ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 102
(a) According to Resh Lakish, our Mishnah (which validates a man's
obligation to feed his wife's daughter for five years) is not speaking when
he gave her an unsigned document - but when he wrote a Sh'tar P'sikta (a
document written by the witnesses in whose presence the Chasan and Kalah
made their conditions).
(b) Rav Gidal Amar Rav said about Sh'tarei P'sikta (which he describes as a
document that is written after the father of the Chasan and of the Kalah
have decided how much the one will give to his son and the other, to his
daughter) 'Hein Hein ha'Devarim ha'Niknin ba'Amirah' - meaning that this is
a case where one acquires with words alone.
(c) Rav Gidal referred to Sh'tarei P'sikta in this way - because no Kinyan
was made, and the document was written following words alone; (which is also
the Chidush of our Mishnah, according to Resh Lakish.
(a) The Beraisa says - that a man who writes on a piece of paper that he
owes a Kohen five Sela'im (for Pidyon ha'Ben) is obligated to give it to
According to the Torah law, the boy would be redeemed - as soon as the
father paid the money to the Kohen.
(b) According to Resh Lakish (who does not validate an unsigned I.O.U.),
this Beraisa is based not on the document, but on the fact that the Torah
obligates him to give five Sela'im to the Kohen for Pidyon ha'Ben (because
(c) The reason that he needed to write the document is - to designate that
particular Kohen as the recipient.
(d) And the reason that his son is not redeemed is because of Ula - who
explained that the Rabbanan issued a decree, so that people should not think
that one can redeem one's child with a document. In fact, one cannot redeem
a firstborn son with a Sh'tar, an Eved (Kena'ani) or Karka.
(a) The Tana Kama of a Beraisa says that if a guarantor signed his name
after the signatures of the witnesses on a document - the creditor may claim
from his property that is B'nei Chorin, but not from Meshubadim.
(b) One cannot claim from the guarantor's Meshubadim - because, seeing as he
only signed after the signatures of the witnesses, it is no more than an
oral debt (and oral debts can only be claimed from B'nei Chorin).
(a) When Rebbi Yishamel issued a ruling like the Tana Kama - ben Nannes
commented that he could not claim from his B'nei Chorin either.
(b) The reason for this is - because a person does not usually obligate
himself with a full heart, only out of pity (like one Jew who volunteers to
pay someone money to stop strangling another Jew).
(c) We try to connect this Machlokes to the Machlokes of Rebbi Yochanan and
Resh Lakish - inasmuch as Rebbi Yochanan (who validates an unsigned I.O.U.)
holds like Rebbi Yishmael, and Resh Lakish (who declares it invalid), like
(d) The source of Arvus (the obligation of an Areiv to fulfill his
undertaking to pay on behalf of the debtor) - is the Pasuk in Mikeitz
"Anochi E'ervenu" (said by Reuven to Ya'akov Avinu).
(a) We conclude that Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish do not argue about the
opinion of ben Nannes. There is no way that ben Nannes could theoretically
hold like Rebbi Yochanan - because if ben Nannes does not validate the
unsigned I.O.U. of an Areiv (despite the principle 'Shibuda d'Oraysa'), then
he will certainly not agree with Rebbi Yochanan, who accepts it even not in
the case of an Areiv.
(b) We establish that they argue over Rebbi Yishmael's opinion - Rebbi
Yochanan holds like Rebbi Yishmael; whereas according to Resh Lakish, it is
only in the case of an Areiv that Rebbi Yishmael validates an unsigned
I.O.U. (due to the principle 'Shibuda d'Oraysa'), but not in other cases.
(a) We learned above the statement of Rav Gidal Amar Rav regarding Sh'tarei
P'sikta ('Hein Hein ha'Devarim ha'Niknin ba'Amirah'). Rava ...
1. ... contends that, logically speaking, Rav's statement should be
restricted to the father of a Na'arah (but not to the father of a Bogeres) -
because there at least, he receives the Kidushin money (and why should
anyone agree with a full heart [the essence of all Kinyanim] on the basis of
mere words, unless he receives something in exchange.
