ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 53
(a) Rav Papa married off his son to the daughter of Aba Sura'a. She was
already his sister-in-law, because he too, was married to a daughter of Aba
(b) Rav Yehudah bar Mereimar was hesitant to accompany him when he went to
negotiate the Kesuvah, on the basis of a statement made by Shmuel, who
instructed Rav Yehudah - not to join the ranks of those who transfer the
inheritance even from a bad son to a good one, and certainly not from a son
to a daughter. And that is what he suspected that he was about to do.
(c) He continued to decline even after Rav Papa assured him that ...
1. ... based on the previous Sugya, it was perfectly legitimate to write a
dowry for his daughter - because, he said, that was only if the father did
so willingly, but not if it meant forcing him.
(d) Rav Papa convinced him to go with him under protest. He tried to avoid
his fears from materializing - by remaining silent.
2. ... he did not intend to force his father-in-law to give his daughter a
dowry - on the grounds that his very presence would serve to twist Aba
(a) Rav Yehudah bar Mereimar's fears turned out to be justified however -
when, Aba Sura'a, misconstruing his silence for anger at his not having
given his daughter a sufficiently large dowry, gave her just about
everything he owned.
(b) When Aba Sura'a saw that he remained silent - he commented that if he
gave her any more, he would have nothing with which to live!
(c) When, after Rav Yehudah bar Mereimar had explained the reason for his
silences, Aba Sura'a offered to retract - he concluded that he had not
intended to make such a suggestion (because a person should keep to his
(a) Rav Yeimar Saba asked Rav Nachman whether the Takanah of K'suvas B'nin
Dichrin would apply to a woman who sold her Kesuvah to her husband. Perhaps
it should not apply - because the Din of inheritance that pertains to
K'suvas B'nin Dichrin has been removed (and it now comes entirely from the
husband, and not from the wife).
(b) When Rava asked him why he did not ask from the more common case of a
woman who was Mochel (forewent) her K'suvah - he replied that now that he
had doubts about a woman who *sold* her Kesuvah to her husband and who might
have done so because she needed the money (and was therefore an O'nes), it
was obvious that the same doubt would apply in the case of a woman who was
Mochel her K'suvah (where there is no money involved).
(a) Rava maintains that a woman who ...
1. ... sold her K'suvah to others (for a cheap price on the understanding
that they will only receive it should her husband divorce her or die before
her) - certainly *does not lose her right to K'suvas B'nin Dichrin* (because
she is considered an A'nus).
(b) Rava then asks whether a woman who sold her Kesuvah to her husband - is
comparable to the woman who sold it to someone else or to the woman who was
Mochel her K'suvah to her husband, which is worse than selling it to someone
else, seeing as he already has the money (and it is similar to being Mochel
2. ... was Mochel her K'suvah to her husband - certainly *does* (because she
is not an A'nus).
(c) Rava resolves his own She'eilah - by comparing a woman who sold her
Kesuvah to her husband to one who sold it to someone else (in which case she
does not lose her rights over 'K'suvas B'nin Dichrin').
(a) The Mishnah in Yevamos says - that if a woman who married a second
husband on the basis of the testimony of one witness, died after the return
of her first husband, neither her heirs from her first husband nor those
from her second husband inherit her Kesuvah.
(b) 'Kesuvah' cannot be understood literally there - because the Tana has
already taught us that she does not receive her Kesuvah. Consequently - it
must be referring to K'suvas B'nin Dichrin.
(c) Rav Idi bar Avin asks from there on Rava - that, seeing as Rava has just
stated that her need for money renders her an A'nus, in which case her sons
inherit her K'suvas B'nin Dichrin, why do we not also consider her marriage
to the second man an A'nus, caused by the natural urge that a woman has to
(d) We answer - that the Mishnah in Yevamos is different, seeing as Chazal
there penalized the woman for not ensuring that her husband was dead before
remarrying (irrespective of the aspect of A'nus attached to the case).
(a) Ravin bar Chin'na mi'Shmei de'Rebbi Elazar taught in front of Rav Chisda
that a woman who is Mochel her husband from paying her Kesuvah - loses her
right to Mezonos when she becomes a widow, because T'nai Kesuvah ki'Kesuvah.
(b) Rav Chisda reacted by quoting a Pasuk in Mishlei that someone who repays
bad for good is in for trouble. In other words, it is not because a woman is
Mochel her husband her K'suvah, that he should repay her by withholding
Mezonos from her. Consequently, he said, if not for the fact that Ravin bar
Chin'na quoted a great man (Rebbi Elazar), on the basis of this Pasuk he
would have ruled that she still receives her K'suvah.
