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 84
1) STIPULATION NOT TO INHERIT ONE'S WIFE
2) COLLECTION OF DEBTS AND A KESUVAH FROM AN ESTATE
1. Rejection: Rav holds that stipulation on Torah laws
(b) Answer: Rav says, the law is as R. Shimon Ben Gamliel,
that when she dies, he inherits her; but not for his
i. One who says, 'I will sell this to you on
condition that you cannot claim Ona'ah
(reimbursement for being overcharged)' - Rav
says, he can claim Ona'ah; Shmuel says, he
2. Suggestion #2: Rav says, the law is as R. Shimon Ben
Gamliel, that one who stipulates contrary to Torah,
his stipulation is void; but R. Shimon Ben Gamliel
holds that when she dies, he inherits her, whereas
Rav holds that he does not.
3. Rejection: This is as R. Shimon Ben Gamliel's
reason, but unlike his law!
4. Suggestion #3: Rav says, the law is as R. Shimon Ben
Gamliel, that when she dies, he inherits her;
5. Rav argues on his reason - R. Shimon Ben Gamliel
holds that one who stipulates contrary to Torah, his
stipulation is void, but contrary to Rabbinical law,
his stipulation works; whereas Rav holds that even
by Rabbinical laws, it is void.
6. Rejection: If so, Rav agrees both to the law and the
reason, he merely adds (that even by Rabbinical
laws, the stipulation is void)!
1. R. Shimon Ben Gamliel holds that a husband inherits
his wife mid'Oraisa, and one who stipulates contrary
to Torah, his stipulation is void; whereas Rav holds
that a husband inherits his wife mid'Rabanan, and
Chachamim strengthened their enactments as much as
Torah law (one who stipulates contrary to Rabbinical
law, it is void).
(c) Question: Does Rav really hold that a husband only
inherits his wife mid'Rabanan?
1. (Mishnah): R. Yochanan Ben Brokah says, a man that
inherits his wife returns the property to her family
(in the Jubilee year), and deducts from the price.
(d) Answer: Rav only explained the reason for R. Yochanan Ben
Brokah; Rav himself holds that a husband inherits
2. Question: Does R. Yochanan Ben Brokah say that a
husband inherits mid'Oraisa or mid'Rabanan?
i. If mid'Oraisa - why must he return the
3. Answer (Rav): He holds, it is mid'Oraisa - the case
is, he inherited a burial site.
ii. If mid'Rabanan - why must they pay him?
i. Because of affront to the family, Chachamim
said that he returns the property and is paid
4. Question: Why does he deduct from the price?
5. Answer: He deducts the value of his wife's grave.
6. (Beraisa): One who sells his gravesite, the path to
his gravesite, or the place of stopping during the
procession or eulogizing, his family can bury him
there against the will of the buyer, because of
affront to the family.
(a) (Mishnah): A man died, leaving a widow, a creditor and
heirs; he had a deposit or a loan by others. R. Tarfon
says, it is given to the weakest of them; R. Akiva says,
we do not show mercy in law - rather, the heirs get it,
since a widow or creditor only collect by swearing, but
heirs do not need to swear;
(b) If he left detached fruit, whoever grabs it first keeps
it; if the widow or creditor grabbed more than she or he
is entitled to - R. Tarfon says, the excess is given to
the weakest of them; R. Akiva says, we do not show mercy
in law - rather, the heirs get it, since a widow or
creditor only collect by swearing, but heirs do not need
(c) (Gemara) Question: Why must we learn both the case of a
deposit and of a loan?
(d) Answer: If we only learned the case of a loan - we would
think, only in this case R. Tarfon said the heirs do not
get it, because a loan is given to be spent; but by a
deposit, which is intact, he would admit to R. Akiva that
the heirs get it.
1. If we only learned the case of a deposit - we would
think, only in this case R. Akiva argues; but by a
loan, he would admit to R. Tarfon (for the above
(e) Question: What is meant by 'the weakest'?
(f) Answer #1 (R. Yosi Bar Chanina): The one with the weakest
(g) Answer #2 (R. Yochanan): The widow, because of grace (to
1. The following Tana'im argued similarly.
(h) (Beraisa - R. Binyamin): The one with the weakest proof;
and this is proper; R. Elazar says, the widow, because of
(i) (Mishnah): If he left detached fruits ...
(j) Question: Why does R. Akiva only speak of the excess - it
should all go to the heirs!
(k) Answer: It does! Since R. Tarfon spoke of the excess, so
did R. Akiva.
(l) Question: Does R. Akiva say that seizing never helps?
3) PROPERTY SIEZED AFTER DEATH
(m) Answer (Rava): Seizing in his lifetime helps.
(a) Question: According to R. Tarfon (who says that seizing
helps after death), where is the property?
(b) Answer #1 (Rav and Shmuel): In a public domain, but not
in a shoulder of a road.
(c) Answer #2 (R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish): Even in a
1. A case occurred, and judges ruled as R. Tarfon.
Reish Lakish overturned the ruling.
(d) R. Yochanan's relatives seized property from a shoulder.
He ruled, they seized properly; they came to Reish
Lakish, and he said that they must return it.
2. R. Yochanan: You treat R. Akiva's law as mid'Oraisa!
i. Suggestion #1: Reish Lakish holds, if a judge
makes a clear mistake, the ruling is
overturned; R. Yochanan says, it is not.
ii. Suggestion #2: No - all agree, if a judge makes
a clear mistake, the ruling is overturned. R.
Yochanan holds that the law is as R. Akiva when
he argues on a colleague, but not against his
Rebbi; Reish Lakish holds, even when he argues
on his Rebbi.
iii. Suggestion #3: Alternatively - all agree, the
law is as R. Akiva when he argues on a
colleague, but not against his Rebbi. R.
Yochanan holds, R. Tarfon was R. Akiva's Rebbi;
Reish Lakish holds, he was his colleague.
iv. Suggestion #4: Alternatively - all agree, R.
Tarfon was R. Akiva's colleague. Reish Lakish
holds, the law is as R. Akiva against his
colleague; R. Yochanan holds, we merely lean
towards R. Akiva's opinion.
1. R. Yochanan: What can I do? My equal argues against
(e) There was a shepherd watching cattle of orphans; a
creditor seized an ox. The creditor said that he seized
it in the life of the father; the shepherd said, he
seized it after death.
1. Rav Nachman: Do you have witnesses that he seized
(f) The Nasi's house seized a slave of orphans. R. Avahu, R.
Chanina Bar Papi and R. Yitzchak Nafcha. They said, this
was a good seizure.
2. Shepherd: No.
3. Rav Nachman: Since he could claim that he bought the
ox, he is believed to say that he seized it in the
4. Question: But Reish Lakish taught, posession of
animals is no proof of ownership!
5. Answer: This was not said by animals being watched
by a shepherd.
1. R. Aba: Because it is the Nasi's house, you flatter
them? A case was ruled as R. Tarfon, and Reish
Lakish overturned it!
(g) Yeimar Bar Chashu was owed money by a man that died and
left a boat. He made a messenger to seize it for him; the
messenger did so. Rav Papa and Rav Huna Brei d'Rav
Yehoshua (who were also creditors of the borrower) saw
1. Rav Papa and Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua: You are
seizing for a creditor in a case where it harms
others - R. Yochanan says, such seizure is invalid.