(b) 'Hein Hein ha'Devarim ... ' applies, even though the parents receive no
money in exchange - because of the Hana'ah of entering into the Shiduch
2. ... conclude that that cannot be the case - because, if it were, on what
grounds will the father of the Chasan (who does not receive money for the
Kidushin of his son any more than the father of a Bogeres) agree with a full
heart to the Kinyan?
(c) Ravina asked Rav Ashi whether these undertakings should be documented or
not - to enable both sides to claim from Meshubadim.
(d) Rav Ashi replied - that it should not be documented (without the
explicit consent of both party).
(a) Rav Ashi explains that when the Tana of our Mishnah wrote 'ha'Pikchin
Hayu *Kosvin* Al-menas she'Azun es Bitcha ... Kol Z'man she'At Imi' - he
meant 'Omrin' (because one is not meant to write them).
(b) Rebbi Chiya commented that when the Tana of the Mishnah in Perek
Af-al-Pi states 'ha'Kosev le'Ishto Din u'Devarim ... ' - he means to say
'ha'Omer le'Ishto', from which we learn that sometimes the Tana says
'ha'Kosev' when what he really means is 'ha'Omer'.
(c) We learned in a Beraisa 'Ein Kosvin Sh'tarei Eirusin ve'Nisu'in Ela
mi'Da'as Sh'neihem'. Assuming that the Tana is not referring to Sh'tarei
P'sikta (posing a Kashya on Rav Ashi) - then he is referring to Sh'tarei
(d) This conforms with the opinion of Rav Papa and Rav Sh'ravya. In a case
when they went and wrote a Sh'tar Kidushin without the consent of the Kalah
(even though she agreed to the actual Kidushin itself), the ruling of ...
1. ... Rabah and Ravina is - Mekudeshes.
2. ... Rav Papa and Rav Sh'ravya is - Einah Mekudeshes.
(a) To reconcile our Mishnah which states: 'If her husbands died, their
daughters are fed from B'nei Chorin, and her daughter, from Meshubadim,
because she is like a creditor' with Rav Ashi - we establish it when they
made a Kinyan.
The final reason (according to Rav Ashi), for the fact that their daughters
may not claim from Meshubadim, in spite of the Kinyan, even though her
daughter may - is because, since he is obligated to feed them (bi'Tenai
Beis-Din) we are afraid that he may have put away bundles of money for her
(b) Even though they made a Kinyan for her daughter, we initially think that
they might not have done so for their daughters - because they would not
have been present at the time of the condition (when they got married).
(c) It is in fact possible for their daughter to have been present at the
time of the Kinyan (leaving us with a Kashya on Rav Ashi) - if the husband
divorced his wife, and later, when they already had a daughter, he remarried
her making new conditions.
(d) So we try to answer that a Kinyan will only be effective by her
daughter, who is not included in the T'nai Beis-Din, but not by their
daughters, who are. We reject this answer however - on the grounds that it
is illogical to suggest that the latter should be worse off because they are
included in the T'nai Beis-Din.
(a) Rav Chisda observes from our Mishnah, which states that the first
husband is obligated to send her Mezonos 'le'Makom she'Imah' (and not to
'Beis Achehah') - that a woman after her divorce, normally goes to her
mother, in which case, when the Yesomim feed her, they cannot demand that
she moves in with them.
(b) We query this however, on the grounds that the Tana may be referring to
a Ketanah - who will certainly live with her mother (and not with her
brothers), due to the decree, following an incident which took place,
forbidding her to live with her brothers.
(c) We are referring to the incident - when the brothers insisted that their
little sister live with them, and on the very first night, they murdered
her, in order to inherit the 'Isur Nechasim' that would fall due to her when
(d) We prove that the Tana is in fact, referring even to a Gedolah, and that
this is therefore considered the normal thing to do - from the Lashon of our
Mishnah 'le'Makom she'Imah' which does not seem to differentiate between a
Ketanah and a Gedolah.