(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 52



(a) An Almanah le'Kohen Gadol ...
1. ... receives a Kesuvah ...
2. ... but not Mezonos and medication.
(b) This is because - whereas she receives the former when she goes out (which is what we want to encourage), she receives the latter whilst they are still married (which will only encourage her to remain with her husband - which is what we want to avoid).

(c) Abaye says that if ...

1. ... an Almanah le'Kohen Gadol is captured - the Kohen Gadol is obligated to redeem her (because the T'nai Kesuvah that he will return her to her country of origin *applies*).
2. ... a Mamzeres u'Nesinah le'Yisrael is captured - the Yisrael is not obligated to redeem her (because the T'nai Kesuvah that he will take her back *does not*).
(d) When Rava says that whenever the captivity forbids her to her husband, he is obligated to redeem her, but whenever something else causes her to be forbidden, he is not - he means to argue with Abaye in the case of Almanah le'Kohen Gadol, who is forbidden, not because she was taken captive, but because of the Isur of Almanah le'Kohen Gadol. Consequently, the Kohen Gadol is not obligated to redeem her.
(a) 'ha'Madir es Ishto ve'Nishbis, Rebbi Eliezer Omer Podeh ve'Nosen Lah K'suvasah - Rebbi Yehoshua Omer, Nosen Lah K'suvasah ve'Eino Podeh'.

(b) When Rebbi Nasan asked Sumchus whether Rebbi Yehoshua was speaking when the Neder preceded the capture or vice-versa - he replied that he had not heard the answer to this question.

(c) He personally assumed however, that he was speaking when the Neder preceded the capture - because otherwise, his Neder was probably made purely to free himself from the obligation of redeeming his wife (which would render it invalid).

(a) We initially presume that Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua are speaking about the wife of a Kohen - because otherwise, seeing as the Neder forbids them to live together, the T'nai Kesuvah of returning her to him as his wife would be inapplicable, and how could Rebbi Eliezer say 'Podeh'?

(b) If they do indeed argue over the wife of a Kohen, Abaye will hold like Rebbi Eliezer, who obligates the Kohen to redeem his wife even though it is the Isur of Neder which forbids her to return to him and not the fact that she was captured; whereas Rava holds like Rebbi Yehoshua.

(c) We then try to establish their Machlokes when it was actually *the woman* who made the Neder, only her husband established it, in which case - the basis of their Machlokes would be whether *he* is to blame for upholding his wife's Neder (Rebbi Eliezer) or the fault lies with *her* (Rebbi Yehoshua) for making it in the first place.

(d) We reject this explanation however, on the basis of two Kashyos: one of them, if it is the woman who is at fault, why should she receive a Kesuvah altogether? The other one queries Rebbi Nasan's She'eilah to Sumchus (whether Rebbi Yehoshua was speaking when the Neder preceded the capture or vice-versa) - a She'eilah which would be meaningless if it is the woman who is at fault (since either way, he should not be obligated to redeem her)?

(a) So we establish the Machlokes (as we did originally) when it was the man who made the Neder. According to Abaye, both Tana'im agree that in the case of 'Almanah le'Kohen Gadol' her husband is obligated to redeem her, whereas in that of 'Mamzeres u'Nesinah le'Yisrael' he is not (as we explained earlier). 'Madir Eishes Kohen' - is equivalent to 'Almanah le'Kohen Gadol', in which case they will both agree that he is obligated to redeem her.

(b) In fact, they argue over the case of 'Madir Eishes Yisrael'. The basis of their Machlokes will then be - whether we go after their initial relationship (seeing as, at the time when he wrote the Kesuvah, she was permitted to him, in which case the T'nai Kesuvah *applies* [Rebbi Eliezer]), or after the time when she is captured (when it does *not* [Rebbi Yehoshua]).

(c) According to Rava, they both agree that, in the case of 'Almanah le'Kohen Gadol', he is obligated to redeem her, whereas in that of 'Mamzeres u'Nesinah le'Yisrael' he is not (as we explained earlier) - they argue in the case of 'Madir Eishes Kohen' or ... Eishes Yisrael'.

(d) The basis of their Machlokes is - whether we go after their initial relationship or after the time when she is captured (in the same way as we explained by 'Madir Eishes Yisrael' according to Abaye).

(a) The Beraisa states that if a woman was captured before her husband died, the heirs are obligated to redeem her - provided her husband knew about her capture before his death.

(b) When Levi wanted to follow the ruling of this Beraisa - Rav quoted his uncle (Rebbi Chiya) who maintained that we do not rule like that. The Halachah is in fact, like the Tana of another Beraisa, who maintains that the heirs are never obligated to redeem their mother after their father's death, because the undertaking to take her back as his wife (which he writes in the T'nai Kesuvah, no longer applies).




(a) According to the Tana Kama, if a woman is captured and the captives demand as much as ten times her going price, he is nevertheless obligated to redeem her once, but not a second time - because Chazal only obligated him to redeem her once (see Tosfos DH 'Ratzah').

(b) According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - it is forbidden to redeem captives for anything above the regular price, to discourage Nochrim from exploiting the sense of unity and Chesed to exhort exorbitant sums money from them.

