looking after the document
(d) It is easy to understand why Abaye declines to learn like Rebbi
Yirmiyah, seeing as the Tana in our Mishnah does not speak about writing the
receipt into the Kesuvah. Rebbi Yirmiyah on the other hand, declines to
learn like Abaye - because he maintains that Chazal decreed against the one
because of the other.
(a) Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa says that if a man betrothes a woman on the
condition that he is exempt from feeding her, clothing her or from
performing his marital obligations - the woman is betrothed and his
condition is invalid, because any condition that undermines the Torah's
instructions, is invalid.
(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah - monetary conditions are valid.
Consequently, if a man betrothes a woman on condition that he is exempt from
feeding or clothing her, his condition is valid.
(c) We resolve the apparent contradiction between Rebbi Yehudah here and
Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, who requires that when the woman claims that
she has received part of the Kesuvah, she is obligated to write it in the
Kesuvah, but saying it verbally is not sufficient - by establishing that
Rebbi Yehudah holds Kesuvah is de'Rabbanan, and the Rabbanan were more
stringent in Rabbinical issues than they were in Torah ones.
(a) Rebbi Yehudah says in a Mishnah later, that unless a man writes that he
relinquishes his rights over his wife's property, the Peiros and the Peirei
Peiros forever, he may continue to eat Peirei Peiros. 'Peirei Peiros'
mans - that one sells the Peiros, to buy with the proceeds land and to eat
(b) Although Rebbi Yehudah explicitly says 'Kosev' there - we have a
tradition that 'Kosev' means that he says so verbally.
(c) In spite of what we just concluded with regard to a Kesuvah, which,
according to Rebbi Yehudah, is only de'Rabbanan, and which the woman can
therefore not relinquish verbally - we justify his latter ruling in view of
the fact that Nechsei mi'Lug are not common, and the Rabbanan's decrees only
pertain to areas that are common.
(a) The Tana Kama says in a Mishnah in D'mai that if two ass-drivers arrive
in town, and one of them declares his own produce to be Chadash and
un'Ma'asered, whereas his friend's is Yashan and Ma'asered, he is not
believed. 'Chadash' and 'Yashan' means - fresh (inferior) produce and old
(superior) produce respectively.
(b) Chadash and Yashan cannot be understood literally - because firstly,
when we answer that Chazal were lenient by D'mai, what will we answer by the
Isur of Chadash? And secondly, we do not find anywhere that Amei ha'Aretz
are not believed with regard to the Isur of Chadash.
(c) The ass-driver is not believed - because an Am ha'Aretz is never
believed on Ma'asros, and even though he declares his own produce
un'Ma'asered, that is only a ruse to encourage people to believe him on his
(a) Rebbi Yehudah says in the Mishnah in D'mai - that the ass-driver *is*
(b) The problem with Rebbi Yehudah in this Beraisa, in view of his opinion
in our Mishnah, where he required the condition there to be in writing - is
that if he is stringent there, because Rabbinical institutions (such as
K'suvos) require reinforcement, then why is he lenient here (seeing as D'mai
is also mi'de'Rabbanan)?
(c) Abaye answers that it is only by a Vadai de'Rabbanan that Rebbi Yehudah
is stringent, but not a Safek. Rava explains - that he is lenient by D'mai,
because even compared to other cases of Safek de'Rabbanan, D'mai is more
lenient, because it was only a minority of Amei ha'Aretz who did not
(a) We infer from the words of Rebbi Meir, who says in our Mishnah *'Kol
ha'Poches* li'Besulah mi'Masayim ... Harei Zu Be'ilas Z'nus' (and not 'Kol
Besulah she'Ein Lah Masayim ... ') - that his condition is Bateil and that,
in fact, she receives Masayim.
(b) What turns all their Bi'os into Bi'os Z'nus - is the fact that the woman
no longer expects to receive two hundred Zuz (she marries with reservations,
which in the realm of transactions, is not considered a transaction).
(c) We can infer from Rebbi Meir who holds 'Kol ha'Masneh al Mah she'Kasuv
ba'Torah, T'na'o Bateil' - that 'mi'de'Rabbanan, T'na'o Kayam' (with regard
to Rabbinical issues, his condition remains intact).
(d) In our Mishnah, he holds that in the case of Kesuvah, his condition is
Bateil, as we just explained - because, it is Rebbi Yehudah who holds that
Kesuvah is mi'de'Rabbanan. *He* holds that it is d'Oraysa .
(a) We just discussed the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah in
our Mishnah (regarding the woman foregoing her Kesuvah). Rebbi Yossi in a
Beraisa has a third opinion. He holds - that she may forego part of her
Kesuvah, even orally.
Rebbi Yossi in the previous Beraisa, holds that when a wife is willing to
forego part of her Kesuvah, her Mechilah is effective - because there, the
amounts involved are known, whereas in this Beraisa, they are not
(therefore, she is not Mochel with a full heart).
(b) The Tana Kama in another Beraisa forbids a man to designate Metaltelin
for his wife's Kesuvah - in case they get lost or depreciate.
(c) In order to establish their Machlokes, we explain that they argue when
the husband accepted responsibility for them - in which case, her Kesuvah is
safeguarded against loss.
(d) Rebbi Yehudah argues with the Tana Kama - on the grounds that acceptance
of responsibility may well safeguard her against loss, but it will not
safeguard her against the fluctuating price of Metaltelin, which will
sometimes cause her to suffer a big loss. The Tana Kama however, is
concerned about loss, but not about depreciation.
(a) When Rav Ivya's wife (the sister of Rami bar Chama) lost her Kesuvah,
Rav Yosef quoted them a statement by Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel - who said that
even though Rebbi Meir considers every Bi'ah performed with a woman who does
not posses a Kesuvah of Manah or Masayim a Bi'as Z'nus, the Rabbanan argue
with Rebbi Meir, and permit them to live together even for two or three
years without a Kesuvah.
(b) Abaye objected to Rav Yosef's ruling however, on the basis of a
statement by Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel - who said that the Halachah is always
like Rebbi Meir in his decrees (wherever he claims that Chazal decreed
regarding Isur and Heter, to add a stringency on to Torah law).
(c) We learned earlier (on Daf 51a.) that if a man did not write his wife
whom he married a Besulah, a Kesuvah, she nevertheless receives Masayim;
whereas if he married her an Almanah, she receives a Manah. We could
reconcile that ruling with our Sugya by esablishing it in a place where it
is customary not to write a Kesuvah. Alternatively, we might explain that
indeed when the time to claim falls due, she receives her Kesuvah. All her
Bi'os until then however, are Bi'os Z'nus.