More Discussions for this daf
1. A few questions 2. They caused the loss to themselves 3. A woman pleasing her husband by agreeing to a sale
4. Quoting the son before the father 5. Mishnah
DAF DISCUSSIONS - KESUVOS 95

Rafi Magid > asked:

(Mishnah): A man was married to 2 women and sold his field. His 1st wife wrote to the buyer, 'I have no claim against you'. The 2nd wife may collect the field from the buyer, the 1st wife from the 2nd, and the buyer from the 1st wife; this cycle continues indefinitely, until they reach a compromise; I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS:(not just of mine)

A. according the mishna it seems: "ma shegava ha'aharon - lo gava" (if collection of a later creditor before an earlier creditor is a valid collection.)

it is obvious - why there is mahloket at p. 94 about that?

B. Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): Our Mishnah is as R. Meir. 1. R. Meir only said that she cannot say she only acted to placate her husband when he made 2 sales, and she only agreed to the 2nd. i. If she acted to placate the husband - she should have agreed to the 1st, also! 2. When there was only 1 sale, R. Meir admits that she can say, it was only to placate her husband. 3. In our Mishnah, the husband previously sold to another, and she did not agree.

all this dosen't fit the mishna's language above (there is no second man in the mishna!!)

c. . (Beraisa - R. Meir): If a man sold a field, and his wife did not sign it; he sold a 2nd field, and she signed it - she lost (rights to collect) her Kesuvah (from these fields); R. Yehudah says, she can say, I only did this to placate my husband. to r. Meir - in that case she dosen't need to agree to the first - because she can't take from the first (because he can tell her to go the second)

The Kollel replies:

a. The Ritva on 90a asks why the Gemara does not bring a proof from this Mishnah that "Mah she'Gavah Lo Gavah." He answers that since the first wife is coming to collect at the same time and we push her off merely because she exempted the buyer, in such a case the rule does not apply. See Ritva who brings another answer in the name of Ra'avad.

b. The Gemara explains that the Mishnah is discussing a case where the woman cannot say that she wished to placate her husband, and therefore the sale is valid. This case is where there was a prior sale, according to Rebbi Meir. However, the first buyer is immaterial in our Mishnah for they anyway cannot collect from him, since there is a later buyer. The important point is that the woman's acceptance of the sale is valid, and that can be accomplished only if there was a previous sale which need not be mentioned in the Mishnah.

See also Insights to this Daf.

c. Please clarify the question.

Dov Zupnik