POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Kesuvos 101
1) THE RABBINICAL MARRIAGE OF A MINOR
(a) Question: What does Shmuel teach - we already learned
this in a Mishnah!
2) WOMEN THAT HAVE NO KESUVOS
1. (Mishnah): A girl that does Mi'un to her husband -
she is permitted to his relatives, and he is
permitted to hers; she remains permitted to Kehunah;
(b) Answer: Shmuel teaches that if he gives her a Get, she
must wait 3 months before remarrying - this was not
taught in a Mishnah.
2. If he gave her a Get - she is forbidden to his
relatives, and he is forbidden to hers; she is
disqualified from Kehunah.
(c) Suggestion: Rav and Shmuel argue as the following
1. R. Eliezer says, the actions of a minor are void:
her husband does not receive objects she finds, nor
her earnings, he may not annul her vows, he does not
inherit her, he may not become Tamei to engage in
her burial (if he is a Kohen);
(d) Suggestion: Rav holds as R. Eliezer, and Shmuel as R.
i. The rule is, she is not as his wife in any
respect, except that she must do Mi'un to leave
2. R. Yehoshua says, the actions of a minor take
effect: her husband receives objects she finds and
her earnings, he may annul her vows, he inherits
her, he may become Tamei to engage in her burial;
i. The rule is, she is as his wife in all
respects, except that she can do Mi'un.
(e) Rejection: Granted, Shmuel cannot hold as R. Eliezer -
but Rav can hold as R. Yehoshua.
1. R. Yehoshua only said that her husband receives from
her as if she is his wife - he did not say that she
receives anything from him!
(f) (Mishnah): She does not receive remnants (or depreciation
of) her property ...
(g) (Rav Kahana): This only applies to Melug property (i.e.
for which her husband took no responsibility) - but she
does receive from Tzon Barzel (property for which the
husband is responsible to compensate her if it decreases
in value; if it increases, he keeps the gain).
(h) Question (Rav Papa): On which case was this said?
1. Suggestion: If regarding a girl that does Mi'un -
but if the remnants are around, she receives them
whether Melug or Tzon Barzel!
(i) Answer: Rather, he deals with a Sheniyah - Chachamim
fined her with what she should have received from him;
they fined him with what he should have received from her
(Rashi; R. Chananel's text says, Chachamim fined him with
what is his; they fined her with what is hers).
i. If the remnants are not around, she receives
compensation, whether Melug or Tzon Barzel!
2. Suggestion: If regarding an Ailonis - if the
remnants are around, she receives them whether Melug
or Tzon Barzel!
i. If the remnants are not around, the law should
be the opposite - if for Melug property, which
is in her jurisdiction, she receives no
compensation - we cannot say, for Tzon Barzel,
which is in his jurisdiction, she receives
(j) (Rav Simi Bar Aba): From Rav Kahana, we learn that if she
brings clothing in as Tzon Barzel, it is considered
principle, and it may not be worn until it wears out!
(k) Objection: But Rav Nachman said, it may be worn!
(l) Resolution: Rav Nachman argues on Rav Kahana.
(a) (Mishnah): They have no Kesuvah ...
(b) (Shmuel): This only applies to the basic Kesuvah (100 or
200), but they do receive additions to the Kesuvah.
1. Support (Beraisa): When Chachamim said that a woman
has no Kesuvah, such as a girl that does Mi'un and
the accompanying cases, she does not receive 100 or
200, but she receives any addition to the Kesuvah.
2. When Chachamim said she leaves without a Kesuvah,
such as one that transgresses Torah law and the
accompanying cases, she does not receive any
addition, all the more so she doesn't get 100 or
3. A woman that is divorced because of ill repute
(adultery) receives the remains of her (Melug)
i. This supports Rav Huna, who said, a woman that
had adultery does not lose the remains of her
(c) A Chacham recited a Beraisa in front of Rav Nachman: If
she had adultery, she lost the remnants of her property.
