ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 91
(a) Rav Yosef just established the Machlokes between the Tana Kama of the
Beraisa and Rebbi Shimon like he established that of ben Nannes and Rebbi
Akiva (whether the Kesuvas B'nin Dichrin of the heirs of the wife who died
after her husband is considered Mosar Dinar or not). We suggest that perhaps
they both agree that it is, and that they argue over whether the Mosar Dinar
needs to be Karka or not - the Tana Kama holds that it does, and Rebbi
Shimon holds that it does not.
In any event, we do accept the suggestion to switch the opinions (seeing as
it is evident from Rebbi Shimon's Lashon that he comes to be stringent). We
finally establish the Machlokes - either when there is an extra Dinar of
Metaltelin, or when it is in the form of Meshubadim (either of which the
Tana Kama validates Kesuvas B'nin Dichrin, and Rebbi Shimon does not).
(b) We reject ...
1. ... this suggestion - on the grounds that Rebbi Shimon himself (in the
next Mishnah) specifically requires Karka.
(c) We suggest that perhaps, we ought to switch the opinions, in which case,
Rebbi Shimon will require a Dinar and it is the Tana Kama who does not. In
that case - the words of the Tana Kama 'Ba'in Banehah shel Zu le'Achar Misah
ve'Notlin Kesuvas Iman' will now refer to the *first* set of heirs (unlike
the explanation of Rav Yosef on the previous Amud).
2. ... the suggestion that Rebbi Shimon comes to permit even Meshubadim
(fields of their father that are Meshubad to creditors), whereas the Tana
Kama disagrees - on the grounds that, if Rebbi Shimon is coming to be
lenient (as all the current explanations assume), then he should have said
'*Keivan* she'Yesh Sham Mosar Dinar ... ', rather than '*Im* Yesh Sham Mosar
Dinar' (implying that he is coming to be strict).
3. ... the suggestion that Rebbi Shimon comes to permit even less than a
Dinar, whereas the Tana Kama requires a Mosar Dinar (besides on the grounds
of the previous Kashya) - on the grounds that Rebbi Shimon himself
specifically requires a Dinar.
(d) We reject the suggestion to switch the opinions in this case - on the
basis of the fact that the Tana Kama of Rebbi Shimon in the following
Mishnah (whom we presume to be the same Tana as that of the Beraisa),
specifically requires a Dinar.
(a) Mar Zutra Amar Rav Papa finally rules 'Achas be'Chayav ve'Achas be'Moso,
Yesh Lahen K'suvas B'nin Dichrin' and 'K'suvah Na'asis Mosar la'Chavertah'.
Having ruled ...
1. ... 'Achas be'Chayav ve'Achas be'Moso, Yesh Lahen K'suvas B'nin Dichrin',
he nevertheless found it necessary to rule 'K'suvah Na'asis Mosar
la'Chavertah' - because we might otherwise have thought, that even though
one of the sets of heirs claims in the capacity of creditors, an extra Dinar
will nevertheless be required before Kesuvas B'nin Dichrin can take effect.
(b) We cannot apply the principle 'K'suvah Na'asis Mosar la'Chavertah' when
both wives died in their husband's lifetime - because, if we did, then in
which case do Chazal require a Mosar Dinar?
2. ... 'K'suvah Na'asis Mosar la'Chavertah', he nevertheless found it
necessary to rule 'Achas be'Chayav ve'Achas be'Moso, Yesh Lahen K'suvas
B'nin Dichrin' - because we would otherwise have established the case when
the mothers of both sets of sons who are claiming their mother's Kesuvah died during their husband's lifetime, but that there is a third wife who died
after her husband, but who has left only daughters (who claim their mother's
Kesuvah but not Kesuvas B'nin Dichrin) (when 'K'suvah Na'asis Mosar
la'Chavertah' applies, but not 'Achas be'Chayav ve'Achas be'Moso').
(c) The difference between there where the woman who died after her husband
left daughters, to where she left sons is - that where she left sons, the
sons can counter the first wife's heirs who are claiming their mother's
(larger) Kesuvah from their father with the argument that they are claiming
their mother's Kesuvah as heirs of their *mother*, and as far as the
remainder of their father's property is concerned, they are all equal heirs
(so why should the other set of heirs receive more than they in his
(d) Where the latter wife left only daughters however, there is no reason to
worry about strife - because the daughters are not heirs of their father, so
what claim can they have against the sons of the first two wives claiming
their mother's Kesuvah from their father?
(a) We have already learned that K'suvas B'nin Dichrin only applies if a
Dinar remains for the heirs to inherit. If the sons of the wife with the
larger K'suvah agree to assess their portion at a higher rate, so that an
extra Dinar remains - we reject their 'kind' offer. Beis-Din assess the
inheritance at the going rate, and whatever remains after the two Kesuvos
have been covered, remains.
(b) A debt of their father's that is waiting to be claimed - cannot be
included as part of the extra Dinar.
(c) According to Rebbi Shimon - the Mosar Dinar must comprise Karka, not
(a) If, when the husband died, there was a Mosar Dinar but the value of
property decreased, with the result that by the time that Beis-Din assessed
the property, there was no longer a Mosar Dinar - we go after the time of
the father's death, in which case, the heirs of the larger Kesuvah have
already merited their mother's Kesuvah, by the time the Beis-Din assess it.
(b) In a case where the value of the property increased before the
assessment, Rav Amram (who was unsure what the Halachah was in such a case)
ordered the heirs of the smaller Kesuvah - to appease the heirs of the
larger Kesuvah (to refrain from claiming their mother's Kesuvas B'nin
(c) When they refused to comply - he threatened to place them in Cherem.
(d) Rav Nachman finally ruled that, whether the value of property increases
or decreases, we follow the time of the husband's death. Consequently - the
heirs of the larger Kesuvah had no claim, and it was unnecessary for the
heirs of the smaller Kesuvah to appease the heirs of the larger Kesuvah.
(a) A man who owed his friend a thousand Zuz, sold his two mansions to the
same purchaser for five hundred Zuz each. When the creditor, who had already
claimed one of the mansions, came to claim the second one - the purchaser
offered him an ultimatum. Either, he said, he accept the mansion that he
already claimed as if it was worth a thousand Zuz, or he must accept a
thousand Zuz from him in exchange for it (because that was how much it was
worth to him).
(b) Rami bar Chama tried to compare this case to our Mishnah, which forbids
the heirs to inflate the price of their father's property, in order to gain
their mother's Kesuvah. Rava rejects his comparison however - on the grounds
that in our Mishnah, inflating the price causes a loss to the other set of
orphans, whereas in this case, raising the price of the mansion does not
cause the creditor a loss, since he receives the thousand Zuz that he lent
the debtor (because he had the option of taking the thousand Zuz cash that
the purchaser offered him).
(c) In a very similar incident, Rav Yosef, like Rami bar Chama, thought to
learn from our Mishnah that one cannot inflate the value of a field to one's
own advantage. Abaye told him - exactly the same as Rava told Rami bar
(a) When the purchaser asked the Beis-Din to write him out a document for
the debtor to compensate him for his loss, Ravina held that they should
write him a document for a thousand Zuz (which is how much the mansion was
worth to both him and the creditor). According to Rav Avira - they had to
write out a document for five hundred Zuz (the real value of the mansion).
(b) The Halachah - is like Rav Avira.
(a) When the orphan's father's creditor (whom he had owed a hundred Zuz)
claimed a small plot of land worth fifty Zuz as half his debt - the orphans
offered him fifty Zuz to get rid off him.
(b) Although it is a Mitzvah to pay one's father's debts - orphans are not
obligated to do so.
(c) When the creditor then claimed the land anyway - Abaye ruled that he was
entitled to do so, since all the immobile property of the debtor remains
Meshubad to the creditor.
(d) The orphans could have prevented him from doing so - had they
specifically stipulated that the money that they gave him was to pay for the
plot of land.
(a) A certain man sold his mother's Kesuvah for Tovas Hana'ah. His mother at
the time - was married to another man.
(b) Tovas Hana'ah in this case - means the small amount that the Kesuvah was
worth to the purchaser, bearing in mind that a. the woman might have died
before her husband (in which case, her husband would inherit the Kesuvah)
and b. even if the husband would die first, perhaps her son (the seller)
would die before her, in which, the sale would be negated (seeing as the son
was not the purchaser's Sh'li'ach).
(c) When selling the field, the son stipulated that he would not take any
responsibility should his mother protest to the sale.
(d) His mother died and he came to claim the Kesuvah from the purchaser as
his mother's heir.
1. Rami bar Chama contended - that seeing as he was his mother's heir, his
condition extended to himself claiming too. Consequently, he was not
obligated to compensate the purchaser for having caused him a loss.
2. ... Rava countered - that his condition did not cover losses that he
himself caused the purchaser, and that he was therefore Chayav to compensate