ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 69
KESUVOS 69 (4 Sivan) - This Daf is dedicated by Rabbi Kornfeld's father, Mr.
David Kornfeld, to the memory of the members of his family who perished at
the hands of the Rotzchim in the Holocaust and whose Yahrzeit is observed
today: his mother (Mirel bas Yakov Mordechai), brothers (Shraga Feivel,
Aryeh Leib and Yisachar Dov, sons of Mordecai), grandfather (Yakov Mordechai
ben Rav David Spira) and aunt (Charne bas Yakov Mordechai, wife of Moshe
(a) Rav sent Rebbi a letter into which he inserted the She'eilah what the
Din will be if the brothers mortgaged their property for their sisters
Mezonos or Parnasah. When Rebbi Chiya asked Rebbi whether Rav was referring
to the property that they sold or that they designated as collateral - he
replied that there was no difference between them, and that, either way,
they could claim for Parnasah but not for Mezonos (as we just learned
(b) Rav deliberately declined to specify that his She'eilah was in a case
when they ...
1. ... sold it - because then, if Rebbi were to reply in the negative, he
would not know what the Din would be in a case when they designated it as
collateral (where perhaps they could claim).
(c) Rebbi Yochanan ruled that the daughters may claim neither Mezonos nor
Parnasah from Meshubadim. We ask - whether Rebbi Yochanan was not aware of
Rebbi's opinion in this matter, and if he would have been, he would have
retracted, or whether he knew that Rebbi disagreed with him regarding
Parnasah, and he abided by his opinion in spite of it.
2. ... designated it as collateral - because then, were he to reply in the
affirmative, he would not know what the Din would be in a case where they
sold it (where perhaps they would not be permitted to claim).
(a) Rebbi Yochanan said in Gitin that, if a daughter (who had a brother and
an unmarried sister) married and received Isur Nechasim after her father's
death, and then her brother died, her sister shares the remainder of the
property with her and foregoes Isur Nechasim.
According to Rebbi Chanina - in view of the fact that Chazal said that the
daughters can even take *from Meshubadim* (like Rebbi said earlier), how can
Rebbi Yochanan say that the daughter is willing to forego *property that is
(b) We attempt to resolve our query in Rebbi Yochanan from here - because if
Rebbi Yochanan had not been aware of Rebbi's opinion, he should have
retorted 'Who said that'?
(c) We go on to reject this proof however. Assuming that Rebbi Yochanan did
indeed retract and accept Rebbi's ruling when he heard it, we reconcile that
with his ruling there - on the grounds that, since the second daughter
suddenly inherits half her father's property, she is willing to forego
whatever extra she might obtain in the form of the Isur Nechasim.
(d) This does not mean that whenever one of the daughters finds a precious
object, she is willing to forego Isur Nechasim, as Rav Yeimar suggested -
because what she finds has nothing to do with Isur Nechasim, whereas in the
case in Gitin, the Isur Nechasim is an intrinsic part of the very property
that she is inheriting.
(a) According to Ameimar, a daughter has the Din of an heir - which means
that the brothers neither have the right to give her money nor to restrict
her to one particular field (i.e. she is entitled to claim a section from
each field on her father's estate).
(b) According to Rav Ashi - she has the Din of a creditor (whom one is
permitted to pay with money, and to designate one particular field).
(c) Minyumi Brei de'Rav Nechumi related - that when a woman once came before
Ameimar to claim Isur Nechasim, the brothers were overheard saying that if
they had money, they would give her money, and it was evident from Ameimar's
reaction, that he would have permitted them to do so (a clear indication
that he had retracted and now held like Rav Ashi).
(a) We ask whose creditor she is, her father's - in which case she will be
entitled to receive only Ziburis (inferior quality fields) with a Shevu'ah,
or her brothers' - in which case she will be entitled to Beinonis without a
Shevu'ah (like a regular creditor who claims from his debtors).
(b) We resolve this She'eilah from Ravina, who claimed Beinonis without a
Shevu'ah from Mar Brei de'Rav Ashi for Parnasah for his sister, after Rav
Ashi's death, a proof that he considers a woman her brothers' creditor. He
make her take Ziburis with a Shevu'ah from the son of Rav Sama, Mar's
brother, because Rav Sama had died during his father's lifetime, in which
case, his son was in fact, the son of her creditor, from whom she could only
claim Ziburis with a Shevu'ah.
(c) Rav Nechemyah Brei de'Rav Yosef instructed Rabah Bar Rav Huna to claim
Isur Nechasim even from the base of the mill - on the grounds that it is
(d) Rav Kahana used to claim Isur Nechasim even from 'Amla de'Beisa' - the
rent owing for houses (see Tosfos).
(a) Rav Huna was angry with Rav Anan when he sent him a message urging him
to claim Isur Nechasim - because he called him 'Huna Chavrin'.
(b) Rav Huna sent Rav Sheishes to him with two She'eilos. Rav Sheishes feel
compelled to appease him - because Rav Huna referred to him as 'Anan Anan'.
Nor was he able to decline, because Rav Huna had issued a Shamta on him if
he failed to go.
(c) The first She'eilah was whether one claims Isur Nechasim from Karka or
Metaltelin; the second, 'Ma'an Yasiv Bei Mirzach be'Reisha'. Rav Anan
reacted to the second She'eilah - by telling Rav Sheishes that he did now
know what Bei Mirzach meant.