***** PEREK HANOSEI *****
(d) (Rav Nachman): If she had adultery, did her property have
adultery?! Rather, the text should say, she does not lose
the remains of her property.
i. (Rabah Bar Bar Chanah): (The text need not be
changed) - the Stam Beraisa is as R. Menachem,
but Chachamim say, if she had adultery, she
does not lose the remains of her property.
(e) (Mishnah): If he initially married her (aware that she is
an Ailonis) ...
(f) (Rav Huna): An Ailonis is sometimes a wife, sometimes
not; a widow (that marries a Kohen Gadol) is always a
1. An Ailonis is sometimes a wife, sometimes not - if
he knew she was am Ailonis, she is married; if not,
she is not married;
(g) (Rav Yehudah): Both an Ailonis and a widow are sometimes
married, sometimes not.
2. A widow is always a wife, whether or not he knew she
is a widow, she has a Kesuvah.
1. If he recognized her, she has a Kesuvah; if not, she
has no Kesuvah.
(h) Question #1 (Beraisa): If he married her understanding
that she is a widow, and she is found to be a widow, she
has a Kesuvah.
1. We infer, if he married her without this knowledge,
she would have no Kesuvah!
(i) Answer: Rather, infer, if he married her understanding
that she is not a widow, and she is found to be a widow,
she has no Kesuvah.
(j) Question: But if he married her without any understanding
- she would have a Kesuvah?
1. Instead of teaching, if he married her understanding
that she is a widow, and she is found to be a widow,
she has a Kesuvah - rather teach, if he married her
without any understanding, she has a Kesuvah!
(k) Question #2 (Beraisa): If he married her knowing that she
is a widow, and she is found to be a widow, she has a
Kesuvah; if he married her without any understanding, she
has no Kesuvah.
2. All the more so, we would know that she has a
Kesuvah when he married her with this understanding.
1. This refutes Rav Huna.
(l) The Mishnah caused Rav Huna to err.
1. He understood, since it only distinguishes by an
Ailonis (whether he recognized her), and not by a
widow, a widow has a Kesuvah, even if he did not
2. This is wrong - when the Mishnah said, a widow has a
Kesuvah, it means, in the same case as an Ailonis
(when he recognized her when he married her).
3) ONE WHO AGREES TO FEED HIS WIFE'S DAUGHTER
(a) (Mishnah): A man married a woman and agreed to feed her
daughter for 5 years - he must feed her for 5 years. If
his wife married someone else (after he divorced her) and
made the same arrangement with the new husband, he must
still feed her.
1. He cannot say, I will only feed her as long as her
mother is married to me - rather, he sends food to
where her mother is.
(b) If the daughter got married, her husband feeds her, and
her stepfathers pay her the monetary equivalent.
2. Similarly, the 2 men cannot say, we will feed her
together - rather, one feeds her, and the other pays
her the monetary equivalent.
(c) If the stepfathers die, their own daughters are fed from
unsold property; the stepdaughter is fed even from
property sold (after they accepted to feed her), because
she is as a creditor.
(d) Clever men would write, 'I will feed your daughter the
whole time you are married to me.'
(e) (Gemara): Reuven tells Shimon, 'I owe you 100' - R.
Yochanan says, he must pay; Reish Lakish says, he need
(f) Question: What is the case?
1. Suggestion: If Reuven said, 'You should be witnesses
against me' - why would Reish Lakish say that he
need not pay?
(g) Answer: He did not say this - rather, he said, I owe you
100 in a document (and handed him an unsigned document).
2. Suggestion: If Reuven did not say, 'You should be
witnesses against me' - why would R. Yochanan say
that he must pay?
1. R. Yochanan says, the matter of a document is
potent, as if he said, you are witnesses against me.
(h) (Mishnah): A man married a woman and agreed to feed her
daughter for 5 years - he must feed her for 5 years.
2. Reish Lakish says, the matter of a document is not
1. Suggestion: The case is as above (he gave her an