ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 109
(a) According to the Chachamim, if a man fixes a dowry for his daughter who
is already betrothed and goes bankrupt, there is nothing the woman can do
about it but to wait until her Chasan makes the next move. Admon says - that
she can force him either to marry her or to give her a divorce.
(b) 'Pashat Lo es ha'Regel' can simply be a degrading way of informing his
creditor that he cannot supply the goods; so he stretches out his foot as if
to say 'Take the dirt from my foot (in payment)'. It can also be a way of
telling his creditor that even if he hangs him by his foot on a tree, there
is nothing he can do about it.
(c) According to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, even the
Chachamim agree in the previous case that she can force her Chasan's hand to
act one way or the other (seeing as it is her father and not her, who made
the condition and who went bankrupt). The case where they maintain that she
remains in limbo - is where *she* is the one to have stipulated how much her
Chasan would receive, and her father subsequently refused to comply.
(d) Admon's reason is - because she can then argue that she thought that her
father would provide the stipulated sum, and it was not her fault that her
(a) The Tana of another Beraisa that comes to qualify the previous one,
states 'Bameh Devarim Amurim, bi'Gedolah, Aval bi'Ketanah, Kofin'. This
cannot mean that, if she is a Ketanah, we force her father to pay - because
in that case, he should have said the opposite (because the condition of a
Gedolah is more binding than that of a Ketanah).
(b) What the Tana means - is that if she is a Ketanah, we force the Chasan
to take the initiative and either marry her or give her a Get.
(a) Rebbi Yitzchak ben Elazar quoting Chizkiyah states that whenever Raban
Gamliel sides with Admon, the Halachah is like him - Mishnahs and Beraisos
alike (seeing as he did not differentiate).
(b) 'Amar Rebbi Zeira Amar Rabah bar Yirmiyah, Sh'nei Devarim she'Amar
Chanan Halachah ke'Yotzei Bo'. 'ke'Yotzei Bo' - refers to Raban Yochanan ben
(c) Rebbi Zeira is saying - that the Halachah is like Admon in both cases
that he appears in the Mishnah, because he has the backing of Raban Yochanan
ben Zakai (See Ritva).
(a) Rebbi Zeira added 've'Shiv'ah Devarim she'Amar Admon Ein Halachah Kemoso
ve'Lo ke'Yotzei Bo'. 'ke'Yotzei Bo' - refers to Raban Yochanan ben Zakai,
who backs Admon in the first three cases.
(b) He cannot mean that the Halachah is neither like Admon nor like Raban
Gamliel in all seven cases - because of Chizkiyah, who, as we just saw,
rules like Admon, whenever Raban Gamliel sides with him.
(c) For the same reason, we reject the suggestion that what Rebbi Zeira
means is that the Halachah is not like Raban Gamliel, but like Admon -
meaning that the Halachah is not like Raban Gamliel, who rules like Admon in
only three cases, because we rule like Admon in all seven cases.
(d) What Rebbi Zeira really means to say when he says 've'Shiv'ah Devarim
she'Amar Admon Ein Halachah Kemoso ve'Lo ke'Yotzei Bo' is - that in some of
the statements of Admon we rule like him, and in some we do not: whenever
Raban Gamliel sides with him, we rule like him, and whenever he doesn't, we
(a) According to Admon, we believe Reuven, when he claims that the field
that Shimon bought from Levi, Levi had stolen from him, in spite of our
subsequent discovery that he was one of the witnesses who signed on the
document of sale - because he can argue that he decided to sign because
Shimon was not as tough a customer to deal with as Levi.
(b) The Chachamim say - that by signing without protest, he loses his rights
to claim (because had the field been his, he would have protested).
(c) Admon concedes - that should he sign on a document that merely refers to
the field in question as bordering another field that Shimon sold to someone
else, he loses his right to the field.
(d) Abaye, commenting on the Chachamim, explains that he only loses his
rights if he signed as a witness, but not if he signed as a Dayan, and he
bases this on a Beraisa learned by Rebbi Chiya - who distinguishes between
witnesses, who are obligated to read the Sh'tar before signing (because they
sign on its contents), and Dayanim, who only corroborate that the witnesses
verified their signatures, and who are therefore not obligated to read the
Sh'tar prior to their signing.
