KESUVOS 54 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the Yahrzeit of her father, Rav Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Rabbi Morton Weiner) Z'L, who passed away on 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Dafyomi study -- which was so important to him -- during the weeks of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.

1)

(a)Rava asks whether the daughter of an Arusah receives Mezonos or not. What is the case?

(b)What are the two sides of the She'eilah?

(c)What is the alternative way of explaining it?

(d)What is the outcome of the She'eilah?

1)

(a)Rava asks whether the daughter of an Arusah receives Mezonos or not. The case is - when a man with sons had relations with his Arusah, who bore him a daughter and died.

(b)His She'eilah is based on the fact that - on the one hand, an Arusah receives a Kesubah should the Arus write her one, whereas on the other, Chazal only obligated a Kesubah after the marriage.

(c)Alternatively, 'Keivan d'Is Lah Kesubah' might mean - that Chazal fixed a Kesubah already from the time of Erusin; and 'O Dilma Keivan d'Lo Takinu Lei Rabanan ad Sha'as Nisu'in' - that it is only documented at the time of Nisu'in.

(d)This She'eilah too - remains unresolved.

2)

(a)Rav Papa asks whether the daughter of a woman who was raped and who subsequently married the rapist will receive Mezonos or not. Why is this She'eilah restricted to the Rabanan, but not relevant according to Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah. What does Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah say?

(b)What do the Rabanan hold?

(c)One side of the She'eilah is that since there is no Kesubah, there is no Tenai Kesubah either. What is the other side? Why might the daughter nevertheless be entitled to 'Benan Nukvan'?

2)

(a)Rav Papa asks whether the daughter of a woman who was raped and who subsequently married the rapist will receive Mezonos or not, a She'eilah which is restricted to the Rabanan, but not relevant according to Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah - who says that a girl who is raped receives a Kesubah of one Manah over and above the Kenas.

(b)The Rabanan hold that the payment of Kenas cancels the obligation to pay her a Kesubah.

(c)One side of the She'eilah is that since there is no Kesubah, there is no Tenai Kesubah either. The other side is - that the exemption from paying her a Kesubah is due to the fact that Chazal's reason for instituting a Kesubah in the first place (so that a man should not find it too easy to divorce his wife) will not apply here (seeing as he is not permitted to divorce her anyway). But there is no reason for the other Tena'ei Kesubah [such as 'Benan Nukvan'] not to remain in force.

3)

(a)One of the conditions of the Kesubah is 'At Tehei Yasva b'Veisi u'Miszana mi'Nechsi'. What does the Tana quoted by Rav Yosef infer from the word 'be'Veisi'?

(b)According to Mar bar Rav Ashi (whose opinion we generally follow), she does not receive Mezonos either. Why is that?

(c)Why does Rav Yosef then argue with him?

(d)Like whom is the Halachah?

3)

(a)One of the conditions of the Kesubah is 'At Tehei Yasva b'Veisi u'Miszana mi'Neshsi'. The Tana quoted by Rav Yosef infers from the word 'b'Veisi' - that as long as their father leaves a house that is habitable, they cannot order the widow to leave it and return to her parental home, but not if he leaves only a reed-hut (in which case, they may ask her to leave).

(b)According to Mar bar Rav Ashi (whose opinion we generally follow), she does not receive Mezonos either - because of the Lashon written in the Kesubah 'At Tehei Yasva b'Veisi u'Miszana mi'Nechsi', which he links together (i.e. she is only fed as long as she lives in her deceased husband's house).

(c)Rav Yosef argues with Mar bar Rav Ashi - on the basis of the extra 'be'Veisi' mentioned in the Kesubah 've'At Tehei Yasva b'Veisi, Kol Yemei Meigar Armelusech b'Veisi (which comes to teach us that she is fed anyway [perhaps on the basis of the principle that two exclusions actually come to include]).

(d)The Halachah - is not like Mar bar Rav Ashi (in spite of the general rule) - because, in this case, the Gemara specifically rules against him.

