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


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Kesuvos 43



(a) Rav Avina asked Rav Sheishes whether a girl whose father died and who is fed by her brothers, must give them what she produces, in the same way as she has to give her father whilst he is alive. If her brothers instructed her to feed herself from the produce of her hands - she would not be obligated to comply, because of the condition that her father inserted in her mother's Kesuvah, that in the event of his death, their daughters would be fed from his property.

(b) The reason to say that what the girl produces should not go to the brothers is - that it is not from *their* property that she is fed but from *his* (as a result of a condition of Beis-Din).

(c) Rav Sheishes answered the She'eilah with a Mishnah in 'Almanah Nizo'nes'. The Tana there says - that the produce of a widow who is fed by the heirs belongs to them.

(d) Rav Avina rejects Rav Sheishes' proof from there that the same would apply to a daughter - on the grounds that it is the husband who spells out the condition, and, although a man does not generally want his wife to be pampered, he does want his daughter to.

(a) When a man dies leaving behind ...
1. ... sons and a widow, and Nechasim Mu'atim (insufficient property to provide for both) - the daughter is fed from the property, and the sons must go begging if need be (because the shame of a woman is greater than that of a man).
2. ... a widow and a daughter, and Nechasim Mu'atim - then it is the widow who is fed, and the daughter who has to go begging.
(b) True, Rav Avina just said that, when it is a matter of priority, a man prefers his daughter to live comfortably rather than his widow. But when it comes to something degrading (such as begging) - he would rather that his daughter was degraded than his wife.

(c) Rav Yosef tries to disprove Rav Sheishes from the previous Mishnah, which stated that what a girl produces or finds goes to her brothers after her father dies, even though she has not yet claimed it From this, Rav Yosef infers - that what she produces after her father's death belongs to herself. On the assumption that the Tana is speaking when she *is being fed by them*, this presents Rav Sheishes with a Kashya.

(d) We refute Rav Yosef's proof - by establishing the Mishnah when she *is not fed by the brothers*.

(a) A man is permitted to say 'Work for me but I will not feed you' - to his Eved Cena'ani, but not to his Jewish servant (since the Torah writes in connection with him "Imach" (and the brothers may certainly not say it to their sister).

(b) The problem that this creates with our Mishnah, which, to answer Rav Yosef's Kashya on Rav Sheishes, we just established when the daughter is not being fed by her brothers is - what is then the Chidush (seeing as the brothers cannot say to her 'Work for us but we will not feed you' (any more than they can to an Eved Ivri)?

(c) The Chidush cannot be the statement itself (that what she produced during her father's lifetime belongs to her brothers in the event of his death) - because, seeing as it is pure Mamon (and not K'nas), that too, is obvious.

(a) To answer Rav Yosef's Kashya, we establish our Mishnah by Ha'adafah - meaning what she produces over and above what she needs for her livelihood.

(b) The Chidush now lies in the inference (that what she produces after her father's death belongs to herself) - that they cannot claim the Ha'adafah (leaving her with sufficient to eat). We might otherwise have thought that the brothers inherit their father's rights in their sister.

(c) The problem that Rava has with this answer - is precisely the fact that it is too straightforward! It is not feasible that Rav Yosef would not have overlooked such an obvious answer.

(a) So Rava relearns Rav Yosef's Kashya on Rav Sheishes. The problem that Rav Yosef had with our Mishnah, is with the statement 'Ma'aseh Yadehah *u'Metzi'asah*, af-al-pi she'Lo Gavsah ... '. Since when does a person need to claim something that they find?

(b) Rav Yosef interprets the Tana's words to mean - that what she produces after her father's death, like what she finds then, belongs to her (proving Rav Sheishes wrong).

(c) It is obvious that what a girl finds after her father's death does not belong to her brothers - because even during her father's lifetime it is only to avoid strife (with her father) that they instituted that it belongs to him, and even then, only if she is eating at his table (seeing as min ha'Torah, he is not obligated to feed her).

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav also learns like Rav Yosef, though, according to Rav Kahana, his source is the Pasuk "ve'Hisnachaltem *Osam li'V'neichem* Achareichem" (written in connection with Avadim Cena'anim) - from which he extrapolates "Osam li'V'neichem" 've'Lo Benoseichem Achareichem'.

(b) Rabah disagrees with Rav Yosef and with Rav. He interprets the Pasuk "ve'Hisnachaltem *Osam ... * " - with regard to K'nas, Pituy and damages, but not with regard to what their sister produces.

(c) The reason that the brothers inherit these, but not the produce of her hands is - because the latter is common and because correspondingly, they are losing the sustenance that they have to pay her.




