BECHOROS 51 (4 Sivan) - Dedicated in memory of the family members of Mr. David Kornfeld (Rabbi Kornfeld's father) who perished at the hands of the Nazi murderers in the Holocaust, Hashem Yikom Damam: His mother (Mirel bas Yakov Mordechai), his brothers (Shraga Feivel, Aryeh Leib and Yisachar Dov, sons of Mordechai), his grandfather (Reb Yakov Mordechai ben Reb David Shpira) and his aunt (Charne bas Yakov Mordechai Shpira, wife of Reb Moshe Aryeh Cohen z'l).

1)

TOSFOS DH Kol Kesef Katzuv ha'Amur b'Torah Kesef Tzuri...

úåñôåú ã"ä ëì ëñó ÷öåá äàîåø áúåøä ëñó öåøé åùì ãáøéäí ëñó îãéðä (äîùê)

åãéé÷ áâîøà ãçîùéí æåæé ôùéèé ÷àîø åìà ãéé÷ ëìì îãøá éäåãä àîø øá àñé

(a)

Summation of Question #2: The Gemara infers that both of these are Pashut Zuzei. It does not infer at all from Rav Yehudah's teaching in the name of Rav Asi!

åëúåáú áúåìä ùäéà îàúéí öåøééí áéï ìîàï ãàîø ãàåøééúà áéï ìîàï ãàîø ãøáðï åàôé' ëúåáú àìîðä ùäéà ìëåìé òìîà ãøáðï äåéà îðä öåøé

(b)

Question #3: The Kesuvah of a Besulah, which is 200 Tzuri Zuzei, both according to the opinion that it is mid'Oraisa, and according to the opinion that it is mid'Rabanan, and even the Kesuvah of a widow, which all agree that it is mid'Rabanan, is in Maneh Tzuri!

åðøàä ìø''é ãìà îééøé äëà àìà áñìòéí ãåîéà ãëñó ÷öåá äàîåø áúåøä ùàéï ëúåá áúåøä àìà ù÷ìéí:

(c)

Answer (Ri): Here we discuss only Sela'im, similar to fixed money said in the Torah. The Torah mentions [fixed amounts] only of Shekalim.

2)

TOSFOS DH veha'Re'ayon Tani Rav Yosef v'Chulei

úåñôåú ã"ä åäøàéåï úðé øá éåñó ëå'

(SUMMARY: Tosfos concludes that this is the reason for what was taught above.)

ôé' á÷åðèøñ ãäëé âøñé' úðé ðîé øá éåñó ùìà éáéà ñéâä ëñó ñéâéí àìà èáåò åäà áøééúà ãøá éåñó ìà ìôøåùé àìà ìñéåòé

(a)

Explanation #1 (Rashi): The text says "Tani Nami Rav Yosef" (also he recited a Beraisa) that he may not bring Siga, i.e. chunks of silver, rather, minted coins. Rav Yosef's Beraisa does not come to explain, rather, to support.

åìà îùîò ëï ãîä öøéê ìäáéà áøééúà ìñéåòé ìáøééúà

(b)

Question #1: It does not connote like this. Why must he bring a Beraisa to support a Beraisa?!

åòåã ãìà äåä ìéä ìîéîø ùìà éáéà àìà ìà éáéà

(c)

Question #2: He should not have said "that he should not bring", rather, "he should not bring"! ("That" connotes that it comes to explain.)

åòåã ãîùîò (ëàçøéðåú) [ö"ì ëàçøåú - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã] ãîôøù áëì çã èòîà

(d)

Question #3: It connotes like the other [matters taught in the first Beraisa], that the Gemara explains the reason for each one!

