(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 63



(a) Rachel, the daughter of Kalba Savu'a, noted that Rebbi Akiva - was humble and decent (referring to good Midos and good in interpersonal relations - Agados Maharsha), making him worthy of marrying her (even though she was of a higher status than him).

(b) Kalba Savua reacted by disowning her.

(c) After they were married, Rachel sent him to Yeshivah for twelve years. When he reached his house however, he overheard his wife reply to an old man who asked her how long she would continue to live as a straw-widow, that if only he would agree, she would send him away for another twelve years. So he turned round and went back for another twelve years.

(d) He returned ...

  1. ... after the first period - with twelve thousand disciples.
  2. ... after the second period - with twenty-four thousand.
(a) When Rebbi Akiva's neighbors advised his wife to borrow nice clothes with which to greet her husband upon his return - she replied with the Pasuk in Mishlei "Yodei'a Tzadik Nefesh Behemto" (meaning that Rebbi Akiva would recognize and acknowledge her the way she was).

(b) When she fell to the ground and kissed his feet, and his Shamash tried to push her away - Rebbi Akiva instructed him to leave her alone, because his Torah and their Torah was thanks to her.

(c) When Kalba Savu'a heard that a great sage had arrived in town - without knowing his identity, he went to see him, to nullify his Neder (disowning his daughter).

(d) When Kalba Savu'a explained that, had he known that his son-in-law would learn even one Perek or one Halachah, he would not have made such a vow, Rebbi Akiva nullified it. After he had revealed his identity, his father-in-law kissed his feet and wrote him half his property.

(a) Rebbi Akiva's daughter did the same to ben Azai as her mother had done to Rebbi Akiva - she sent him to Yeshivah to learn for twelve years, conforming with the folk-saying 'Like mother, like daughter'.

(b) Rava sent his son Rav Yosef to learn in the Yeshivah of his Rebbe Rav Yosef, for six years. When he returned after three years on Erev Yom Kipur, to see how his family were getting on - Rava showed his displeasure by going out to meet him brandishing a weapon.

(c) According to one opinion, Rava remarked that his son's immoral thoughts were evident (see Agados Maharsha). According to others - he commented that the memory of his partner brought him back.

(d) The unfortunate result of their squabble was - that neither of them ate Se'udah ha'Mafsekes (before the advent of Yom Kipur).

(a) According to the Tana Kama, the husband of a Moredes (a woman who 'rebels' -refuses to practice her marital duties), may deduct seven Dinrim weekly from his wife's Kesuvah - Rebbi Yehudah says seven Tarpe'ikin (which will be explained later).

(b) According to the Tana Kama, he may continue to deduct that amount week by week, up to the total Kesuvah. If she then remains unrepentant, he divorces her without a Kesuvah.

(c) According to Rebbi Yossi - even after the total sum of the Kesuvah has been deducted, he may continue to deduct the specified weekly sum from property that she inherited from her father.

(d) If a husband 'rebels', then he becomes obligated to add three Dinrim weekly on to his wife's Kesuvah, according to the Tana Kama - and according to Rebbi Yehudah, three Tarpe'ikin.

(a) Rav Huna explains that the term 'rebels' in our Mishnah refers to Tashmish. According to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina - it refers to work.

(b) According to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, when the Seifa penalizes a husband who 'rebels' against his wife - the Tana is referring to a case where the man declares that he refuses to feed or sustain his wife (which he is obligated to do in exchange for the work of her hands).

(c) Even though Rav rules that a man who says 'Eini Zan ve'Eini Mefarnes' must divorce his wife and pay her Kesuvah - there is an interim period during which Beis-Din try to prevail upon him to change his mind; and it is during this period that he is penalized.

(a) The Beraisa includes in the Din of a Moredes, a betrothed woman (as well as a married one), a Nidah, a sick woman and a Shomeres Yavam. A betrothed woman would become a Moredes - if she refused to get married.

(b) This Beraisa creates a problem with Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina's explanation - inasmuch as it includes a sick woman in the list of 'rebels', whereas surely, a sick woman is incapable of working anyway.

(c) Nidah does not create the same problem with Rav Huna's explanation - because even though a Nidah is unfit to have Tashmish anyway, this is not because she is forbidden; by forbidding her, he makes it worse, because of the principle 'Eino Domeh Mi she'Yesh Lo Pas be'Salo le'Mi she'Ein Lo Pas be'Salo' (as we saw above on the previous Daf). Note: we cannot apply this S'vara by Melachah, because, unlike a Nidah, her date of recovery is unknown (Ritva).

(d) In order to resolve the Kashya on Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina - we establish their Machlokes is whether one who refuses to do work is a Moredes, too. Both agree that a woman who refuses Tashmish is a Moredes, and that is the case of the Beraisa.




(a) According to the Tana Kama of Rebbi Yossi, a Moredes loses a fixed weekly sum up to the amount that comprises her Kesuvah. Raboseinu in the Beraisa that we quoted on Amud a. changed this Din. According to them - they would announce her rebellion on four consecutive Shabbasos, whilst warning her that unless she relented, she would lose her entire Kesuvah at the end of the four-week period, even if her Kesuvah consisted of a hundred Manah.

(b) Rami bar Chama explains that the announcement that she was a Moredes was confined to the Shuls and the Batei-K'nesiyos. Rava proves this from the Lashon of the Beraisa itself - which gives the date of the announcements as the four Shabbasos, because that is when everyone gathered there.

(c) Beis-Din would send her a warning twice each week - once before the announcement and once after it.

(a) When Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda ruled like Raboseinu - Rava claimed that his ruling was a mistake.

(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak retorted - that it was not a mistake at all, and that it was he who had taught Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda this ruling in the name of none other than Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina.

(c) Rava disagrees however, because he holds like Rav Sheishes - who said that one delays giving a Moredes a Get, but continues deducting from her K'suvah at a steady pace (like the Din in our Mishnah).

(d) Rav Huna bar Yehudah quotes Rav Sheishes a saying - that one does not delay (but divorces a Moredes at once, after only a short warning, like Raboseinu).

(a) Ameimar describes a Moredes as a woman who says that she really wants her husband, but that she intends to hurt him. Should she claim that she detests him, according to him - her husband has the right to divorce her immediately, without paying her Kesuvah.

(b) According to Mar Zutra - either way, she is a Moredes, and we delay giving her a Get, trying first to prevail upon her to relent.

(c) Mar Zutra followed his ruling by treating a woman who claimed that she detested her husband, like a Moredes. The result of his actions was - that that woman later bore her husband a son who became Rebbi Chanina mi'Sura.

(d) That is not considered a proof that Mar Zutra is right - because that was a unique occurrence (Siya'ata di'Shemaya), and not something that one can normally rely on.

(a) When Rav Z'vid's daughter-in-law rebelled, she had in her possession a coat that she had brought into the marriage (and inserted into the Kesuvah - Nechsei Tzon Barzel). Ameimar, Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi ruled - that a Moredes loses even clothes that are still in existence.

(b) Rav Gamda accused them of flattering Rav Z'vid - on the grounds of Rav Kahana, who stated that Rava was not sure about that.

(c) According to the second Lashon, where they ruled that she should not lose the clothes that were still in existence - he accused them of taking advantage of Rav Z'vid, who, they knew, would not (on account of his greatness) raise a protest.

(d) The final ruling regarding clothes that are still in existence is - that whatever the Moredes seizes she may retain, but she cannot claim clothes that are in her husband's possession.

Next daf


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