(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 90

1) If a father marries off a son who is a Katan, or if a Nochri wrote his wife a Kesuvah, and then converted together with her, both women still receive their Kesuvos, even after the one grows-up and the other converts.
Why is that?


(a) According to Rav Huna, they only receive the Manah, Masayim, but not the Tosefes that he inserted in the original Kesuvah.
What does Rav Yehudah say?

(b) What does the Tana of the Beraisa mean when he says 'Chidshu, Noteles Mah she'Chidshu'?

(c) The Beraisa, as it stands, implies that they do not however, receive any Tosefes that he added before their status changed.
How does Rav Yehudah try to amend the Beraisa, to accommodate his opinion?

(d) However, the Beraisa itself continues 'Lo Chidshu, Besulah Govah Masayim, Almanah, Manah (proving Rav Yehudah wrong).
How did Rav Yehudah misinterpret the words in our Mishnah 'K'suvasah Kayemes' to arrive at his opinion?

***** Hadran Alach ha'Kosev le'Ishto *****

***** Mi she'Hayah Nasuy *****

(a) If a man who is married to two women dies, the woman whose Kesuvah is dated first has the first rights to the Kesuvah.
Under which circumstances ...
  1. ... do the heirs of the first woman claim before the heirs of the second one?
  2. ... will the second woman and her heirs take precedence over the heirs of the first one?
(b) Why is that?
(a) What do we initially infer from the Lashon of our Mishnah 'ha'Rishonah *Kodemes* li'Sheniyah'?

(b) What important principle do we learn from this inference?

(c) How does the Mishnah in Bava Basra 'Ben Kodem le'Bas' refute this inference?

(a) What does the second Lashon infer from the fact that the Tana did not write 'Im Kadmah Sh'niyah ve'Tafsah, Ein Motzi'in mi'Yadah'?

(b) We refute this inference by quoting the Seifa 'Nasa es ha'Rishonah u'Meisah ... Sh'niyah ve'Yorshehah Kodmin le'Yorshei Rishonah'.
Why can 'Kodmin' in the Seifa not be meant literally?

Answers to questions



(a) We learn three things from the Seifa of our Mishnah. The first of these is that even when one of the mothers died in her husband's lifetime and the second one, after his death, the Takanah of K'esuvas B'nin Dichrin still applies.
What might we have otherwise thought?

(b) How do we infer this Chidush from our Mishnah?

(c) The second Chidush is based on the Tana making no mention of there being an extra Dinar (a basic prerequisite for 'Kesuvas B'nin Dichrin to be effective).
What do we learn from this omission?

(d) The third Chidush is that the woman's heirs cannot claim Kesuvas B'nin Dichrin from Meshubadim.
What is ...

  1. ... the reason for this?
  2. ... the proof from our Mishnah that this is so?
(a) Rav Ashi repudiates two of the three proofs. 'Kodmin' (in the Seifa) he argues, means that the first heirs are the first to inherit from their father, but not because of Kesuvas B'nin Dichrin.
What problem do we have with this from the Lashon of the Seifa of our Mishnah?

(b) How do we resolve this Kashya from ' ... *Sh'niyah ve'Yorshehah*?

(c) Even assuming that 'Kodmin' *does* refer to Kesuvas B'nin Dichrin, how does Rav Ashi reject the proof that the second Kesuvah serves as the extra Dinar of Yerushah? Then why does the Tana not mention it?

(a) ben Na'nes, referring to the Seifa of our Mishnah, permits the heirs of the first wife to say to the heirs of the second one 'Take your Kesuvah and go'!
How do we initially interpret this statement? What does 'and go'! imply?

(b) What does Rebbi Akiva say, according to this interpretation?

(a) The Rabbanan de'Bei Rav quoted by Rabah disagree with the above explanation. According to them, Rebbi Akiva agrees with ben Na'nes, that Kesuvas B'nin Dichrin *does* apply to heirs of the wife who died before her husband and heirs of the wife who died after him.
Then how do they explain their Machlokes? What is Rebbi Akiva's reason?

(b) What did the Rabbanan de'Bei Rav mean when they added 've'Hu ha'Din le'Ba'al Chov'?

(c) What does Rabah say about 'Ba'al Chov'? Why should the case of Ba'al Chov be better than that of the second heirs who are also creditors?

(d) How can we consider a debt (which goes to the creditor) to be the extra Dinar of inheritance?

(a) What problem does Rav Yosef have with the Rabbanan de'Bei Rav's interpretation of the Machlokes from the Lashon of Rebbi Akiva 'K'var Kaftzah Nachlah Milifnei B'nei ha'Rishonah'? What should he have said, according to Rav Yosef?

(b) So how does Rav Yosef interpret the Machlokes?

(c) In another Beraisa, the Tana Kama (discussing the same case as that of the Seifa of our Mishnah) states 'Ba'in Banehah shel Zu le'Achar Misah ve'Notlin Kesuvas Iman'.
To which set of heirs is he referring, according to Rav Yosef? Like which of the above Tana'im will he then hold?

(d) What does Rebbi Shimon say? Like which of the above Tana'im will he hold?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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