(a) Rabah included 'Chavalos' in his list of things that her brothers cannot claim. But surely - 'Chavalos' are considered personal injury, which does not go to her father in the first place?

(b) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina establishes Rabah when the assailant wounded her in the face - making her ugly and causing her value to depreciate. This is also a direct loss to her father, who will obtain less should he sell her, explaining why he is entitled to *this* Chavalah.

(c) When Rav Masna quoted Rav like Rav Yehudah did on the previous Amud, Rav Avimi bar Papi commented that Shakud said it. 'Shakud' is a nickname of Shmuel, who was 'diligent' to issue statements regarding money matters that were Halachically correct, which is why the Halachah is like him in areas of Mamon (see also the Aruch, quoted by the Mesores ha'Shas).

8) Neherda'i and Rav Ashi dispute whether the Halachah is like Rav Sheishes or like Rav. The final conclusion is like Rav - that the produce of the hands of a girl who is fed by the brothers belongs to herself (like the ruling of Rav Ashi).


(a) The Tana talks about a father who arranged the betrothal of his daughter twice: initially, and again after her divorce. Finally, her second 'husband' died, leaving her still a Na'arah or a Ketanah. This Tana holds that a betrothed girl is eligible to receive a Kesubah.

(b) It is the father who receives both Kesuvos.

(c) If she was already married to her second husband before he died, both Kesuvos belong to the girl herself - because we go after the time that she claims her Kesuvah, not after the time that the Kesuvah was written.

(d) Rebbi Yehudah says - that the first Kesuvah goes to her father.

(a) The Tana presents the case of a girl who was divorced once and widowed once, and not when she was widowed twice - because then she would be called a 'Katlanis' (a woman who causes her husbands to die, who is forbidden to marry a third time), and where it can be avoided, the Tana prefers to avoid speaking about cases of punishments.

(b) This is a S'tam Mishnah like Rebbi - who says in Yevamos that a woman has a Chazakah already after two times (and not after three, like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel).

(c) Rabah and Rav Yosef initially explain Rebbi Yehudah, who says in our Mishnah that it is the girl's father who receives the first Kesuvah - because the Chasan became obligated to pay her a Kesuvah from the time of betrothal, and it is from then on that her father already acquired the rights over it.

(d) Nevertheless, he does not receive the second Kesuvah, too - because from the moment that she married the first husband, his rights over her dissolved.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa concedes - that where the father arranged his daughter's betrothal, but she married after she became a Bogeres, he does not receive the Kesuvah.

(b) If, as Rabah and Rav Yosef maintain, the father already receives the rights over the Kesuvah from the time of the betrothal (according to Rebbi Yehudah), why should he not argue with the Rabbanan in this case too?

(c) The real criterion according to them, is - the time that the Kesuvah is written.

(d) The Kesuvah is written - at the time of the marriage.

(a) When we ask from when the Kesuvah is claimed - we mean from which point on is the father permitted to claim the Kesuvah from Meshubadim (people who bought fields from her husband any time after that).

(b) According to Rav Huna, he may claim the Manah (of a widow) and Masayim (of a Besulah) from the Eirusin - because it is a T'nai Kesuvah (giving it the power of a documented debt), and the Tosefes, from the time of writing - since it is voluntary (resembling any other oral debt).

(c) Rav Asi says that he may only claim both from the time of writing - because the girl foregoes the earlier right to claim (once the Sh'tar is written at the time of marriage).

(a) Rav Huna speaks about a woman who produces two Kesuvos, one of two hundred Zuz, the other, of three - the former one is dated first.

(b) Rav Huna rules - that if the woman wants, she can claim from the buyers with the first Kesuvah from the earlier date; whereas if she prefers, she can claim with the second Kesuvah, but from the later date.

(c) We counter the Kashya that, according to Rav Huna's ruling in the previous question, she ought to be able to claim two hundred from the first date and one hundred from the second date - by retorting that, in that case, why can she not claim five hundred Zuz, two hundred from the first date, and three hundred, from the second?

(d) In fact, she cannot claim ...

1. ... the full five hundred in Rav Huna's second ruling - because by not specifying that he was adding the second Kesuvah to the first, her husband indicated that he was only giving her the option of using whichever Kesuvah she preferred.
2. ... the full three hundred in his first ruling - for the same reason: because, by not specifying that he was adding the second Kesuvah to the first - he indicated that she had the choice of either claiming from the first Kesuvah from *his* property exclusively, or from the second Kesuvah from Meshubadim.
Next daf


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