ìëê ðøàä ãìôøåùé èòîà (àçø) [ö"ì àúà - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã, öàï ÷ãùéí] ãàí äéä îáéà ùåä ëñó æéîðéï ãîééúé ðñëà åëñó ñéâéí ùìà éùåä ùúé îòåú ëñó åìà éîëøå ìå (ìòåìú) [ö"ì òåìú - ùéèä î÷åáöú ëúá éã, öàï ÷ãùéí] øàééä èåáä áàåúä ñéâä ëàéìå äéä îáéà ëñó èáåò

(e)

Explanation #2: [Rav Yosef's Beraisa] comes to explain the reason, that if he would bring Shaveh Kesef, sometimes he brings an ingot or chunks of silver that are not worth two Ma'os Kesef, and they will not sell to him a good Olas Re'iyah for the chunk as if he brought minted silver coins.

3)

TOSFOS DH Kasav l'Kohen she'Hu Chayav Lo Chamesh Sela'im

úåñôåú ã"ä ëúá ìëäï ùäåà çééá ìå çîù ñìòéí

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that this is brought regarding the power of a document.)

áëúåáåú áøéù äðåùà (ãó ÷á.) îééúé ìä âáé ôìåâúà ãø' éåçðï åøéù ì÷éù ãçééá àðé ìê îðä áùèø

(a)

Citation: In Kesuvos (102a) this is brought regarding the argument of R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish of "I am obligated to you a Maneh in a document."

åôéøù ùí á÷åðèøñ ëâåï ùëúá (ìå áùèø) [ö"ì ëê áùèø åìà çúí - ùéèä î÷åáöú] åðúï ìå áôðé òãéí

(b)

Explanation #1 (Rashi there): E.g. he wrote so to him in a document and did not sign it, and gave it to him in front of witnesses;

åôìéâé (îãçùéá) [ö"ì àé çùéá - ùéèä î÷åáöú] äåãàä ãàìéîà îéìúà áùèø àó òì âá ãìà à''ì àúí òãéé

1.

They argue about whether it is considered admission, for the matter of a document is strong, even though he did not say "you are witnesses against me."

åø''ú îôøù ëâåï ùáà ìçééá òöîå áàåúå ùèø àò''ô ùàéðå çééá ìå ëìåí

(c)

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): The case is, he comes to obligate himself through that document, even though he did not owe him anything.

åöøéê ìééùá ëì äñåâéà åùí ôéøùúé

(d)

Remark: One must resolve the entire Sugya. There I explained.

4)

TOSFOS DH Eima v'Lo Hekdeshos b'Chol Elu

úåñôåú ã"ä àéîà åìà ä÷ãùåú áëì àìå

(SUMMARY: Tosfos points out that the Gemara often does not bring the precise Drashah.)

áôñçéí (ãó ìä:) åáäæäá (á''î ðã.) îééúé âáé ä÷ãù ùçììå òì âáé ÷ø÷ò ùàéðï ôãåééï îãëúéá åðúï äëñó å÷í ìå îùîò ãîääåà ÷øà ÷à ãøùé

(a)

Inference: In Pesachim (35b) and Bava Metzi'a (54a) it brings regarding Hekdesh that was redeemed on land, that it is not redeemed, since it says v'Nasan ha'Kesef v'Kam Lo. This implies that we expound that verse. (Tosfos Shabbos 128a DH v'Nasan points out that there is no such verse; it is an abridgement of "v'Yasaf Chamishis Kesef Erkecha Alav v'Kam Lo." The Ritva there and Tosfos in Megilah (3a DH va'Yalan) say that it is a mixture of parts of two verses.)

àáì àé àôùø ìåîø [ëï] ãáú''ë áôøùú åàí áç÷åúé ãøéù (îåëì òøëê éäéä áù÷ì ä÷ãù ëãôéøù ùí á÷åðèøñ åìà) [ö"ì ìéä îåëì òøëê éäéä áù÷ì ä÷ãù ëãôéøù á÷åðèøñ åäúìîåã ìà - ùéèä î÷åáöú] çù ùí ìäáéà àìà çã î÷øàé ãëúéá áäå ëñó âáé ä÷ãù

(b)

Rebuttal: One cannot say so, for in Toras Kohanim Parshas Bechukosai it expounds it from "v'Chol Erkecha Yihyeh b'Shekel ha'Kodesh", like Rashi explained (51b DH v'Lo Hekdeshos), and the Gemara was not concerned [to bring the precise Drashah], and brought just one of the verses that mention Kesef regarding Hekdesh.