(c) Rav Chiya bar Ami instructed that man whose Arusah had died - to either
bury her or to give her her Kesuvah, because he interpreted the word Kesuvah
(in 'Kevurah Tachas Kesuvah' [Daf 47b.]) to mean Manah u'Masayim (see Tosfos
(a) They proved him wrong however, from a Beraisa. We infer from 'Meis Hu,
Govah K'suvasah' - 'Ha Meisah Hi, Ein Lah Kesuvah' (including Kevurah).
When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael and quoted Resh Lakish who said that an
Arusah who died is not entitled to her Kesuvah - Abaye commented that this
information was useless, since Rav Oshaya had already explained it in Bavel.
(b) Rav Oshaya ascribed this to the Lashon written in the Kesuvah
'Le'che'she'Tinas'i le'Acher, Titli Mah she'Kasuv Lechi' - which does not
apply here (seeing as he was not the one who died or divorced her).
Consequently, he does not inherit her, nor is he obligated to bury her.
(c) Should one of them die, then, assuming that both of them are Kohanim ...
1. ... he is not permitted to bury her.
(d) If he dies, she receives her Kesuvah (assuming he wrote her one).
2. ... she is permitted, though not obligated, to bury him.
(a) Rav's text in our Mishnah regarding the Takanah of 'B'nan Nukvan'
conforms with ours: 'ad de'Tilakchun le'Guvrin'. Levi's version of the text
is - 'ad de'Tibagrun'.
(b) This does not mean that according to ...
1. ... Rav, a Bogeres who is not yet married will still receive Mezonos -
because everyone agrees that a Bogeres leaves her father's domain.
(c) In fact, they argue about a Na'arah who becomes betrothed - Rav
interprets 'ad de'Tilakchun le'Guvrin' to mean until they become betrothed
(even though they are still Na'aros); whereas according to Levi's text, a
betrothed girl still remains in her father's domain until she becomes a
2. ... Levi, a Na'arah who marries still receives Mezonos - because everyone
agrees that a married woman leaves her father's domain.
(d) When Levi quotes a Beraisa which states 'ad de'Tebagrun *ve'Yimti*
Z'maneihon de'Insavun' (meaning 'Your time comes to get married') he means
'ad de'Tebagrun *O Yimti* Z'maneihon de'Insavun'.
(a) The Tana Kama in a Beraisa states 'ad Masai ha'Bas Nizonis, ad
sheTe'ares' - Rebbi Elazar holds 'ad she'Tebager'.
(b) Rav Yosef too, cites a Beraisa which says 'ad de'Tehavyan', though we
are not sure whether this means - until they become *betrothed* or
*married*, a She'eilah which remains unresolved.
(c) According to the first Lashon, when Rav Chisda asked Rav Yosef whether
an Arusah receives Mezonos, he replied that he had not heard anything about
it. However ...
1. ... he reckoned that she ought not to receive it any longer - because her
Chasan, not wanting to see her degrading herself by begging, will feed her
(d) According to the second Lashon - they simply switch their opinions Rav
Yosef maintains that an Arusah ought to receive Mezonos, whereas Rav Chisda
believes that she ought not to receive it.
2. ... Rav Chisda thinks that she ought to receive it - because, in his
opinion, her Chasan will not spend money on his Kalah as long as he is not
certain that he will marry her (a likelihood that exists as long as he does
not know that she has no blemishes - as we shall see in Perek Af-al-pi).
(a) They asked Rav Sheishes whether a Mema'enes receives Mezonos from the
Takanah of 'B'nan Nukvan' - because on the one hand, her Miy'un uproots the
marriage (so she ought to return to her previous status); on the other, it
may well be that, once she marries, she loses her rights to be fed from her
father's estate for good.
(b) The Tana Kama of a Beraisa says that a widow, a divorcee and a Shomeres
Yavam in her father's house all receive Mezonos. By a widow and a divorcee -
he can only mean after Eirusin (because once she marries, everyone agrees
that she leaves her father's domain for good).
(c) Rebbi Yehudah says that as long as she is in her father's house, she
receives Mezonos ... . Rav Sheishes explains - that their Machlokes
concerns a Mema'enes, who, according to the Tana Kama, receives Mezonos
(because he automatically compares her to the other cases, since she too, is
not married); whereas Rebbi Yehudah says that it is only as long as she is
in her father's house that she receives Mezonos, but not from the moment she
(a) Resh Lakish asks whether the daughter of a Yevamah receives Mezonos. She
1. ... not receive it - because initially, her claim on the Kesuvah is on
the estate left by her *first* husband (the Yavam's brother), and not on the
(b) This She'eilah too - remains unresolved.
2. ... nevertheless receive it - because, in the event of there not being
sufficient funds in her husband's estate, she receives her Kesuvah from the
estate of the Yavam.
(c) Rebbi Elazar asked whether the daughter of a Sh'niyah receives Mezonos.
Despite the fact that her mother does not receive a Kesuvah, she might
receive the T'nai - because, whereas her mother sinned, she did not.