(d) After Rav Anan had related to Rav Sheishes how he had addressed Rav
Huna - he replied that someone who did not even know the meaning of Bei
Mirzach should not refer to Rav Huna as 'Huna Chavrin'.
(a) 'Bei Mirzach' means - the house of an Aveil.
(b) In a Beis Aveil - it is the Aveil who sits at the head.
1. ... Rebbi Avahu learns this from the Pasuk "Evchar Darkam ... Ka'asher
Aveilim Yenachem" (despite the fact that the Pasuk writes "Yenachem" -
implying the comforters) - because, if the word was meant to be read
"Yenachem", then the Pasuk should have placed an 'Alef' after the 'Nun'. Now
that there is no 'Alef', it is considered as if it had written "Yinachem"
(the one who is being comforted - the Aveil).
(d) Rava rules that Mezonos, Kesuvah and Parnasah - can be claimed from
Karka but not from Metaltelin.
2. ... Mar Zutra learns it from the Pasuk "ve'Sar Mirzach Seruchim" - which
he explains 'Mar ve'Zach' (the acronym of "Mirzach" - meaning 'the one who
is bitter and removed') Na'aseh Sar li'Seruchim' ('became the head of the
great ones [even those who are greater than him] who came to visit him'.
(a) If a man appoints a trustee to purchase a field for his daughter or her
trousseau when she gets married, and the daughter maintains that she trusts
her husband and that the money should be transferred to him, Rebbi Meir in
our Mishnah holds that the trustee should do what he was instructed to do.
Rebbi Yossi says - that considering that, if the trustee had already bought
the field and she were to sell it, the sale would be valid, why should we
not listen to her and transfer the money to her husband?
(b) In a Beraisa, Rebbi Meir repeats what he said in the Mishnah, but with
regard to an Arusah - a Nesu'ah, he maintains, has the right to rescind her
(c) Rebbi Yossi differentiates between a Gedolah and a Ketanah - the former,
he says, has the right to rescind her father's appointment, even if she is
only an Arusah, whereas the latter, even a Nesu'ah, does not.
(a) We suggest that Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yossi argue over a Ketanah min
ha'Nisu'in - whom Rebbi Meir authorizes to rescind her father's appointment,
but Rebbi Yossi does not.
Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules like Rebbi Yossi - Rava Amar Rav Nachman, like
(b) The author of the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Bameh Devarim Amurim,
bi'Gedolah, Aval bi'Ketanah, Ein Ma'aseh Ketanah K'lum' cannot be Rebbi
Yossi - because that is already evident from the Reisha, where he permits
her to rescind her father's instructions only because she could sell the
field, automatically precluding a Ketanah, whose sale is invalid.
(c) In order to establish it like Rebbi Meir, we add a whole section to the
Mishnah (which also matches his opinion in the Beraisa) confining his
statement there to an Arusah, but a Nesu'ah is permitted to switch the money
from the trustee to her husband. This enables us to establish the Seifa '
... Aval bi'Ketanah, Ein Ma'aseh Ketanah K'lum', like Rebbi Meir, dismissing
the suggestion that Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yossi argue over a Ketanah min
ha'Nisu'in - because we now see that Rebbi Meir concedes this point to Rebbi
(d) Consequently - they must be arguing over a Gedolah min ha'Eirusin, who
has the right to rescind her father's instructions, according to Rebbi
Yossi, but not according to Rebbi Meir.
(a) Ilfa suspended himself from the mast of a ship because, after poverty
forced him to leave Yeshivah and go into business, Rebbi Yochanan remained
and became Rosh Yeshivah. He did what he did, in order to prove that he was
equally capable of the appointment.
(b) He threatened to throw himself into the sea, if anyone could quote him a
Beraisa whose source he could not find in a Mishnah.
(c) If a dying man leaves instructions to give his sons ...
1. ... a Shekel (half a Sela) per week, and they really need a Sela -
Beis-Din arrange for them to receive a Sela, because that is what their
father would have wanted them to receive, had he known that the cost of
living would rise.
(d) Ilfa connected this Beraisa to Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah, who rules that
the trustee should follow the father's instructions - because he holds
'Mitzvah Lekayem Divrei ha'Meis'.
2. ... only a Shekel per week, and they really need a Sela - they will only
receive a Sela, because that is what their father said.
3. ... a Shekel a week, adding that, in the event of their death so-and-so
should inherit whatever is left - they will receive only a Shekel, in order
not to deprive those who were named to inherit from them from inheriting.
(a) In the case where the father leaves instructions to give his sons only a
Shekel a week, their needs are supplemented from Tdedakah funds, according
to the Tana of the Beraisa.
(b) We reconcile this with what we learned earlier (on Daf 48a), that if a
man leaves instructions to pass on all his estate to his sons and to bury
him from Tzedakah funds, we ignore his instructions - because that ruling is
base on the principle that a person does not the right to force the
community to sustain him by enriching his sons, whereas in our case, the
conditions that he placed on the inheritance must be met, because it is on
those conditions that it belongs to the heirs.
(a) Rav Chisda Amar Mar Ukva rules not like this Beraisa. In his opinion -
even if the father left instructions for his sons to receive only a Shekel
weekly, Beis-Din will arrange for them to receive a Sela, if that is what
(b) This does not contradict the traditional ruling 'Mitzvah Lekayem Divrei
ha'Meis', like Rebbi Meir - because, he says, Rebbi himself will agree that,
in this case, even their father would really have wanted what is best for
his children, and that he only specified a Shekel per week, in order to
teach them to live modestly.