åëï îöéðå áëîä î÷åîåú ùàéï îáéà òé÷ø äãøùä áëì ãåëúà ëãàééúé á÷ãåùéï (ãó â:) áðòåøéä áéú àáéä ëì ùáç ðòåøéí ìàáéä àò''â ãáäôøú ðãøéí ëúéá

(c)

Support: So we find that in several places that [the Gemara] does not bring the primary Drashah everywhere, like it brings in Kidushin (3b) "bi'Ne'ureha Beis Aviha" - all profits that come to a Na'arah belong to her father, even though the verse is written regarding Hafaras Nedarim;

åëï âéèéï (ãó ëà:) ñôø ëåøúä åàéï ãáø àçø ëåøúä ãääéà ãøùà ìéúà ìøáðï àìà ìø' éåñé äâìéìé:

1.

And similarly in Gitin (21b, it expounds) "Sefer Korsah", and nothing else divorces, and that Drashah is unlike Rabanan, rather, like R. Yosi ha'Gelili.

51b----------------------------------------51b

5)

TOSFOS DH Amar Ula Devar Torah Beno Paduy licheshe'Yiten

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø òåìà ãáø úåøä áðå ôãåé ìëùéúï

(SUMMARY: Tosfos says that he can even hold like R. Yochanan in Kesuvos.)

ìëàåøä îùîò áøéù äðåùà (ëúåáåú ãó ÷à:) ãìéúà ìãòåìà àìà ìøéù ì÷éù

(a)

Implied question: In Kesuvos (101b) it connotes that Ula's teaching is only like Reish Lakish (but unlike R. Yochanan. According to R. Yochanan, we need not say that it is a decree. The document created a new Chiyuv!)

åéù ìééùá ãàéúà àôé' ìø' éåçðï

(b)

Answer: One can resolve it even according to R. Yochanan. (Tosfos Kesuvos 102a DH explains that Ula needs to explain that in every case his son is not redeemed, even if he wrote to him explicitly "I am obligated to him five Sela'im for Pidyon." And even if he did not write so, Stam he said for Pidyon; really, Ula holds like R. Yochanan.)

6)

TOSFOS DH Aval Chachamim Omerim Ein Beno Paduy

úåñôåú ã"ä àáì çëîéí àåîøéí àéï áðå ôãåé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rav Nachman did not say that our Mishnah disagrees.)

úéîä ãîúðé' ðîé ÷úðé çééá ìéúï ìå åáðå àéðå ôãåé

(a)

Question: Also our Mishnah taught that he is obligated to give to him, and he is not redeemed!

åéù ìãçåú ãàîø àéðå ôãåé òã ùéúï ìå

(b)

Answer: We could reject, that it means that his son is not redeemed until he gives to him;

åàúé îúðéúéï ìàùîåòé' ãàôéìå æ÷ôí òìéå áîìåä ìà äåä ëàéìå ÷áìí äëäï åçæø åäìåä ìå åàí îçìí äëäï àéðå ôãåé òã ùéúï

1.

It comes to teach that even if he made it like a loan, it is not as if the Kohen received it and returned to lend to him, and if the Kohen pardoned [the coins], he is not redeemed until he gives.

7)

TOSFOS DH Amar Lei Lo Gamrat v'Yahavt Mid'am Bish Avadt

úåñôåú ã"ä àîø ìéä ìà âîøú åéäáú îéãòí áéù òáãú

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives explanations of this.)

åéù ìôøù îéãòí ìùåï îàåîä ãîúøâîéðï îéãòí ëìåîø ìà âîøú åéäáú îéãòí

(a)

Explanation #1: Mid'am is an expression of anything, i.e. you did not resolve and give anything.

åòåã éù ìôøù ëï îéãòí áéù òáãú ëìåîø ãáø øò òáãú ãîúøâîé' ãáø øò (îìëéí á ã) ëì îéãòí áéù

(b)

Explanation #2: Mid'am Bish Avadt - you did a bad thing. The Targum of "Davar Ra" is Kol Mid'am Bish.

åéù ñôøéí ãìà ëúåá áäå òáãú àìà îéãòí áéù åúå ìà ëìåîø ãáø øò äåà ëìåîø ãéï òñ÷ áéù

(c)

Alternative text: In some Seforim it is not written Avadt, only Mid'am Bish. I.e. a bad thing, i.e. this is a bad deal.

8)

TOSFOS DH Hilkach Ein Beno Paduy

úåñôåú ã"ä äìëê àéï áðå ôãåé

(SUMMARY: Tosfos distinguishes this from a gift on condition to return it.)

úéîä î''ù îîúðä òì îðú ìäçæéø ãàîøéðï áô''÷ ã÷ãåùéï (ãó å:) ãáðå ôãåé ãîñé÷ áëåìäå ÷ðé

(a)

Question: Why is this different than on condition to return [the money]? We say in Kidushin (6b) that his son is redeemed, for we conclude that in all cases [discussed there of a gift on condition to return it], it acquires!

åé''ì ãäëà øáé çðéðà ìà äéä øåöä ìæëåú àìà áîúðä âîåøä ãàñøéðï äúí ìòùåú îôðé ùðøàä ëëäï äîñééò ááéú äâøðåú ëãðô÷à ìï ìòéì áô' òã ëîä (ãó ëå:) îùåí ùðàîø ùçúí (àú) áøéú äìåé

(b)

Answer: Here, R. Chanina wanted to acquire only a total gift, for we forbid there [Pidyon on condition to return the money] because it looks like a Kohen helping in the granary, like we derive above (26b), because it says "Shichatem Bris ha'Levi";

åàò''ô ùàåúå ñúí ðúï ìå ëôéøù òì îðú ùéçæéøå ìå [ëéåï] ãàéëà äéëéøà ìîéìúà

1.

Even though the man gave to him Stam, it is as if he specified on condition that he return to him, since the matter is recognized.

åàéï æä ãáøéí ùáìá ëîå æáéï åìà àéöèøéëà ìéä ìæåæé áô' àìîðä (áëúåáåú ãó öæ.)

(c)

Remark: This is not Devarim sheb'Lev (unspoken intents), like one who sold and did not need the money, in Kesuvos (97a. Since he did not stipulate, this is not grounds to invalidate the sale.)

åîéäå ÷öú úéîä ãëéåï ùäéå ø' èøôåï åø' çðéðà îçæéøéï ëì ùòä ðîöàå îùçéúéí áøéú äìåé ùéôñéãå ùàø ëäðéí ùìà éúðå àìà ìäí îôðé ùäí øâéìéí ìäçæéø

(d)

Question: Since R. Tarfon and R. Chanina used to return all the time, they [fulfill] "Shichatem Bris ha'Levi." People will give only to them, because they normally return!

åé''ì ùàéï äðåúï éåãò áùòä ùðåúï àí éçæéøå ìå åìà ÷øéðà áéä ùçúí áøéú äìåé ãîä ìðå áîä ùéçæéø ìå àç''ë

(e)

Answer #1: The giver does not know at the time that he gives to him whether or not he will return to him, so "Shichatem Bris ha'Levi" does not apply. It does not harm if they return afterwards!

åâí ùîà ìà äéå îçæéøéï àìà ìòðééí åìà ìàåúí ùäéå ãåîéí ìäí ìòùéøéí

(f)

Answer #2: Perhaps they returned only to Aniyim, but not to people who appeared to them to be rich.

9)

TOSFOS DH v'Lo b'Ra'uy kib'Muchzak v'Lo ha'Ishah bi'Kesuvasah

úåñôåú ã"ä åìà áøàåé ëáîåçæ÷ åìà äàùä áëúåáúä

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses whether a Kesuvah is collected from a loan.)

áô' éù ðåçìéï (á''á ãó ÷ëä:) ôñ÷éðï äìëúà ãàéï äáëåø ðåèì ôé ùðéí áîìåä áéï ùâáå (îòåú áéï ùìà âáå) [ö"ì ÷ø÷ò áéï ùâáå - ùéèä î÷åáöú] îòåú

(a)

Pesak: In Bava Basra (125b) we rule that the Halachah is that a Bechor does not receive double in a loan, whether [the orphans] collected land or collected coins.

åîúåê ëê (ðøàä ãàéðå) [ö"ì äéä ðøàä ãàùä àéðä - ùéèä î÷åáöú] âåáä ëúåáä áîìåä ëãúðï äëà àéï ìä áøàåé

(b)

Opinion #1: Based on this, it seems that a woman does not collect her Kesuvah from a loan, like our Mishnah teaches here that she does not collect from Ra'uy.

àáì øáé ôéøù ãàò''ô ùäåøò ëç äáòì åáëåø ìòðéï îìåä ãçùáéðï ìéä ìâáééäå øàåé ìâáé ëúåáú àùä îéäà çùéáà îåçæ÷ú åàùä âåáä ëúåáúä îîìåä

(c)

Opinion #2 (Tosfos' Rebbi): Even though a husband and a Bechor have weak power regarding a loan, that for them we consider it Ra'uy, regarding a woman's Kesuvah, it is considered Muchzak, and a woman collects her Kesuvah from a loan;

ëãúðï áëúåáåú áäëåúá (ãó ôã.) îé ùîú åäðéç àùä åá''ç åéåøùéí åäéå ìå îìåä åô÷ãåï áéã àçøéí ø''è àåîø éðúðå ìëåùì ùáäï ø''ò àåîø éðúï ìéåøùéí ùëåìí öøéëéï ùáåòä åàéï äéåøùéï öøéëéï ùáåòä

1.

Source - Citation (Kesuvos 84a): If someone died and left a widow, a creditor and heirs, and he had a loan and deposit in another's hand, R. Tarfon says, we give them to the weakest among them. (Some say that this is the widow, to encourage marriage. Others say that it is the one who has the weakest proof.) R. Akiva says, we give them to the heirs, for the others need to swear [that they were not already paid], and heirs need not swear.

àìîà àôéìå ìø''ò àí ìà ùöøéëä ùáåòä äéúä âåáä àáì ìôé ùöøéëä ùáåòä âåáéï äéåøùéï åùåá ìà úâáä äàùä îäï ãäåå ìäå îèìèìé ãéúîé ãìà îùúòáãé

i.

Inference: Even according to R. Akiva, if she did not need a Shevu'ah, she would collect. However, since she needs a Shevu'ah, the heirs collect, and then she does not collect from them, for [now] they are Metaltelim of heirs, and they are not Meshubad (there is no lien on them).

åàí âáå ÷ø÷ò áçåáú àáéäí äéà çåæøú åâåáä àåúí îäí áùáåòä ëãéï áòì çåá

2.

And if they collected land for their father's debt, she returns to collect from them with a Shevu'ah, like the law of a creditor;

àå àí ôèøä îï äùáåòä âåáä (îìåä åìà) [ö"ì îîìåä ùäåà áéã àçøéí àôéìå ìø"ò åãìà ëàáà ùàåì áï àéîà îøéí (ëúåäåú ôæ.) - ùéèä î÷åáöú]

3.

Or if [her husband] exempted her from the Shevu'ah, she collects from a loan in others' hands even according to R. Akiva, and unlike Aba Sha'ul ben Miryam (Kesuvos 87a).

[ö"ì åàéï ìåîø ãîúðé' ãäëåúá àúéà ëøé ãçùéä îìåä îåçæ÷ áôø÷ éù ðåçìéï (á"á ÷ëã.) àáì ìøáðï ìà - ùéèä î÷åáöú] îùåí ãìãéãäå äåé îìåä øàåé

(d)

Implied suggestion: Perhaps the Mishnah in Kesuvos (84a) is like Rebbi, who considers a loan to be Muchzak, in Bava Basra (124a), but according to Rabanan no (she does not collect), for according to them, a loan is Ra'uy!

ãäà ìà îéùúîéè äúí ùåí çëí ìäòîéãä ëøáé ãå÷à

(e)

Rejection: If so, some Chacham [in the Gemara] there should have established it specifically like Rebbi!

àìà îùîò ãìéëà îàï ãôìéâé àìà ë''ò áéï ìøáé áéï ìøáðï àéú ìäå ãîìåä îåçæ÷ú äéà ìâáé ëúåáú àìîðä

(f)

Conclusion: Rather, it connotes that no one argues. Rather, everyone, i.e. both Rebbi and Rabanan, hold that a loan is Muchzak regarding a widow's Kesuvah.

åàôéìå ìøáðï [ö"ì ãø''î - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ãàîøé îèìèìé ìà îùúòáãé ìëúåáä ëìì àôéìå îçééí ðøàä îúåê äîùðä æå ãäëåúá ùäí îåãéí (ãîìåéï) [ö"ì ãîìåä] ãéúîé îùúòáãé ìëúåáä

(g)

Assertion: It seems that even Rabanan of R. Meir, who say (Kesuvos 80b) that Metaltelim are not Meshubad at all to [pay] a Kesuvah, even in [her husband's] lifetime, it seems from this Mishnah in Kesuvos that they agree that a loan of (owed to) orphans is Meshubad for a Kesuvah.

ãäà ìéëà ìîéîø ãø''î äéà åìäëé àéú ìéä ìääéà îùðä ãùééëà ëúåáú àùä áîìåä àò''â ãäåé îèìèìé ãéúîé

(h)

Implied question: Perhaps [the Mishnah in Kesuvos 84a] is R. Meir, and therefore that Mishnah holds that a Kesuvah pertains to (can be collected from) a loan, even though it is Metaltelim of orphans!

çãà ùø''ú îôøù ùàôéìå ìø' îàéø îèìèìé ãéúîé ìà îùúòáãé ìëúåáä àìà îèìèìé ãéáí ãå÷à ãòìéä ÷àé áôø÷ äàùä ùðôìå (ëúåáåú ãó ôà: åùí ã''ä ø''î)

(i)

Rejection #1: R. Tam explains that even according to R. Meir, Metaltelim of orphans are not Meshubad for a Kesuvah, only Metaltelim of the Yavam [are], which [the Gemara there] was discussing (Kesuvos 81b);

ãìà îñúáøà )ùéôä ø''î( [ö"ì ùîéôä ø''î ëç - ùéèä î÷åáöú] ëúåáä ìâáåú îîèìèìé ãéúîé èôé îáòì çåá àéôëà îãøáðï ùîâøòéí ëçä éåúø îáòì çåá ùìà ìâáåú îîèìèìé àôé' îéðéä

1.

It is unreasonable that R. Meir holds that a Kesuvah has better collection rights from Metaltelim of orphans than a creditor, opposite to Rabanan, who make her power weaker than a creditor, that [a divorcee] does not collect Metaltelim even from him (her ex-husband);

ëãîùîò áôø÷ äàåîø á÷ãåùéï (ãó ñä:) âáé ùðéí ùáàå îîä''é åàùä åçáéìä òîäí ëå'

i.

It connotes like this in Kidushin (65b) regarding two who came from overseas, and a woman and a package are with them. (Each man claims 'it is my package, and she is my wife.' If both give a Get to her, she collects a Kesuvah from the package. We establish it like R. Meir, who says that Metaltelim are Meshubad for a Kesuvah. This implies that Rabanan disagree.)

åääéà ãâáé îîèìèìé ãðôìå ÷îé éáí áîúðé' ãäàùä ùðôìå (ëúåáåú ã' ô:) äééðå îùåí ãéáí áî÷åí áòì ÷àé åçùéá áäëé ëîå îéðéä ëéåï ãàâéãä áéä îçîú ðùåàé äáòì

2.

And the one who collects Metaltelim that fell to a Yavam, in the Mishnah in Kesuvos (80b), this is because the Yavam is in place of the husband, and it is considered like [collecting] from him, since she is tied to him due to the marriage to her [deceased] husband.

åðøàä ãáøé ø''ú ãàì''ë ùéäà éáí (îéðéä îðìï ìøáðï) [ö"ì ëîå îéðéä îðìï ãìøáðï - öàï ÷ãùéí] ãø''î ãìà îùúòáãé îèìèìé ìëúåáä àôéìå îéðéä

(j)

Support: R. Tam is correct, for if not that [collecting from] a Yavam is like from him (her husband), what is the source that according to Rabanan, Metaltelim are not Meshubad for a Kesuvah, even from him?

åòåã ãà''ë àéê éúðå ìéåøùéí ùëåìí öøéëéï ùáåòä åìà äéåøùéï

(k)

Rejection #2 (of Implied suggestion (h)): If so (the Mishnah in Kesuvos 84a is R. Meir, according to R. Akiva), how do they give to the heirs, for [the reason that] the others need a Shevu'ah, but the heirs do not?

âí ëùéúðå ìéåøùéï úâáä äàùä îäí ëéåï ùúàîø ãîèìèìé ãéúîé îùúòáãé ìëúåáä ñáéøà ìéä

1.

Also when they give to the heirs, she will collect from them, since you will say that [R. Akiva] holds that orphans' Metaltelim are Meshubad for a Kesuvah!

åòåã úéðç ëúåáú àùä àáì á''ç îàé àéëà ìîéîø äà ìà àùëçï úðà ãàéú ìéä ãîèìèìé ãéúîé îùúòáãé ìá''ç

(l)

Rejection #3: Granted, a woman's Kesuvah [is collected from them], but what can you say about a creditor? (One opinion says that R. Tarfon means that the creditor collects.) We do not find a Tana who holds that orphans' Metaltelim are Meshubad for a creditor!

àìà òì ëøçéï îùåí ãîìåä àéðä áéã äéåøùéï éôä ëç àùä åá''ç èôé îîèìèìé ùäí áéã äéúåîéí

(m)

Conclusion: We are forced to say that because a loan is not in the orphans' hands, the woman and creditor have better rights in it than in Metaltelim that are in the orphans' hands.

åúøé çåîøé áëúåáä

(n)

Implied question: [According to the opinion that R. Tarfon means that the widow collects,] two stringencies of a Kesuvah [apply here! Kesuvos (82a) says that we do not find that a Tana who holds of two stringencies of (extra rights to collect) a Kesuvah, i.e. that orphans' Metaltelim are Meshubad like R. Meir, and it is collected from one who owes the husband, like R. Nasan.)

ìà ùééëé äëà ëãôøéùéú áñåó äàùä ùðôìå (ùí ãó ôá.) ãäà çåîøà ãø' îàéø àéðä ëàï ëãôøéùéú ãäåàéì åäîìåä áéã àçøéí ìà äåéà îîèìèìéï ãéúîé

(o)

Answer #1: They do not apply here, like I explained in Kesuvos (82a). The stringency of R. Meir is not here, like I explained. Since the loan is in others' hands, it is not Metaltelim of orphans.

(åàí ëï çåîøà ãøáé ðúï) [ö"ì åçåîøà ãøáé (îëàï îãó äáà) ðúï ðîé - öàï ÷ãùéí] àéï ëàï ãäà îéìúéä ãø''è ãàîø éðúðå ìëåùì ùáäí åø''ò ðîé äéä îåãä ìéä àé ìàå èòîà ãëåìï öøéëéï ùáåòä åàéï äéåøùéï öøéëéï ùáåòä

(p)

Answer #2: Also the stringency of R. Nasan is not here, for R. Tarfon's opinion, that it is given to the weakest of them, and also R. Akiva would agree to him, if not for the reason that the others need a Shevu'ah, but the heirs do not need a Shevu'ah... (Tosfos will show why R. Tarfon and R. Akiva are even like Rabanan of R. Nasan.)

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF