(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 102



(a) According to Resh Lakish, our Mishnah (which validates a man's obligation to feed his wife's daughter for five years) is not speaking when he gave her an unsigned document - but when he wrote a Sh'tar P'sikta (a document written by the witnesses in whose presence the Chasan and Kalah made their conditions).

(b) Rav Gidal Amar Rav said about Sh'tarei P'sikta (which he describes as a document that is written after the father of the Chasan and of the Kalah have decided how much the one will give to his son and the other, to his daughter) 'Hein Hein ha'Devarim ha'Niknin ba'Amirah' - meaning that this is a case where one acquires with words alone.

(c) Rav Gidal referred to Sh'tarei P'sikta in this way - because no Kinyan was made, and the document was written following words alone; (which is also the Chidush of our Mishnah, according to Resh Lakish.

(a) The Beraisa says - that a man who writes on a piece of paper that he owes a Kohen five Sela'im (for Pidyon ha'Ben) is obligated to give it to him.

(b) According to Resh Lakish (who does not validate an unsigned I.O.U.), this Beraisa is based not on the document, but on the fact that the Torah obligates him to give five Sela'im to the Kohen for Pidyon ha'Ben (because 'Shibuda d'Oraysa').

(c) The reason that he needed to write the document is - to designate that particular Kohen as the recipient.

(d) And the reason that his son is not redeemed is because of Ula - who explained that the Rabbanan issued a decree, so that people should not think that one can redeem one's child with a document. In fact, one cannot redeem a firstborn son with a Sh'tar, an Eved (Kena'ani) or Karka.

3) According to the Torah law, the boy would be redeemed - as soon as the father paid the money to the Kohen.


(a) The Tana Kama of a Beraisa says that if a guarantor signed his name after the signatures of the witnesses on a document - the creditor may claim from his property that is B'nei Chorin, but not from Meshubadim.

(b) One cannot claim from the guarantor's Meshubadim - because, seeing as he only signed after the signatures of the witnesses, it is no more than an oral debt (and oral debts can only be claimed from B'nei Chorin).

(a) When Rebbi Yishamel issued a ruling like the Tana Kama - ben Nannes commented that he could not claim from his B'nei Chorin either.

(b) The reason for this is - because a person does not usually obligate himself with a full heart, only out of pity (like one Jew who volunteers to pay someone money to stop strangling another Jew).

(c) We try to connect this Machlokes to the Machlokes of Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish - inasmuch as Rebbi Yochanan (who validates an unsigned I.O.U.) holds like Rebbi Yishmael, and Resh Lakish (who declares it invalid), like ben Nannes.

(d) The source of Arvus (the obligation of an Areiv to fulfill his undertaking to pay on behalf of the debtor) - is the Pasuk in Mikeitz "Anochi E'ervenu" (said by Reuven to Ya'akov Avinu).




(a) We conclude that Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish do not argue about the opinion of ben Nannes. There is no way that ben Nannes could theoretically hold like Rebbi Yochanan - because if ben Nannes does not validate the unsigned I.O.U. of an Areiv (despite the principle 'Shibuda d'Oraysa'), then he will certainly not agree with Rebbi Yochanan, who accepts it even not in the case of an Areiv.

(b) We establish that they argue over Rebbi Yishmael's opinion - Rebbi Yochanan holds like Rebbi Yishmael; whereas according to Resh Lakish, it is only in the case of an Areiv that Rebbi Yishmael validates an unsigned I.O.U. (due to the principle 'Shibuda d'Oraysa'), but not in other cases.

(a) We learned above the statement of Rav Gidal Amar Rav regarding Sh'tarei P'sikta ('Hein Hein ha'Devarim ha'Niknin ba'Amirah'). Rava ...
1. ... contends that, logically speaking, Rav's statement should be restricted to the father of a Na'arah (but not to the father of a Bogeres) - because there at least, he receives the Kidushin money (and why should anyone agree with a full heart [the essence of all Kinyanim] on the basis of mere words, unless he receives something in exchange.
2. ... conclude that that cannot be the case - because, if it were, on what grounds will the father of the Chasan (who does not receive money for the Kidushin of his son any more than the father of a Bogeres) agree with a full heart to the Kinyan?
(b) 'Hein Hein ha'Devarim ... ' applies, even though the parents receive no money in exchange - because of the Hana'ah of entering into the Shiduch together.

