________________________________________________________
ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
daf@dafyomi.co.il, www.dafyomi.co.il
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
________________________________________________________
 Previous |
KESUVOS PEREK 8 |  Next |
 Ask the Kollel |
(a) Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree that a woman who inherits property (See Tos. Yom-Tov) before she becomes betrothed - is permitted to sell it ...
(b) ... even after her engagement, but not after her marriage.
(c) Beis Shamai permit her to sell it even if she inherits it after the engagement; Beis Hillel - do not (See Tos. Yom-Tov DH 'Beis Shamai Omrim' & 'u'Beis Hillel Omrim').
(d) Both agree however that in the event that she did sell it - the sale is valid.
(a) Rebbi Yehudah quoted the Chachamim, who asked Raban Gamliel regarding the previous case, where she sold what she inherited during her betrothal - that, seeing as her Chasan acquires her, why should he not also acquire her property?
(b) To which Raban Gamliel's replied - that the ruling permitting a husband to claim the property that his wife sold after they were married ('ha'Chadashim') was embarrassing enough, and that issuing the same ruling with regard to property that she sold whilst they were still engaged ('ha'Yeshanim') was going too far!
(c) Both Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree however - that the husband has the right to claim any property that his wife inherited and sold whilst they are married.
(a) Raban Gamliel rules that if a married woman sold property that she inherited before she married - the sale is valid.
(b) The Chachamim quoted by Rebbi Chanina ben Akiva asked him - why, seeing as her Chasan acquires her, he should not also acquire her property (as we learned earlier).
(c) To which he replied - 'al ha'Chadashim Anu Boshin ... ' (as he answered there).
(a) Rebbi Shimon draws a distinction between property - that the husband knows about and property that he does not ...
(b) ... the former - he can claim, the latter - he can't.
(c) Some commentaries define the two as Karka and Metalt'lin, respectively. Others place both of them under the category of - property that he know about ...
(d) ... and they define 'property that is not known to the husband' as - property that she inherited in a different country.
(a) The Halachah, regarding a married woman sells property that she inherited, irrespective of whether she inherited it ...
1. ... before she was engaged or ...
2. ... during her engagement is - that the husband has the right to claim it from the purchaser ...
(b) ... to eat the Peiros - during her lifetime, and to take over ownership of the actual field, after her death.
(c) The Halachah with regard to the Machlokes between Rebbi Shimon and the Rabanan is - like Rebbi Shimon.
(a) The Mishnah say that if a married woman inherits ...
1. ... money or ...
2. ... fruit - one buys with them Karka, of which the husband eats the fruit.
(b) According to Rebbi Meir, if the fruit is still attached to the tree, one assesses the difference between the value of the land with the tree including the fruit and what it is worth without the fruit. The husband then buys Karka with the excess money, whose fruit he is permitted to eat.
(c) This is based on the premise - that the fruit that grew on the tree before the marriage is Keren (part of her property), whereas what grows after the marriage is considered Peiros.
(a) The Chachamim agree with the previous ruling regarding fruit that is detached. But regarding fruit that a wife inherits that is still attached, they hold - that whoever gets it first may keep it.
(b) ... because they consider that Metalt'lin are not Meshubad to a woman's Kesubah unless she actually takes them.
(c) The Halachah is - like the Chachamim.
(a) When Rebbi Shimon says that where a husband's rights over his wife's property are ...
1. ... strong when they are married, they are weak in the event that he divorces her, he means that the same attached fruit that belongs to him whilst they are married - goes to her in the event that he divorces her.
2. ... weak when they are married, they are strong in the event that he divorces her - he means that the same detached fruit that belongs to her whilst they are married - goes to him in the event that he divorces her.
(b) Regarding the previous Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim (with regard to attached fruit), he holds like the Chachamim.
(c) The Chachamim argue with Rebbi Shimon - with regard to the former case; in their opinion attached fruit too, goes to the husband (since it grew in his domain [See Tos. Yom-Tov]).
(d) The Halachah is - like Rebbi Shimon.
(a) The Tana Kama rules that if a woman or her husband want to sell old slaves or maidservants that she inherits - may do so (See Tos Yom-Tov).
(b) With the proceeds - they purchase land from which the husband may eat the fruit.
(c) And he repeats exactly the same ruling - there where she inherited aged olive-trees or vines that either of them want to sell.
(d) Both ...
1. ... Raban Shimon ben Gamliel (See Tos. Yom-Tov DH Rebbi Yehudah) regarding the former ruling and ...
2. ... Rebbi Yehudah (See Tos. Yom-Tov) regarding the latter one object - on the grounds that it is 'Sh'vach Beis Avihah' (a family heirloom) which she has a right to protect.
(e) The Halachah in ...
1. ... the former ruling is -like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, and in ...
2. ... the latter ruling like - Rebbi Yehudah.
(a) The Mishnah rules that if someone who spends ...
1. ... a large sum of money on his wife's property, and eats only a little - whatever he spent he spent and whatever he ate he ate, and the same will apply to where he spends ...
2. ... a small sum of money and eats a lot.
