(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 78

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.

***** ha'Ishah she'Naflu *****

1) Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel agree that a betrothed woman is permitted to sell or give away property that she inherited before she was betrothed (Nechsei mi'Lug). According to Beis Shamai, the same applies to property that she inherited after the betrothal.
What do Beis Hillel say there ...

  1. ... Lechatchilah?
  2. ... Bedi'eved (if she did go ahead and sell)?
(a) What does the Mishnah say about a woman who sold property that she inherited after she married?

(b) Rebbi Yehudah quotes the Chachamim, who asked Raban Gamliel that, if the Chasan acquires the woman, why should he not acquire the property?
What did Raban Gamliel reply?

(c) We just saw that, in the opinion of Raban Gamliel, if after she is marriage, a woman sold property that she inherited beforehand, the sale is valid.
What did Rebbi Chanina ben Akavya ask him?

(d) What did Raban Gamliel reply?

(a) What distinction does Rebbi Shimon make between a woman who sells property of which her husband is aware, and property of which he is not?

(b) We initially contend that, in the Reisha, the woman is permitted to sell property that she inherited *before* her betrothal, because she is not yet in her husband's domain, whereas in the Seifa, she is not permitted to sell property that she inherited *after* her betrothal, because has already entered his domain.
On what grounds do we reject this contention?

(c) How then, *do* we explain the difference between the Reisha and the Seifa?

(a) We ask whether Rebbi Yehudah (who quotes the Rabbanan as saying that if a Chasan acquires the woman once they are betrothed, surely he should acquire her property) is referring to Lechatchilah or Bedieved.
What are the two sides to the She'eilah?

(b) We resolve the She'eilah from Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, where he is more specific.
What does he say there?

Answers to questions



(a) According to Rebbi Chananya ben Akavya in a Beraisa, when the Rabbanan asked Raban Gamliel why the sale of an Arusah should be valid, he did not give the response that the Tana of our Mishnah quotes in his name ('we are already embarrassed with the first ones ... '), because he had a better answer.
What response *did* he give them? Which three advantages does Nisu'in have over Eirusin (in this regard)?

(b) In which case then, did Raban Gamliel give the response quoted by the Tana of our Mishnah?

(c) How does Rav Z'vid reconcile Raban Gamliel in this latter case in the Beraisa, where he says 'Mocheres ve'Nosenes ve'Kayam' (Lechatchilah), with his words on our Mishnah, where, in the equivalent case, he says 'Im Machrah ve'Nasnah, Kayam' (Bedieved)?

(a) Rav Papa maintains that Raban Gamliel's opinion is actually a Machlokes Tana'im: According to Rebbi Chananya ben Akavya in the Beraisa, Raban Gamliel holds 'Mocheres ve'Nosenes ve'Kayam', whereas according to Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, he holds 'Im Machrah ve'Nasnah, Kayam'.
Does this mean that Rebbi Chananya ben Akavya follows the opinion of Beis Shamai (in the Reisha of our Mishnah)?

(b) But the opinion of Rebbi Chananya ben Akavya is quoted in our Mishnah. Does that not imply that he agrees with Rebbi Yehudah's interpretation of Raban Gamliel's opinion?

(c) Rav and Shmuel both agree that even if a married woman sold the Nechsei mi'Lug which she inherited before or after the betrothal, her husband can reclaim it from the buyers.
What is the problem with this ruling (see Tosfos DH 'Lo')?

(d) So how do we establish Rav and Shmuel?

(a) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina cites Takanas Usha.
What is Takanas Usha?

(b) We do not know for sure whether or not, Takanas Usha is mentioned in the Mishnah (or whether it is cited for the first time by the Amora, Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina).
Why is there no proof for Takanas Usha from our Mishnah, which explicitly states that if a married woman sold the Nechsei mi'Lug that she received after her betrothal, her husband can reclaim it from the buyers.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that Rebbi Shimon differentiates between property which the husband knows about and property which he does not. Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina classifies the former as Karka, and the latter, as Metaltelin.
What is the reason for this distinction?

(b) Rebbi Yochanan considers both of these to be 'known' property.
What then, does Rebbi Shimon call property that the husband does not know about?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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