4)

(a)Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel says that, from the moment the daughter accepts her suitor's proposal, she no longer receives Mezonos (from her father's estate). How does Rav Anan quoting Shmuel, explain the inference that if she declines the proposal, she continues to be fed?

(b)According to Rav Chisda, a girl who has relations with a man, no longer receives Mezonos. What does Rav Yosef say?

(c)What is the underlying reason for both opinions?

(d)On what grounds does Rav Yosef disagree with Rav Chisda?

(e)The Halachah is not like either of them, but like Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel. What does he say?

4)

(a)Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel says that, from the moment a daughter accepts her suitor's proposal, she no longer receives Mezonos (from her father's estate). Rav Anan quoting Shmuel, restricts the inference (that if she declines his proposal, she continues to be fed) - to when she declines in deference to her deceased husband, but not if her refusal is based on other motives (even if she claims that the suitor is not a decent person).

(b)According to Rav Chisda, a girl who has relations with a man, no longer receives Mezonos. Rav Yosef says - that she only loses her Mezonos from when she begins adorning herself.

(c)The underlying reason for both opinions is - the fact that the girl's actions indicate that she is ready to get married, and is not declining marriage out of deference to her deceased husband.

(d)Rav Yosef disagrees with Rav Chisda - because having relations with a man is merely the result of a passing Yetzer ha'Ra, and is not necessarily indicative of her readiness to get married.

(e)The Halachah is not like either of them, but like Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel - who says that she only loses Mezonos from the time that she claims her Kesubah in Beis Din (and not for the reasons mentioned by Rav Chisda and Rav Yosef).

5)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel with the Tana, who says in a Beraisa that a woman who sells her Kesubah, or who gives it as collateral or as an Apotiki no longer receives Mezonos?

(b)What is an 'Apotiki'?

5)

(a)We reconcile Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel with the Tana, who says in a Beraisa that a woman who sells her Kesubah, gives it as collateral or as an Apotiki no longer receives Mezonos - by pointing out that, whereas the Beraisa does not differentiate between a woman who does these things in Beis Din or anywhere else, Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel specifically referred to a woman who claims her Kesubah in Beis Din.

(b)An Apotiki is - the designation of specific property to which the creditor's claim will be restricted.

6)

(a)Bavel and the surrounding areas followed the opinion of Rav, who ruled like the men of Yehudah in our Mishnah ('ad she'Yirtzu ha'Yorshin Liten Lach Kesuvasech'). Whose opinion did Neherda'a and its surrounding areas follow?

(b)Rav Nachman told a woman from Mechoza that, seeing as she was from Bavel, she was obligated to follow the opinion of the Bnei Bavel (and lose her Mezonos from the moment that the Yesomim offered to pay her Kesubah). How did Rav Nachman know that she was from Mechoza?

(c)What objection did the Rabanan raise to his ruling?

(d)How did they gauge the exact border between Neherda'a and the rest of Bavel?

6)

(a)Bavel and the surrounding areas followed the opinion of Rav, who ruled like the men of Yehudah in our Mishnah ('ad she'Yirtzu ha'Yorshin Liten Lach Kesuvasech'). Neherda'a and its surrounding areas - followed the ruling of Shmuel, who ruled like the men of the Galil ('Kol Yemei Meigar Armelusach' - like the men of Yerushalayim).

(b)Rav Nachman told a woman from Mechoza that, seeing as she was from Bavel, she was obligated to follow the opinion of the Bnei Bavel (and lose her Mezonos from the moment that the Yesomim offered to pay her Kesubah). Rav Nachman knew that she was from Mechoza - from her accent.

(c)The Rabanan objected to his ruling - because her husband was from Neherda'a, in which case, she ought to continue receiving Mezonos as long as she was an Almanah.

(d)They gauged the exact border between Neherda'a and the rest of Bavel - by checking the weights and measures system (which differed in Neherda'a from the rest of Bavel) that was in use in that particular town.

7)

(a)What does Rav mean when he says that one assesses the clothes that an Almanah is wearing (that her husband bought her)?

(b)What does Shmuel say?

