ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 95
(a) If a man who is married to two women, sells his field, and the first
woman withdraws from any claim against the purchaser, then, when their
husband dies and the second woman claims it from the purchaser - the first
woman claims it from the second one and the purchaser from the first woman
(in a never-ending cycle).
(b) We are talking about a field that is Meshubad to both Kesuvos.
(c) The Tana in the Mishnah spoke about one of the wives withdrawing any
claims against the creditor. When we learn in a Beraisa that one cannot
withdraw from something that one already has - that was without a Kinyan,
but our Tana is speaking when she made a Kinyan (and, as we learned above in
ha'Kosev, the Kinyan pertains to the actual field, and is therefore valid).
(a) The Mishnah in Gitin states that if someone purchases a field that is
designated for a woman's Kesuvah, the purchase is invalid, even if the sale
is backed by the seller's wife - because she can say that she only agreed to
the sale in order to make her husband happy.
(b) Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav Chisda initially reconciles our Mishnah, which
accepts the woman's withdrawal (albeit with a Kinyan), with the Mishnah in
Gitin - by establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Meir, and the Mishnah in
Gitin like Rebbi Yehudah (seeing as they argue over this point in a
(c) According to Rebbi Yehudah, if a man sells one field to one person
without the backing of his wife, and a second field to another person, and
his wife substantiates the sale, she can say 'I was only out to make my
husband happy'. According to Rebbi Meir, she loses her Kesuvah - because it
speaks when there are no B'nei Chorin (property or money still in the
husband's domain), and as for the Meshubadim: she can neither claim from the
first purchaser, who can say that he left her property with her husband, nor
from the second purchaser, whose purchase she herself corroborated.
(d) The problem with establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Meir and the
Mishnah in Gitin, like Rebbi Yehudah is - that it would be rather odd for
Rebbi to present two S'tam Mishnahs according to two conflicting opinions.
(a) Rav Papa establishes our Mishnah - when the woman relinquished her
rights from her Kesuvah after she was already divorced (in which case, even
Rebbi Yehudah will concede that she would hardly have done so to make her
(b) According to Rav Ashi, the author of the Mishnah in Gitin too, is Rebbi
Meir - because Rebbi Meir only argues with Rebbi Yehudah when the woman
corroborated the second sale, but not the first one (a clear indication,
that she genuinely agreed with the second sale); whereas in the Mishnah in
Gitin, where the sale that she corroborated was the only, he will concede
that she only signed in order to make her husband happy)?
(c) Our Mishnah, which Rav Ashi also establishes like Rebbi Meir - speaks
when her husband had already sold the field to a previous buyer, and that
she had not corroborated that sale (in which case, Rebbi Meir will agree
with Rebbi Yehudah, as we just explained).
(a) A creditor has the right - to claim from medium-quality fields
(mi'de'Rabbanan, because Chazal were afraid that otherwise, people will
refuse to lend money).
(b) The Mishnah in Gitin says that a creditor, whose debtor sold everything
except Ziburis (poor quality fields) - must claim from Ziburis, because one
cannot claim from Meshubadim when there are B'nei Chorin (irrespective of
what those B'nei Chorin are).
(a) We ask what the Din will be regarding a case where the debtor sold all
his fields, but retained one field which became spoiled, whether he loses
his claim or whether he may now claim his debt from the purchasers. We try
to resolve this She'eilah from the Beraisa (that we quoted above) 'Kasav
le'Rishon ve'Lo Chasmah Lo, le'Sheini ve'Chasmah Lo, Ibdah K'suvasah' -
because, if we were to say that, once there is no possibility of claiming
from B'nei Chorin, one can claim from Meshubadim, then why should the woman
there not claim from the first purchaser (from whom she did not withdraw)?
(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak answers 'Mai Ibdah, mi'Sheini' - which Rava
immediately dismisses on the grounds that 'Ibdah' implies a total loss.
