(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


Prepared by P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Kesuvos 94


(a) Answer #1 (Shmuel): The case is, one of the husband's fields was not really his; they argue, if collection of a later creditor before an earlier creditor is a valid collection.
1. The first Tana holds, the collection is invalid (so there is no harm to let the 4th woman collect without an oath); Ben Nanas holds, the collection stands.
(b) Answer #2 (Rav Nachman): (He also learns, the case is, one of the husband's fields was not really his.) All agree, collection of a later creditor before an earlier creditor is void. They argue, whether we are concerned that the 4th woman will decrease the value of the field.
1. The first Tana holds, we are not concerned; Ben Nanas holds, we are concerned.
(c) Answer #3 (Abaye): They argue on the law of Abaye Kashisha.
1. (Abaye Kashisha): The orphans referred to (that one must swear to collect from them) are adults - all the more so, minors.
2. The first Tana does not hold as Abaye Kashisha; Ben Nanas holds as Abaye Kashisha.
(d) (Rav Huna): 2 brothers or partners that have a case with someone, and one of them took him to Beis Din and received a verdict - the other brother/partner cannot say, I was not party to that ruling - rather, his partner acted on his behalf.
1. (Rav Nachman): We learn this from our Mishnah! The 1st woman swears to the 2nd, and the 2nd to the 3rd, but the 1st need not swear to the 3rd.
i. Suggestion: This is because when the 2nd made the 1st swear, she acted on behalf of the 3rd woman.
2. Rejection: No - it is because an oath to 1 is as an oath to 100.
i. In Rav Huna's case, the partner could say, I would have argued better.
ii. This only applies if the partner was not in the city - if he was in the city, he should have come to Beis Din. (By not coming, he accepts whatever verdict his partner receives.)
(a) 2 documents (of sale for the same property) have the same date.
(b) (Rav): The recipients split the property.
(c) (Shmuel): Shuda (Rashi - the judges decide who they think he wanted to give the property to; Tosfos - they give the property to whichever they want).
1. Suggestion: Rav is as R. Meir, who says that witnesses that sign on a document are the essential ones; Shmuel is as R. Elazar, who says that witnesses that see the document given to the recipient are the essential witnesses.

2. Rejection: No, all hold as R. Elazar.
i. Rav holds that it is better to divide the property; Shmuel says, Shuda is better.
3. Objection: We cannot say that Rav holds as R. Elazar!
i. (Rav Yehudah citing Rav): The law is as R. Elazar in Gitin.
ii. (Shmuel): The law is as R. Elazar even by monetary documents.
iii. We may infer that Rav does not hold as R. Elazar by monetary documents.
4. Rather, as originally suggested, Rav holds as R. Meir, and Shmuel as R. Elazar.
(d) Question (Beraisa): 2 documents with the same date - they divide the property - this refutes Shmuel!
(e) Answer #1: The Beraisa is as R. Meir; Shmuel holds as R. Elazar.
(f) Objection: The Beraisa cannot be R. Meir - the end of the Beraisa says, if he wrote to one (first) and handed over to the other, the one to whom he handed over first acquires.
1. If it is R. Meir - why does he acquire - R. Meir says, the witnesses that sign the document are the essential ones!
(g) Answer #2: (The Beraisa is R. Elazar) - Tana'im argue which is better, division or Shuda.
1. (Beraisa): Chachamim say, they divide the property; here (in Bavel) they said the entrusted party does as he wants.
(h) Rami Bar Chama's mother wrote her property to him in the morning; in the afternoon, she wrote it to Mar Ukva Bar Chama. Rami Bar Chama went to Rav Sheshes, who ruled that Rami Bar Chama receives the property; Mar Ukva Bar Chama went to Rav Nachman, and he ruled in his favor.
1. Rav Sheshes: Why did you act thusly?
2. Rav Nachman: Why did you act as you did?
3. Rav Sheshes: Because his document was written first.
4. Rav Nachman: Only in Yerushalayim do we care which document was written earlier in the day!
5. Rav Sheshes: Why did you rule as you did?
6. Rav Nachman: The law is Shuda, I decided as I felt.
7. Rav Sheshes: My ruling may also be considered Shuda!
8. Rav Nachman: No - firstly, I am ordained to judge by the Exilarch and the Yeshivah, and you are not.
i. Secondly, your ruling was not intended to be Shuda.
(a) 2 documents came before Rav Yosef. One was dated Nisan 5; the other only said Nisan.
1. Rav Yosef gave the property to the bearer of the document dated Nisan 5.
2. The other man: I should lose?
3. Rav Yosef: You have the bottom hand - perhaps yours was given on Nisan 29.
4. The other man: Please write a document saying that I may take property sold from Iyar and onwards.
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,