ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 110
(a) According to Admon, if Reuven produces a Sh'tar Chov on Shimon and
Shimon produces a Sh'tar, dated later, which states that Reuven sold him a
field, Shimon can say to Reuven 'You should not have sold me your field
before claiming your debt'. Consequently, we consider the Sh'tar Chov a
(b) The Chachamim say - that Reuven acted cleverly by selling him a field
which he can now claim as collateral.
(c) Even the Chachamim agree with Admon in a case where it is customary to
pay for a field before writing the Sht'ar - because then, the seller should
simply have held on to the payment for the field as payment of the loan.
(d) So they must argue in a place where it is customary to write the Sh'tar
first and to pay later - Admon holds that Reuven should have made a Moda'ah
in front of witnesses (that he is only selling the field for the collateral;
whereas the Chachamim hold that people tend to talk ... and it will soon
reach the ears of Shimon, as we explained above.
(a) According to Admon, if two people produce a Sh'tar Chov on one another,
the one can say to the other, 'If I owed you money, how could you then
borrow money from me?' - in other words, the first Sh'tar must be a fake.
(b) The Chachamim say that each one may claim his debt.
(a) Rav Nachman holds that if two people claim the same sum of money from
one another, each one may claim. Rav Sheishes says - 'Hafuchei Matrasa Lamah
Li' (Why bother?)
(b) Rav Nachman agrees with Rav Sheishes - in a case where both of them own
the same quality fields 'Idis, Beinonis or Ziburis' (good quality, medium or
inferior quality respectively), because then one will claim the field, and
the other one will claim it back.
(c) So we try to establish the Machlokes when one of them has Beinonis , and
the other one Ziburis. Given that creditor normally claims Beinonis - the
basis of their Machlokes is whether one reckons the Beinonis of the debtor
(whatever is *his* Beinonis [Rav Nachman]) or whether one reckons the
Beinonis of the world at large, irrespective of what the debtor has (Rav
(d) Rav Sheishes holds that the Ba'al Ziburis will claim his debtor's
Beinonis, who will then claim it back - whereas according to Rav Nachman,
after the Ba'al Ziburis has claimed his debtor's Beinonis, the second
creditor will only be able to claim Ziburis, since that is the Din when the
debtor has Beinonis and Ziburis (seeing as his Beinonis is really his Idis).
(a) We query the above explanation however, because it assumes that the
owner of the Ziburis claimed first. If the owner of the Beinonis claimed
first, according to Rav Nachman - then he would claim the other man's
Ziburis, who would claim it back (Hafuchei Matrasa Lamah Li). According to
Rav Sheishes too, there would seemingly be a problem, because the first man
would claim Ziburis, whereas the second one would claim Beinonis - though
for some reason, the Gemara only asks on Rav Nachman).
(b) So we establish their Machlokes when they both claimed at the same time
(in which case either could staked his claim first) and it speaks when the
one had Idis and Beinonis, and the other one, Ziburis, and they argue over
the same point as in the previous answer. According to Rav Nachman, is it
not Hafuchei Matrasa - because if the former one claimed the Ziburis first,
then the second one will claim Beinonis; whereas if the latter one claimed
first, he will now have Ziburis and Beinonis, and his creditor will only be
able to claim from him Ziburis.
(c) To reconcile Rav Sheishes opinion with the Chachamim in our Mishnah
('Zeh Govah ... ve'Zeh Govah ... ') Rav Nachman establishes the Mishnah when
one of the debts was for ten years, and the other one for five.
(d) It must have been the *first* loan that was for five years and the
second one that was for ten (and not vice-versa) - because if the first debt
was not due to be paid for another five years, how could the first debtor
say to the second one 'If I owed you money how could you then borrow money
from me'?, according to Admon.
(a) In any event, there is a problem whether the five-year time period has
expired or not. The problem according to ...
