POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Bava Kama 89
1) TOVAS HANA'AH
(a) (Abaye): When a woman sells the Tovas Hana'ah of her
Kesuvah, the money is entirely hers.
2) A WOMAN WHO SELLS HER KESUVAH
1. If it would belong to her husband - why should the
Zomemim witnesses pay her? Even had she sold it, her
husband would get the money!
(b) Rejection (Rav Shalman): Really, her husband gets the
money - Zomemim witnesses pay her because she prefers
that her husband has more money to spend.
(c) (Rava): Th law is, when a woman sells the Tovas Hana'ah
of her Kesuvah, the money is entirely hers, her husband
does not get the produce.(profits made with the money or
something bought with the money).
(d) Question: Why doesn't he get the produce?
(e) Answer: Chachamim enacted that a husband get the produce
If one wants to know if his wife's property, not the
produce of the produce (the Tovas Hana'ah is as produce
of her Kesuvah).
(a) (Rav Papa and Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): We may
derive the enactment of Usha from our Mishnah.
1. (Mishnah): One loses from encounters with a slave or
(married) woman: one who damages either of them is
liable, if either of them damaged someone, he or she
(b) Rejection: Even if there was the enactment of Usha -
granted, she cannot absolutely sell her Milug property to
pay the damage - but she can sell the Tovas Hana'ah (if
she is widowed or divorced, the buyer will get the
2. If not for the enactment of Usha, she should sell
her Milug property to pay the damage!
1. We must say, the case is that she has no Milug
(c) Question: She should sell the Tovas Hana'ah of the
Kesuvah (that her husband must pay her if she is widowed
or divorced, at least 100 or 200 Zuz (if she was a
widow/virgin when he married her) to pay the damage!
(d) Answer #1: Our Mishnah is as R. Meir, who forbids a man
to live with his wife even for a moment if she does not
own (this part of) a Kesuvah.
(e) Objection: But the reason is so he will not think he can
divorce her freely - even if she sells her Kesuvah, he
cannot divorce her freely, he will have to pay the buyer
of the Kesuvah!
(f) Answer #2: Rather, Tovas Hana'ah is Mili (intangible),
therefore there is no lien on it to (force her to sell it
to) pay the damage.
(g) Question: Why is there no lien - people will pay money
for such Mili!
(h) Answer #3: She need not sell the Tovas Hana'ah of the
Kesuvah because of Shmuel's law.
1. (Shmuel): If Reuven sells a document (and rights to
collect the loan it was written for) and then
pardons the loan, the loan is void; even Reuven's
heir can pardon the loan.
(i) Question: Still, she can sell Tovas Hana'ah of her
Kesuvah - if she will pardon the loan, the buyer will
lose (even without Shmuel's law, the buyer is taking a
chance, and only pays a fraction of the amount written in
(j) Answer: Surely, she will pardon the Kesuvah (to please
her husband - no one will pay anything for it)!
(k) Question: Would she really do so, causing the buyer to
(l) Answer: Yes, since she is not directly making him lose.
(m) Suggestion: She should sell the Tovas Hana'ah of her
Kesuvah to the damagee - even if she will pardon the
loan, he does not lose (without this sale, he does not
(n) Answer: Surely, she will pardon the Kesuvah - there is no
point in exerting Beis Din to arrange a sale which will
not help the damagee.
3) THE ENACTMENT OF USHA
(o) Question (Beraisa): Similarly, if she hit her husband,
she does not forfeit her Kesuvah - she should sell the
Tovas Hana'ah of her Kesuvah to her husband - if she will
pardon it, the husband does not lose, he is exempted from
(p) Answer: Our Mishnah is as R. Meir, who forbids a man to
live with his wife even for a moment if she does not own
(this part of) a Kesuvah;
1. The reason is so he will not think he can divorce
her freely - here, he can divorce her freely, for he
owns the Kesuvah as payment for the damage!
(q) Question (Beraisa): Just as she cannot sell her Kesuvah
and continue to live with her husband, she cannot lose
(even part of) her Kesuvah (to pay for damage to her
husband) and continue to live with her husband.
2. Question: Even if she does not sell the Tovas
Hana'ah of her Kesuvah to him, he can divorce her
freely, for he will collect what he pays her as
payment for the damage!
3. Answer: The case is, the damage is worth much less
than the Kesuvah - he will not divorce her freely
just because he will collect a small part as payment
for the damage.
4. Question: If her Kesuvah is more than the minimum
demanded by the Torah (200 for a virgin), she can
sell the Tovas Hana'ah of the excess to him!
5. Answer: The case is, her Kesuvah is the minimum;
i. He will not divorce her more freely, just
because he will collect (for example) 4 or 5
Zuz of the 25 Dinarim (100 Zuz) he pays as the
Kesuvah (if he married her as a widow - in
truth, this minimum for a widow is only
1. If her Kesuvah is more than the minimum, she can
lose the excess!
(r) Answer (Rava): The end of the Beraisa speaks of the
stipulation of the Kesuvah regarding sons (that if she
dies before her husband, when her husband dies, her sons
(from him) will inherit her dowry);
1. The Beraisa teaches: just as one who sells her
Kesuvah does not lose the stipulation regarding
sons, also one who sells her Kesuvah to her husband
does not lose this stipulation.
2. In both cases, the reason is that she was forced to
sell her Kesuvah to get money (she does not intend
to make her sons lose).
(a) Suggestion: Tana'im argue regarding the enactment of
1. (Beraisa #1): Leah brought a slave into her marriage
as Milug property. If she destroys a limb, the slave
goes free, but not if her husband destroys a limb.
(b) Rejection #1: No - both Tana'im hold of the enactment of
2. (Beraisa #2): A Milug slave does not go free whether
she or her husband destroys a limb.
i. We are assuming that both Tana'im agree that
owning the produce is not like owning the
property (and therefore the husband would not
be considered the owner even though he owns the
ii. Suggestion: The Tana of Beraisa #1 holds of the
enactment of Usha (so it is not considered her
slave, since she cannot sell it), the Tana of
Beraisa #2 does not hold of the enactment of
Usha (so it is considered her slave).
1. Beraisa #1 gives the law before the enactment of
Usha, Beraisa #2 gives the law after the enactment
(c) Rejection #2: Both Tana'im hold of the enactment of Usha,
and give the law after the enactment.
1. Question: Why does Beraisa #1 say that if she
destroys a limb, the slave goes free?
(d) Rejection #3: Neither Tana holds of the enactment of
Usha; they argue whether owning the produce is as owning
the property, just as the following Tana'im argue.
2. Answer: As Rava taught - liens on animals, grain and
slaves are uprooted by Hekdesh (of animals),
fermentation (of grain, when Pesach comes, for then
it becomes forbidden) and freedom. (The husband only
had a lien on the slave; destroying a limb sets the
slave free and uproots the lien.)
3. Suggestion: The Tana of Beraisa #1 holds as Rava,
the Tana of Beraisa #2 argues on Rava!
4. Rejection: Both Tana'im hold as Rava; the Tana of
Beraisa #2 holds that Chachamim strengthened a
husband's lien on his wife's property (so freedom
does not uproot his lien).