ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 93
KESUVOS 93 (28 Sivan) - dedicated to the memory of Hagaon Rav Yisroel Zev
[ben Avrohom Tzvi] Gustman ZT'L (author of "Kuntresei Shi'urim" and renowned
Dayan of pre-war Vilna) on his Yahrzeit, by Rav Avraham Feldman, who is
privileged to have been his talmid.
(a) If Reuven sold Shimon a field without responsibility, and people then
arrive on the scene who claim that the field is theirs - Abaye permits
Shimon to retract until such time as he makes a Chazakah, provided that is,
that he has not already paid for it (see also Tosfos DH 'Ad').
(b) He cannot force Reuven to retract after that - because Reuven can
respond 'You agreed to pay for a sack-full of knots; that's your loss!'
(c) It is considered a Chazakah in this regard - if he just walked round the
borders (to see what repairs it needs - see Tosfos DH 'u'Me'eimas').
(d) According to the second Lashon, the same will apply if he sold him the
field *with* responsibility - because he can say to him 'Bring me your
Sh'tar Tirfa' (Beis-Din's authority to calim from me), and I will gladly
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah says in a case where a man dies leaving only one
Manah, but three wives, one with a Kesuvah of a Manah, one, of Masayim, and
one, of three hundred Zuz - that they share the Manah equally (seeing as
they all have an equal claim in that Manah).
If three partners enter into a business partnership, and each one places a
different sum of money into the kitty - they will divide the profits
according to how much they put in, along the same lines as the wives in the
above cases (and not equally).
(b) This only applies however - if all three Kesuvos were written on the
same day. Otherwise, the wife with the Kesuvah that was written first will
have the first claim.
(c) Had the same man left two hundred Zuz, then the first of the three wives
would receive fifty Zuz. According to our Tana - the other two would each
receive three golden Zuzim (the equivalent of seventy-five silver Zuz).
(d) If he left three hundred Zuz, then the first wife would still receive
fifty Zuz, the second one, one Manah - and the third one, six golden Zuzim
(or a hundred and fifty silver Zuz).
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah rules that, in the case when the deceased man
left three wives and two Manah, the wife whose Kesuvah was one Manah
receives fifty Zuz. Basically, considering that her claim is confined to
only one of the Manim, she ought to receive no more than thirty-three and a
third Zuz. However - our Mishnah speaks when the second wife withdraws from
the first Manah in favor of the first one, leaving her to share it with the
(b) The wife whose Kesuvah is two Manah takes seventy-five Zuz - twenty-five
from the first Manah (which she shares with the third wife after the first
one has shared the entire Manah with the third one).
(c) Even though we just explain that she withdrew from the first Manah in
favor of the first wife, that does not mean that she withdrew from the first
Manah completely. In fact - she only withdrew from the first wife's claim.
Once however, she had taken her half, the second wife retained her claim on
the second half.
(d) In the third case, where the deceased husband left three hundred Zuz,
the Tana ascribes a Manah to the second woman. Considering that she has
withdrawn from the fifty Zuz of the first hundred, and that she has no
rights at all in the third hundred, she ought not to receive more than
seventy-five. However - the Tana speaks when the third wife withdraws her
claim from the first Manah in favor of the first two wives (leaving the
second wife with fifty Zuz from the first Manah and fifty from the second).
(a) The above is Shmuel's explanation of the Mishnah. According to Rav
Ya'akov from N'har Pakud Amar Ravina, the second and the third cases both
speak when the women seized Metaltelin in two lots - first seventy -five Zuz
(because that was all that was available), and then a hundred and
twenty-five. Consequently, in the first lot, each of the three wives
receives twenty-five Zuz. In the second lot, each wife will again receive
twenty-five out of the first seventy-five, since each of them has an equal
claim; whereas the second and third wives alone will share the remaining
hundred and fifty Zuz (leaving them with a hundred each).
(b) He explains the third case along similar lines - when they seized the
money in two lots: seventy-five, which they shared three ways, and two
hundred and twenty-five, which is itself first divided into three lots:
seventy-five, of which each woman received twenty-five (to which all three
women still have a claim); a hundred, which the second woman (is still
claiming and of which she) receives half; and the last fifty, in which only
the third woman has rights, according to our Tana.
(a) The author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Nasan. According to Rebbi - all the
property is Meshubad equally to each wife's Kesuvah, so they will divide
whatever is available into three equal portions.
(b) The Din regarding Kesuvah is different than a business venture (where
Rebbi agrees with Rebbi Nasan) - because there, the benefits that accrue,
are the direct result of the amount that each one put into the venture,
which is not the case here.
(c) According to Rav Hamnuna - either way, they divide the benefits equally.
(a) Shmuel says - that if two people entered into a partnership, one placed
a Manah into the kitty, and the other one, two, both share the profits
(b) Rabah establishes Shmuel when they purchased an ox to plow, and they
earned the profits by plowing, but not if they purchased it to plow and,
when it became fat, they decided to Shecht it - in which case, each partner
takes in proportion to what he put in.
(c) According to Rav Hamnuna - either way, they share the proceeds equally.
(a) Rabah establish the Beraisa, which states that if two people who went
into partnership, one placing a Manah into the kitty, the other one, two,
they divide the profits equally - when they purchased an ox to plow, and
that is that they did with it (but not if the ox became fat and they then
(b) The Tana goes on to state that, if the one purchased strong oxen with
his two hundred Zuz, and the other, weak oxen with his Manah, before
combining their resources - then Shmuel will concede that each takes from
the profits in proportion to how much he put in.
(c) According to Rabah, when the Tana goes on to state this case - he means
to say that if they purchased an ox for plowing and then, when it became
fat, they decided to Shecht it (which would be a bigger Chidush), it is as
if the one had purchased strong oxen with his two hundred Zuz, and the
other, weak oxen with his Manah, before combining their resources, where it
is obvious that they take according to how much they put in.
(d) Our Mishnah however, which states 've'Chein Sh'loshah she'Hitilu le'Kis,
Pachsu O Hosiru, Kach Hein Cholkin' appears to clash with Shmuel. Rav
Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah therefore, explains ...
1. ... 'Hosiru' to mean - that the partnership actually did business with
coins, putting old coins into the kitty and ultimately, through business
interchange, ending up with good coins.
2. ... 'Pachsu' to mean - that the coins were withdrawn, so that their only
use was to place on foot-sores as a cure. In both cases, since it is the
coins themselves that rose or fell in value, everyone would agree that each
partner would take in accordance with what he put in.
(a) If someone dies, leaving behind four wives who now claim their Kesuvos -
the first wife is obligated to swear to the second, the second to the third
and the third to the fourth, that she did not already receive her Kesuvah
from her husband during his lifetime.
(b) The fourth wife is not obligated to swear to the orphans - because we
are speaking about grown-up orphans, and the Tana Kama holds that it is only
from Yesomim Ketanim from whom one cannot claim without a Shevu'ah, not
(c) According to ben Nannes, the fourth wife is obligated to swear to the
orphans before she can receive her Kesuvah.
(a) It was not common practice to write the time of day on documents.
(b) Yerushalayim - was the exception to the rule.
(c) Consequently - in Yerushalayim, in a case where a number of women were
claiming their Kesuvos from their husband, the one that was written the
earliest time of day had the first right to claim (assuming that there were
not sufficient funds to pay them all); whereas elsewhere, all those dated on
the same day would share whatever was available.