1. ... the Rabbanan, if the five-year time period has expired, is - how can
they argue with Admon, since he is obviously right ?
(b) So we establish their Machlokes on the last day of the five-year period.
The basis of their Machlokes then is - whether a person tends to take out a
loan for one day or not: Admon holds that he does not; the Chachamim holds
that he does.
2. ... Admon if it has not, is - how can he argue with the Rabbanan?
(c) Rami bar Chama reconciles Rav Sheishes with our Mishnah by establishing
the Mishnah when one of the two claimants is a Yasom. Now a Yasom may claim
Metaltelin from the debtor, but one cannot claim from the Metaltelin of
Yesomim. Consequently, 'Zeh Govah, ve Zeh Govah' really mean 'Zeh Govah
ve'Zeh Ra'uy Ligvos'. Rava asks from the Lashon of the Mishnah, which says
've'Zeh Govah' and not 've'Zeh Ra'uy Ligvos'. He alsos asks - why can one
not give the Yesomim *land* and then claim it back from them?
(d) Rava bases his Kashya on Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah. - who said
that if Yesomim who claimed land for their father's debt, their Ba'al Chov
may claim it from them.
(a) From Yesomim - one may claim only Ziburis, even according to the opinion
of Rav Sheishes, who holds 'be'Shel Kol Adam Hein Shamin'.
(b) Based on that premise, we suggest that our Mishnah might be speaking
about a case where the Yesomim have Ziburis and the other Ba'al Chov, Idis
and Beinonis. The Chachamim's statement 'Zeh Govah ... ve'Zeh Govah ... '
will work - because the Ba'al Chov will now claim Ziburis, and theYesomim,
(c) We reject this answer too however - on the basis of the fact that if one
did claim from Yesomim Beinonis, one may retain it.
(a) The three lands for Nisu'in - are Yehudah, Eiver ha'Yardein and the
Galil. Their significance in this regard is - that a husband cannot force
his wife to move from one to the other.
(b) A man ...
1. ... cannot force his wife to move from a town in one of the lands to a
town in one of the other lands
(c) According to the Tana Kama, a man or a woman can force his spouse to
move from a less comfortable area to a more comfortable one, but not
vice-versa - Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says that either way, he cannot force
her, because any major change in a person's lifestyle can cause him to
become ill, which is why Shmuel would later say 'Shinuy Veses T'chilas
Choli' (a radical change from what one is used to, causes illness.
2. ... can force his wife to move from a town or city in one of the lands to
(d) The advantages of living in ...
1. ... a city (which is larger than a town on account of its shopping
facilities) over living in a town are - that 1. that the shopping and
business opportunities are better, and 2. that everything is available
2. ... a town over living in a city is - that there is more space, so people
have gardens and the air is better.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk in Nechemyah, which praised the people who
volunteered to come and live in the city of Yerushalayim - that there are
serious disadvantages in living in a city.
(b) ben Sira said "*Kol* Yemei Ani Ra'im" in spite of Shabbos and Yom-tov,
when even the poor eat well - because of Shmuel, who said 'Shinuy Veses
(c) And when he said that the poor man had his vineyards on top of the
mountains - he was referring to the fact that, when one fertilizes a
vineyard on top of a mountain, most of the fertilizer drops into the
(a) Everybody can force their family to move to Eretz Yisrael and not to
move out of it - women, no less than men.
(b) Yerushalayim - has the same Din as Eretz Yisrael in this regard.
(c) Given that the money of K'putki is heavier than that of Eretz Yisrael
(and is therefore more valuable), if a man married his wife ...
1. ... in Eretz Yisrael and divorced her in K'putki - he will have to pay
the currency of Eretz Yisrael.
2. ... in K'putki and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael - he will have to pay
her the money of Eretz Yisrael, according to the Tana Kama ...
3. ... the money of K'putki, according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel.
(a) When the Tana of our Mishnah says 'ha'Kol Ma'alin le'Eretz Yisrael -
'ha'Kol' comes to include an Eved Ivri, who is obligated to move to Eretz
Yisrael with his master.
(b) According to those who insert Eved Ivri in the Mishnah - it comes to
include even from a more comfortable area to a less comfortable one.
(c) '*ha'Kol* Ma'alin li'Yerushalayim' comes to include - even from a more
comfortable area to a less comfortable one.
(d) The Tana finds it necessary to add 've'Ein *ha'Kol* Motzi'in Mimenu' to
include the same thing, despite the fact that it is obvious once we know
that Yerushalayim is like Eretz Yisrael in this regard - because it
mentioned it in the Reisha.
(a) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah always follow the currency of Eretz
Yisrael, whether the husband married his wife there, or whether he divorced
her there (neither following the place where he married her [because that is
where he obligated himself], nor after the place where he divorced her) -
because he is not sure which one to follow, and since he holds that Kesuvah
is only mi'de'Rabbanan, he is lenient both ways.
If no denomination of currency is mentioned, just silver, the dector may pay
the creditor any demonination of silver coin tha he wishes.
(b) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel always goes after the place where he married
her. This is because he holds 'Kesuvah d'Oraysa', in which case he treats it
like every other debt (which follows the place where the Sh'tar was written,
as we shall now see).
(c) If someone produces a Sh'tar Chov which was written in Bavel, the debtor
must pay with Babylonian currency; if it was written in Eretz Yisrael, then
he must pay Eretz Yisrael currency. If no country is mentioned in the
Sh'tar - then the debtor pays according to the currency of the place where
the Sh'tar is produced.
(d) When the Tana concludes 'Mah she'Ein Kein bi'Kesuvah" - he is referring
to the Reisha of the Beraisa, which obligates the debtor to pay the currency
of the town where the Sh'tar was written (and he comes to preclude from the
opinion of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who, we just learned, holds that
Kesuvah has the same Din as any Sh'tar Chov).
How do we know
that the Sh'tar was not referring to ...
1. ... pieces of silver - because the Beraisa speaks when the word 'coins'
appears appears in the Sh'tar.
2. ... P'rutos (so he should be able to give him copper P'rutos or silver to
the value of a hundred copper P'rutos - because nobody manufactures P'rutos
(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Lases Lachem es Eretz Kena'an, Liheyos Lachem
L'Elokim"- that if someone lives outside Eretz Yisrael, it is as if he has
(b) The serious ramifications of this statement are - that one should rather
live in Eetz Yisrael in a town which is inhabited mainly by Nochrim, that in
a Jewish town in Chutz la'Aretz.
(c) If the Pasuk is not to be taken literally, what it really means is -
that someone who lives outside Eretz Yisrael is considered as if he was
(d) When David ha'Melech was forcibly driven out of Eretz Yisrael - he
declared " Because they have driven me out today from being connected with
the inheritance of Hashem, saying 'Go and serve other gods' ", which bears
out what we just said.
(a) Once Rebbi Zeira had made his decision to move to Eretz Yisrael, he was
careful to keep out of Rav Yehudah's sight - because in Rav Yehudah's
opinion, someone who leaves Bavel, as long as long as the Golus is in
progress, even to go to Eretz Yisrael, transgresses an Asei.
(b) According to Rav Yehudah, the Pasuk in Yirmiyah "Bavelah Yavo'u,
ve'Shamah Yihyu" places an Isur on moving out of Bavel, even in order to go
to Eretz Yisrael (in times of Galus). According to Rebbi Zeira - it means
that the K'lei Shares must remain there.
(c) Rav Yehudah learns the Isur of moving out of Bavel, even in order to go
to Eretz Yisrael (in times of Galus), from the Pasuk in Yirmiyah "Bavelah
Yavo'u, ve'Shamah Yihyu". According to Rebbi Zeira - it means that Yisrael
are not permitted to take Eretz Yisrael by force.