(c) He also rejects Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's answer based on a Beraisa -
which says that a creditor, who withdraws from any claim against the second
purchaser of the debtor's field, has no claim against the first creditor
(d) Rava refutes any proof for our She'eilah from there or from the Beraisa
which, under similar circumstances, writes 'Ibdah K'suvasah' - because
there, since the creditor and the woman respectively, withdrew from their
main source of claim, they are responsible for causing their own loss,
whereas in our case, where the property became spoiled automatically, it is
not the fault of the creditor.
(a) That man who deposited an orchard with his friend for ten years - was a
debtor, who agreed that the creditor should eat the fruit of the field for
ten years (in lieu of his debt), before returning it without charge.
(b) When, after five years, the trees became too old to produce fruit -
Beis-Din handed the creditor a credit note authorizing him to claim from the
(c) Despite the fact that this was a regular occurrence, we still have
doubts about a debtor who sold all his fields, but retained one which became
spoiled. It is not obvious from there at all - because there too, the
purchaser has only himself to blame for buying property from someone who had
entered into such a transaction, in the knowledge that trees tend to dry up
after a few years.
(d) The Halachah regarding a debtor who sold all his fields, but retained
one which became spoiled is - that the creditor is permitted to claim from
(a) Abaye says that if a man says to a woman 'Nechasai Lach ve'Acharayich
li'P'loni', and then she gets married - the husband gets the property,
because he is considered a buyer, and 'Acharecha' does not get anything when
there is a buyer.
(b) This is the opinion of - Raban Shimon ben Gamliel.
(a) Rebbi in a Beraisa regarding a man who says to his friend 'Nechasai Lach
ve'Acharecha li'P'loni', holds that, if the first man goes and sells the
property - 'Acharecha' may take the property from the purchaser.
(b) According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - the purchaser gets it, and not
(c) Abaye himself describes someone who advises the recipient of a gift
given in such a manner to sell the property (like Raban Shimon ben
Gamliel) - as an interfering Rasha.
(d) When Abaye made his initial statement - he did not mean that the woman
is permitted to get married Lechatchilah in order to deprive 'Acharecha' of
the property, but that, if she did get married, then her husband gets the
(a) If the same person gave the woman the gift when she was already married,
and the woman then sold it and died - Abaye holds that the husband, who is
considered the first buyer, takes it from the second buyer, Acharecha from
the husband and the first buyer from the husband, where Chazal decided, it
(b) In our Mishnah, we learned that, in a similar case, the property rotates
between the two wives and the purchaser (until they come to terms) - because
there they all stand to lose their rights (so the Chachamim did not want to
intercede), whereas here, it is only the buyer (who paid for the article)
who stands to lose (so they interceded on his behalf).
(a) Our Mishnah concludes 've'Chein Ba'al Chov, ve'Chein Ishah Ba'alas
Chov'. The Beraisa explains 've'Chein Ba'al Chov' to mean 've'Chein Ba'al
Chov u'Sh'nei Lekuchos'. The case is when - after borrowing a Manah from
Reuven, Shimon sold his two fields to two purchasers, each for fifty Zuz.
Then, after withdrawing from any claim from the second purchaser, Reuven
claims the field from the first purchaser, who then claims from the second
purchaser, who claims from Reuven ... .
***** Hadran Alach Mi she'Hayah Nasuy *****
(b) Once the creditor has withdrawn from any claims against the second
purchaser, he has the right to go to the first purchaser, who cannot counter
'I deliberately left you property (which the second purchaser subsequently
bought) to claim from' - because he only left him a field worth fifty Zuz,
whilst the claim is a hundred.
***** Perek Almanah Nizones *****
(a) A widow is fed from the property of the orphans (as her husband wrote in
the Kesuvah) - who receive the work of her hands.
(b) The onus of burying her falls - not on the orphans, but on her heirs,
who inherit her Kesuvah.