(a) We just learned that should Reuven sign on a document that merely refers
to the field in question as bordering another field that Shimon sold to
someone else, he loses his right to the field. This will not be the case
however, if Shimon was selling the field to *him* - because he can argue
that, if he hadn't signed, Shimon would not have sold him the field.
(b) Shimon cannot counter that Reuven should then have a made a Moda'ah in
front of witnesses (i.e. informed them that really he protests on the sale,
because the field is his, and he only remained silent in order that Shimon
sell him the field) - because Reuven will reply that he was afraid to do
that, since people tend to talk. Consequently, those witnesses would have
told their friends, who would have told their friends ... until word of the
(secret) Moda'ah would have reached the ears of Shimon, who would have
closed the deal.
(a) A certain man merely referred to the field in question as bordering
another field that Shimon sold to someone else. He then protested that the
field was his and died, but not before he had appointed an administrator for
the Yesomim. The administrator argued that Abaye should permit the Yesomim
to retain the field - because it is a Mitzvah to present any argument on
behalf of the Yesomim that their father might have argued, and their father
had an argument that he could have presented, as we shall now see.
Abaye declared - that if someone needed to appoint an administrator, he
should appoint one who knew how to present the case on behalf of the Yesomim
like the one whom we have just been discussing.
(b) Abaye conceded that he was right, based on a statement by Rebbi
Yochanan - that even though if the claimant made the field a sign for
another field that he was selling, he loses his rights to the field, he does
retain the right to claim that it is only the one furrow in between his
field and the field that was being sold that he used as a sign, and not the
(c) Abaye then instructed the administrator to then give the Machzik - at
least the one furrow that the father had made a sign.
(d) The administrator managed to convince Abaye that the father would even
have presented an argument that would have given him the entire field,
including the furrow. Again Abaye conceded that he was right, based on a
statement by Rebbi Yochanan - who said that, seeing as the field was proven
to belong to the Yesomim and the Machzik's only proof was the testimony of
the father who made it a sign for the field that was being sold, the father
would have been believed to say that he then went and bought the furrow with
the trees on it (because of a 'Peh she'Asar Hu ha'Peh she'Hitir').
(a) According to Admon, if someone goes overseas and returns, to find that
his neighbors have taken over the path to his field, and he doesn't know
exactly where it is, he may force them to give him the shortest route to his
field. The Chachamim say - that he has no choice but to buy a path for
whatever exorbitant price they ask of him, or he will have to fly in the air
to his field.
(b) If it is only *one* of his neighbors who now surrounds him on all sides,
Admon is obviously right. We reject the contention that he is surrounded by
*four* neighbors - because then, it is obvious that each neighbor has the
right to push him away to the other ones, and how can Admon say otherwise?
(c) Rava concludes that if four neighbors surround him, each one can push
him away to the others - and it makes no difference whether the four
originally surrounded him, or whether they bought the paths from one
(a) Admon and the Chachamim argue - when he is surrounded by one neighbor
who bought the four paths from four neighbors, who had previously owned
(b) Admon's reason is because 'mi'Mah Nafshach' one of the paths belongs to
him, and he can demand one of the paths to the field - the Chachamim's is
because the owner of the fields can say to him, 'If you accept my offer, I
will give you a good deal, but if you try and force my hand, I will return
the four documents of sale to the four original owners, and then you will
(a) When a man left in his will that they should give a date-palm to his
daughter, and the brothers subsequently distributed their father's estate,
without giving their sister a date-palm - Rav Yosef thought that according
to the Chachamim of Admon, each brother may push her off on to the other
brothers, and she loses her claim.
(b) Abaye disagreed, on the grounds that this case is different that our
Mishnah, where nobody was initially obligated to give the man ho went
overseas - whereas in our Mishnah, when the father died, all his property
fell into the kitty, and each brother was obligated to ensure that their
sister received a date-palm before dividing it among themselves.
(c) So Abaye ruled - that they were obligated to return all the property to
the kitty, and to redistribute it, after giving one date-palm to their
(a) In another case, a man left in his will that they should give a
date-palm to his daughter. The brothers wanted to give her two half palms.
(b) Rav Ashi wasn't sure whether a person calls two half palms a date-palm.
Rav Mordechai quoted Avimi from Hagrunya - who said in the name of Rava that
(c) The daughter cannot claim that she prefers a whole date-palm - because
the property is in the Chazakah of the Yesomim, and she has the underhand.