(c) When Rebbi Shimon ben Gamliel in another Beraisa, says that if the ransom demanded by the captors exceeds the Kesuvah, he is Patur from redeeming her - he is merely adding an additional leniency, and saying that even if that sum is less than her going price, it is still forbidden to redeem her.

(d) The Tana Kama of that Beraisa says - that up to ten times the amount of her Kesuvah, he is obligated to redeem her, but for a higher price than that, the choice is his.

1. The Tana of yet another Beraisa classifies medication for an illness as 'Mezonos' with regard to claiming it from the orphans - since both enable one to live.
2. Rebbi Shimon ben Gamliel classifies specifically an ongoing Refu'ah (with no specific time limit) as 'Mezonos' - because Mezonos too, is ongoing.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan considers blood-letting in Eretz Yisrael (where it was customary to practice it regularly) - like an ongoing Refu'ah.

(c) Concerning his stepmother who needed regular, daily Refu'ah - Rebbi Yochanan instructed the Beis-Din to issue a ruling, requiring his father to prescribe the necessary medicines daily.

(d) Even though he initially ruled that the Pasuk "u'mi'B'sarcha al Tis'alem" overrode the concept of acting like a lawyer (helping the Beis-Din to arrive at their decisions), he later expressed remorse at what he did - because of the fact that he was an important personality, from whom people would learn to act like lawyers, even when it was *not* a matter of "u'mi'B'sarcha al Tis'alem".

(a) The content of the Takanah of ...
1. ... 'K'suvas B'nin Dichrin' is - that should their father survive their mother, then, when he dies, the children of each wife inherit their mother's Kesuvah (over and above the remainder of their father's estate, which they share equally.
2. ... 'B'nan Nukvan de'Yehavi Lechi Mina'i' is - that should he have daughters from his wife, then they will continue to live in his house and to be fed from his property after his death.
3. ... 'At Tehavi Yasvi be'Veisi' is - that his wife, like his daughters, will continue to live in his house after his death, and to be fed from his property for the duration of her widowhood.
(b) The ruling that pertains to all three of them is - that they apply even if they have not been inserted into the Kesuvah.

(c) Regarding the latter Takanah, the men of Yerushalayim would insert the wording 'Kol Yemei Meigar Armelusech'. The wording of the Anshei Yehudah was - 'ad she'Yirtzu ha'Yorshin Liten Lach K'suvasech', giving them the option of paying their mother her Kesuvah and becoming exempt from feeding her.

(d) The men of Galil inserted - the same wording as that of the men of the Yerushalayim.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai gave as a reason for the Takanah of 'K'suvas B'nin Dichrin' - to encourage a man to bequeath money to his daughters no less than to his sons.

(b) The problem with this is - that the Torah specifically gives the sons precedence in matters of inheritance. So how can the Chachamim contravene the Torah's wishes?

(c) We resolve this problem - with a Pasuk in Yirmiyah, where he instructed the people to marry, have children and find wives for their sons *and husbands for their daughters* (indicating that the Torah expects a man to encourage his daughter to find a suitable husband by giving her a respectable dowry (which is applicable after his death no less than during his lifetime).

(d) This Pasuk cannot be understood literally - because it is the way of the man to look for a wife (as the Gemara explains in Kidushin), and not the reverse.

(a) A daughter's dowry should be - up to one tenth of her father's property (which is the amount that each daughter receives should her father no longer be alive). Note, that each daughter receives a tenth of the money that remains, not one tenth of the initial estate.

(b) Having just attributed the K'suvas B'nin Dichrin to the need to enable a father to find a suitable husband for his daughter, Chazal did not restrict the Takanah to the dowry that he provides, but included the part of the Kesuvah that the husband provides - because otherwise, human nature being what it is, the father would not comply (i.e. he would refuse to give his daughter a dowry (on the grounds that 'If he doesn't give, why should I'?).

(c) It nevertheless applies even to a Kesuvah that *does not contain a dowry* - because of the principle 'Lo P'lug' (Chazal's practice of making their decrees uniform), seeing as, in most cases, there *is* one.

(d) Only daughter (of their mother) do not inherit K'suvas B'nin Dichrin, when her husband has ...

1. ... sons from another wife (a fact that we know from the phrase *B'nin Dichrin* [meaning 'sons']) because Chazal called this an inheritance, and daughters do not inherit where there are sons.
2. ... only daughters from another wife - because of 'Lo P'lug' (otherwise it would be a case of most daughters not inheriting a K'suvas B'nin Dichrin, and some inheriting).
(a) The sons' claim (to K'suvas B'nin Dichrin) is confined to ...
1. ... Karka - because Chazal gave it the Din of a Kesuvah (which cannot be claimed from the Metaltelin of the orphans).
2. ... B'nei Chorin (but not Meshubadim) - because, as we see in the Mishnah, it is also considered an inheritance (which cannot be claimed from Meshubadim, although Kesuvah can - according to some opinions).
(b) The Din of K'suvas B'nin Dichrin only applies, if over and above the two (or more) sets of K'suvos belonging to the various wives, there is a minimum of one Dinar to distribute among all the children - because Chazal did not wish to completely uproot the Din of Yerushah d'Oraysa (where all of the father's sons inherit equally), by giving preference to Yerushah de'Rabbanan (where the sons of each mother inherit differently).
Next daf


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