(c) Ravina asked Rav Ashi whether these undertakings should be documented or not - to enable both sides to claim from Meshubadim.

(d) Rav Ashi replied - that it should not be documented (without the explicit consent of both party).

(a) Rav Ashi explains that when the Tana of our Mishnah wrote 'ha'Pikchin Hayu *Kosvin* Al-menas she'Azun es Bitcha ... Kol Z'man she'At Imi' - he meant 'Omrin' (because one is not meant to write them).

(b) Rebbi Chiya commented that when the Tana of the Mishnah in Perek Af-al-Pi states 'ha'Kosev le'Ishto Din u'Devarim ... ' - he means to say 'ha'Omer le'Ishto', from which we learn that sometimes the Tana says 'ha'Kosev' when what he really means is 'ha'Omer'.

(c) We learned in a Beraisa 'Ein Kosvin Sh'tarei Eirusin ve'Nisu'in Ela mi'Da'as Sh'neihem'. Assuming that the Tana is not referring to Sh'tarei P'sikta (posing a Kashya on Rav Ashi) - then he is referring to Sh'tarei Kidushin themselves.

(d) This conforms with the opinion of Rav Papa and Rav Sh'ravya. In a case when they went and wrote a Sh'tar Kidushin without the consent of the Kalah (even though she agreed to the actual Kidushin itself), the ruling of ...

1. ... Rabah and Ravina is - Mekudeshes.
2. ... Rav Papa and Rav Sh'ravya is - Einah Mekudeshes.
(a) To reconcile our Mishnah which states: 'If her husbands died, their daughters are fed from B'nei Chorin, and her daughter, from Meshubadim, because she is like a creditor' with Rav Ashi - we establish it when they made a Kinyan.

(b) Even though they made a Kinyan for her daughter, we initially think that they might not have done so for their daughters - because they would not have been present at the time of the condition (when they got married).

(c) It is in fact possible for their daughter to have been present at the time of the Kinyan (leaving us with a Kashya on Rav Ashi) - if the husband divorced his wife, and later, when they already had a daughter, he remarried her making new conditions.

(d) So we try to answer that a Kinyan will only be effective by her daughter, who is not included in the T'nai Beis-Din, but not by their daughters, who are. We reject this answer however - on the grounds that it is illogical to suggest that the latter should be worse off because they are included in the T'nai Beis-Din.

10) The final reason (according to Rav Ashi), for the fact that their daughters may not claim from Meshubadim, in spite of the Kinyan, even though her daughter may - is because, since he is obligated to feed them (bi'Tenai Beis-Din) we are afraid that he may have put away bundles of money for her Mezonos.


(a) Rav Chisda observes from our Mishnah, which states that the first husband is obligated to send her Mezonos 'le'Makom she'Imah' (and not to 'Beis Achehah') - that a woman after her divorce, normally goes to her mother, in which case, when the Yesomim feed her, they cannot demand that she moves in with them.

(b) We query this however, on the grounds that the Tana may be referring to a Ketanah - who will certainly live with her mother (and not with her brothers), due to the decree, following an incident which took place, forbidding her to live with her brothers.

(c) We are referring to the incident - when the brothers insisted that their little sister live with them, and on the very first night, they murdered her, in order to inherit the 'Isur Nechasim' that would fall due to her when she married.

(d) We prove that the Tana is in fact, referring even to a Gedolah, and that this is therefore considered the normal thing to do - from the Lashon of our Mishnah 'le'Makom she'Imah' which does not seem to differentiate between a Ketanah and a Gedolah.

Next daf


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