(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 76

KESUVOS 75-80 - dedicated by Mrs. Rita Grunberger of Queens, N.Y., in loving memory of her husband, Reb Yitzchok Yakov ben Eliyahu Grunberger. Mr Irving Grunberger helped many people quietly in an unassuming manner and is sorely missed by all who knew him. His Yahrzeit is 10 Sivan.


(a) Rav Ashi, like Rava, establishes the entire Mishnah like Raban Gamliel. What does he mean when he establishes the Reisha by 'Manah le'Aba be'Yadcha'? How does that explain the fact that there is no Chezkas ha'Guf?

(b) Having established that our Mishnah follows the opinion of Raban Gamliel, why does Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa (commenting on the Seifa of our Mishnah - that after they are married, the onus is on the husband ... ) state that if the blemishes were fitting to come from her father's house', the onus shifts to the father? What sort of blemishes is he referring to?

(c) In that case, what proof can the father possibly bring?

(a) If someone swapped a cow for a donkey, and the owner of the donkey made a Meshichah on the cow, may either of them retract before the owner of cow makes a Meshichah on the donkey?

(b) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel speaks about a case when the owner of the donkey made a Kinyan on the donkey, which then died before the owner of the cow made a Kinyan on it, and they are both arguing over when it died.
What difference does it make as to when it died?

(c) What does Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rule? On whom does the onus lie to prove his claim?

(d) From where did he prove this?

Answers to questions



(a) We suggest that the source of Shmuel (who holds that it is the owner of the donkey who must prove that it was alive at the time when the Kinyan was made) is the Reisha of our Mishnah (where the blemishes were discovered whilst they were still betrothed).
What would then be his proof? Like whom in the previous Sugya would he have to hold (Rebbi Elazar, Rava or Rav Ashi)?

(b) On what grounds do we reject this suggestion?

(c) So we suggest that his source lies in the Seifa (when the blemishes are discovered after they are married, and, like in our case, it is the husband who comes to establish his money in his own possession).
What will now be the proof? Like whom will Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel hold?

(d) On what grounds do we refute *this* suggestion?

(a) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak finally reinstates the first suggestion, establishing Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's proof from the Reisha, according to Rebbi Elazar's interpretation, and according to Rebbi Yehoshua.
How do we dispense with the Kashya that we initially asked, that here the owner of the donkey establishes what he has, whereas there the father comes to extract the Kesuvah from the Chasan?

(b) What happens to the money of Kidushin in the event that the Chasan dies?

(c) Could Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel hold like those who say that the money must be returned?

(d) How can Rav Yehudah establish Shmuel like Rebbi Yehoshua, when he specifically ruled in the first Perek like Raban Gamliel?

(a) When does a needle that is found in the Beis ha'Kosos (part of the stomach) of a Shechted animal render the animal T'reifah, and when does it not?

(b) If, after the animal has been Shechted, the butcher discovers that a crust has formed over the surface of the wound, we know that it occurred at least three days before the Shechitah; if not, it is a Safek, says the Beraisa.
What are the ramifications of this statement, assuming that the butcher bought the animal live from the wholesaler?

(c) If a crust has not formed, then the Tana rules 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro, Alav ha'Re'ayah'.
Assuming that the butcher already paid the wholesaler, what Kashya does this Beraisa pose on Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel?

(d) Why can we not establish the Beraisa when the butcher has not yet paid?

(a) As a result of this Kashya, Rami bar Yechezkel negates his brother Rav Yehudah's version of Shmuel's statement.
How does *he* quote Shmuel?

(b) With which Tana does Rami Amar Shmuel conform, and according to which of the above Amora'im?

(c) According to Rava, the butcher would have to bring the proof, even if he had not paid the money.
So why does the Tana use the expression 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro, Alav ha'Re'ayah' (when that is not the true criterion)?

(d) On what grounds do we establish the Beraisa when the butcher paid (justifying the use of the Lashon 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro, Alav ha'Re'ayah' - as we just explained)?

(a) What do the Chachamim in our Mishnah hold with regard to hidden blemishes, assuming there are no bathhouses in the entire town?

(b) Under which category of blemishes does Rav Nachman classify epilepsy?

(c) When does he agree that even epilepsy is considered a revealed blemish?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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