(b) if he spent more than the value of the fruit that subsequently grows - he swears that he spent as much as what grew and claims the what grew.
(c) If he ate nothing at all - he swears as to how much he spent and claims it (See Tiferes Yisrael & Tos.Yom-Tov).
(d) The latter ruling applies to where the husband divorced his wife. But if he issued her with a divorce because she rebelled against him - then irrespective of whether he ate or not, he swears how much he spent, and claims the equivalent from what grew (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(e) He takes all that grew in any event - from Nechsei Tzon Barzel (property that was inserted in the Kesubah for which he accepts full responsibility.
(a) Beis Hillel and Beis Hillel both agree that if a Shomeres Yavam inherits property - she is permitted to sell it.
(b) The Mishnah now discusses what happens to her property if she dies. Her Kesubah incorporates the Kesubah itself (Manah, Masayim), the Tosefes and the Nidunya (the Nechsei Tzon Barzel)
(c) 'Property that comes in and goes out with her'- is synonymous with 'Nechsei Milug' (which is not inserted in the Kesubah.
(d) According to Beis Shamai - the heirs of the husband and her fathers heirs divide the latter equally (See Tiferes Yisrael). Beis Hillel hold that ...
1. ... the Nechsei Tzon Barzel - are divided between the two (See Tiferes Yisrael).
2. ... the Kesubah itself goes to - the husband's heirs and ...
3. ... the Nechsei Milug - to the father's heirs.
(a) The Mishnah rules that a Yavam whose brother dies leaving him an inheritance consisting of ...
1. ... money or ...
2. ... fruit - one buys with them Karka, of which the husband eats the fruit.
(b) According to Rebbi Meir, if the fruit is still attached to the tree, one assesses the difference between the value of the land with the tree including the fruit and what it is worth without the fruit. The husband then buys Karka with the excess money, whose fruit he eats ...
(c) ... because whatever grew in the domain of the deceased husband was Meshubad to her Kesubah.
(a) The statement that, according to the Chachamim, fruit that is attached belongs to the husband (she'Lo) is wrong- since all Karka is Meshubad to her Kesubah.
(b) We therefore amend the statement to read - 'she'lah'(instead of 'she'lo').
(a) Regarding fruit that is detached, the Chachamim hold that whichever one of them gets it is permitted to keep it, though.
(b) If she gets them first however - they should be used to purchase Karka, from which he is them permitted to eat fruit.
(c) To be considered hers, she must take it - during the life-time of her husband.
(d) It is not hers automatically since it is Meshubad to her Kesubah - since that ruling is confined to Karka, but not to Metalt'lin.
(e) The Halachah is - like the Chachamim.
(a) In the current case, should the Yavam perform Yibum with her - she is his wife in all regards.
(b) We learn this from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei - "u'Lekachah lo le'Ishah".
(c) The ramifications of this ruling regarding giving the 'Yevamah' a Get are - 1. That a Get will suffice to sever their connections,a d 2. That if he divorces her, he is permitted to take her back.
(d) We would otherwise have thought that ...
1. ... a Get will not suffice to break his ties with her - since the Torah writes "Veyibmah", she will require Chalitzah to remove the Yibum (which lingers on).
2. ... he is forbidden to remarry her - because, having performed the Mitzvah that is required of him, the Isur Eishes Ach remains (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(a) She claims her Kesubah - from her fist husband's property/
(b) The Mishnah precedes this ruling with the word 'u'Bilevad' (provided) - because it is the sole exception to the aforementioned principle 'that she is his wife in all regards (See Tiferes Yisrael).
(a) The Mishnah rules that a Yavam who wants to designate cash for his Yevamah's Kesubah - is forbidden to do so ...
(b) ... because all the property that he inherited from his deceased brother are Meshubad towards the Yevamah's Kesubah (See Tiferes Yisrael).
(c) The same ruling applies to any man who gets married (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(d) We cannot extrapolate from the current ruling that if the Yavam divorces her, she can claim all her first husband's property - but that all his property must be available to claim from.
(a) In the event that the Yavam subsequently divorces her and takes her back - she is like any other woman who claims her Kesubah from the property of the husband who divorced her.
(b) We might have thought otherwise - since in this case, it was not he who wrote her initial Kesubah, but her first husband, in which case it is from his property that she ought to claim.
(c) And when the Tana concludes that she is only entitled to her Kesubah, he mans - that she cannot claim twice, once from her first husband's property and once from the Yavam's.
Index to Review Questions and Answers
for Mishnayos Kesuvos
D.A.F. Homepage
D.A.F. TALMUD RESOURCES | ||||||||||||||||||||
the Daf | • | to the Daf | • | Q's & A's | • | Point | • | Outlines | • | Outlines | • | Charts |
||||||||
l'Daf | • | Choice Quiz | • | Charts | • | Da'as | • | on the Daf | • | Masechta | • | Lectures |
|
Other Masechtos
• Join Mailing Lists
• Ask the Kollel Dafyomi Calendar • חומר בעברית Donations • Feedback • Links |