(c)According to Rav Chiya bar Avin, they switch their views by a Lakit. What does he mean?

(d)And what did Rav Kahana mean by the Siman 'Yasma v'Armalta Shalach u'Puk'?

7)

(a)When Rav says that one assesses the clothes that an Almanah is wearing (that her husband bought her), he means - that the value of those clothes is deducted from her Kesubah.

(b)Shmuel maintains - that the value of the clothes that she is wearing when paying her Kesubah is not included in the Kesubah.

(c)According to Rav Chiya bar Avin, they switch their views by a Lakit - meaning that, in the opinion of Shmuel, when a hired worker (who lives with his employer and is sustained by him) leaves his employ, the clothes that he is wearing are deducted from his wages; whereas according to Rav, they are not.

(d)Rav Kahana gave the Siman 'Yasma v'Armalta Shalach u'Puk' - to point out that he disagrees with Rav Chiya bar Avin, and that, in his opinion, Rav, who says that one deducts the clothes that the widow is wearing from her Kesubah, is also the one to say that one deducts the clothes that the hired worker is wearing, from his wages.

8)

(a)What does the Mishnah in Erchin (regarding someone who is Makdish his property or is Ma'arich himself) say about the clothes that his wife and children have already worn, the clothes that he specifically dyed on their behalf and the new shoes that he bought them?

(b)How does this Mishnah appear to support Shmuel's opinion regarding his Machlokes with Rav (concerning assessing the clothes of an Almanah who claims her Kesubah)?

(c)Then why did Rav Nachman rule like Rav?

8)

(a)The Mishnah in Erchin (regarding someone who is Makdish his property or is Ma'arich himself) says that the clothes that his wife and children have already worn, the clothes that he specifically dyed on their behalf and the new shoes that he bought them - are not subject to assessment (i.e. they cannot be taken by the treasurer of Hekdesh as a security until he pays).

(b)This Mishnah appears to support Shmuel's opinion regarding his Machlokes with Rav (concerning assessing the clothes of an Almanah who claims her Kesubah) - inasmuch as, like Shmuel, the Tana considers these items personal property of the wife and children, and not of the husband (in which case they should not be deductible from the wife's Kesubah).

(c)Rav Nachman nevertheless ruled like Rav - because it is only on the surface that the Mishnah in Erchin supports Shmuel, but in reality, it is only as long as his wife is living with him (as in the case in Erchin) that he wants her to keep the things that he bought her, but not after they have parted, irrespective of how they parted (as in the case of Rav and Shmuel.

9)

(a)What caused the daughter-in-law of Bei bar Elyashiv to wear all the clothes that her deceased husband had left her?

(b)What did Ravina subsequently rule?

(c)What did ...

1. ... Rav Idi bar Avin rule when a father designated clothes for his daughter's dowry, and the clothes depreciated (with regard to obligating the heirs to make up the deficiency)?

2. ... Rav Yosef rule when a father designated four hundred Zuz worth of wine for his daughter's dowry, and the price of the wine rose? Who benefited from the rise?

9)

(a)The daughter-in-law of Bei bar Elyashiv wore all the clothes that her deceased husband had left her - when the heirs, on their way to Beis Din to defend themselves against her claim to the Kesubah, maintained that it was undignified for her to go to Beis Din dressed the way she was.

(b)Ravina subsequently ruled - that, seeing as the Halachah is like Rav, all the clothes that she was wearing should be assessed and the total deducted from her Kesubah.

(c)When a father designated ...

1. ... clothes for his daughter's dowry, and the clothes depreciated - Rav Idi bar Avin ruled that the heirs were not obligated to make-up the difference.

2. ... four hundred Zuz worth of wine for his daughter's dowry, and the price of the wine rose - Rav Yosef ruled that it was the heirs who would benefit from the rise, and the Almanah should still receive the same four hundred Zuz worth of wine.

54b----------------------------------------54b

10)

(a)A relation of Rebbi Yochanan complained to him that his dying father's wife ate excessive amounts of Mezonos. What advice did Rebbi Yochanan give him? What has this to do with a Mishnah in Pe'ah ('ha'Kosev Kol Nechasav l'Banav ... ')?

(b)Considering that the designation was made orally and not in writing, what was the advice worth?

(c)Resh Lakish was unimpressed with Rebbi Yochanan's ruling. What did he mean when he ordered them to give the woman even more?

(d)In spite of the fact that Rebbi Yochanan himself respected Resh Lakish's opinion, Rebbi Avahu defended him. What distinction did Rebbi Avahu draw between 'li'Mezonos' and 'bi'Mezonos'?

10)

(a)A relation of Rebbi Yochanan complained to him that his dying father's wife ate excessive amounts of Mezonos. Rebbi Yochanan advised him - to instruct his father to designate a field for her Mezonos, and, as we learned in a Mishnah in Pe'ah, if someone writes all his property to his sons and just one field to his widow, she loses her Kesubah.

(b)Despite the fact that the designation was made orally and not in writing - he was hoping that she would accept his proposition, and, in the opinion of Rebbi Yosi, that is sufficient (seeing as there were witnesses.

(c)Resh Lakish was unimpressed with Rebbi Yochanan's ruling, and he ordered them to give the woman even more - because, according to the Halachah, all of her husband's estate was automatically designated for her Kesubah. Consequently, by designating that field, he was indicating that should the heirs not allot ample Mezonos, then this field should serve as additional Mezonos.

(d)In spite of the fact that Rebbi Yochanan himself respected Resh Lakish's opinion, Rebbi Avahu defended him - by agreeing with Resh Lakish only provided the father said 'li'Mezonos, but if he said 'bi'Mezonos, then he meant to designate it as Mezonos, and Rebbi Yochanan's ruling would be justified.

Hadran Alach, Na'arah

Perek Af-Al-Pi

11)

(a)How much does the Tana of our Mishnah permit adding to the Manah u'Masayim that Chazal instituted in the Kesubah of a Besulah and a Be'ulah respectively?

(b)Why is it necessary to tell us this? Why might it not have been permitted?

(c)According to the Tana Kama, if a husband dies or divorces his wife, irrespective of whether they were married or merely betrothed, the woman receives her full Kesubah. What does Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah say?

(d)Rebbi Yehudah permits a man to write a full Kesubah and the woman writes that she has already received half. What does Rebbi Meir say?

11)

(a)The Tana of our Mishnah permits adding to the Manah u'Masayim that Chazal instituted in the Kesubah of a Besulah and a Be'ulah respectively - even as much as a hundred Manah.

(b)Had the Tana not told us this - we might have thought that Chazal fixed Manah u'Masayim, and no more, in order not to shame those who are unable to afford more.

(c)According to the Tana Kama, if a husband dies or divorces his wife, irrespective of whether they were married or merely betrothed, the woman receives her full Kesubah. Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah says - that, if they were only betrothed, she receives only a Manah or Masayim, but not the Tosefes, because a man only adds a Tosefes on the understanding that they will get married.

(d)Rebbi Yehudah permits a man to write a full Kesubah and the woman to write that she has already received half. Rebbi Meir says - 'Kol ha'Poches li'Besulah Masayim, ul'Almanah Manah, Harei Zu Be'ilas Zenus'! (that a Besulah has to receive Masayim, and a Be'ulah, a Manah). Otherwise they are forbidden to live together.

12)

(a)What do we infer from the Lashon of the Mishnah 'Ratzah Lehosif ... '? What should the Tana have otherwise written?

(b)This is a proof for Rebbi Aivu Amar Rebbi Yanai. What does Rebbi Yanai say about Tenai Kesubah?

12)

(a)We infer from the Lashon of the Mishnah 'Ratzah Lehosif ... ' - that whatever the husband adds of his own accord becomes part of the Kesubah (and is not merely a personal gift).

(b)This is a proof for Rebbi Aivu Amar Rebbi Yanai - who says 'Tenai Kesubah ki'Kesubah' (the ramifications of which we are about to discuss).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF