(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 94


(a) According to Shmuel, the basis of the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and ben Nannes, who argue over whether the fourth wife is obligated to swear or not, is whether a later creditor who seizes his debt before an earlier one, may retain what he seized or not.
What is the case?

(b) How will this explain the opinion of ...

  1. ... the Tana Kama (who exempts her from swearing)?
  2. ... ben Nannes (who obligates her to swear)?
(c) According to Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah, even ben Nannes agrees that a later creditor who seizes his debt before an earlier one, must return it.
In that case, why does ben Nannes obligate the fourth wife to swear to the one whose land turns out to have been stolen?

(d) In the opinion of Abaye, it is not to one of the wives that the fourth wife is obligated to swear, but to the orphans. According to him, the basis of the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and ben Nannes is a Beraisa quoted by Abaye Keshisha.
What does the Beraisa say?

(a) What does Rav Huna say about one brother or partner who goes to Beis-Din with a claimant and loses the case?

(b) How did Rav Nachman try to prove this from our Mishnah, where each subsequent woman has to swear to the next one?

(c) Why is there in fact, no proof from there? What is the difference between the two cases?

(d) In which case will we accept Rav Huna's ruling in any event?

Answers to questions


3) According to Rav, if two people produce a Sh'tar, each one claiming that the owner sold *him* the field, they divide it between them. What does Shmuel say?


(a) Rebbi Meir holds that it is the witnesses who sign on a Get who validate it.
What does Rebbi Elazar say?

(b) According to Rebbi Elazar, why are witnesses required to sign on the Get?

(a) We resolve the question whether their Machlokes extends to other documents by connecting the Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel with that of Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Elazar.
Why might Rav hold like Rebbi Meir and Shmuel like Rebbi Elazar?

(b) On what grounds do we try to reject this contention? Like whom will Rav and Shmuel hold, and what will then be the basis of their Machlokes?

(c) It is the latter contention however, that is unacceptable, because of another statement of Rav's. When Rav Yehudah quoted before Shmuel what Rav had said, he replied that the Halachah is like Rebbi Elazar by all documents.
What had Rav told Rav Yehudah?

(a) How does Shmuel initially reconcile his own opinion with the Beraisa that states 'Sh'nei Sh'taros ha'Yotz'in be'Yom Echad, Cholkin'?

(b) What is the problem with this explanation from the Seifa, which states 'Kasav le'Echad u'Masar le'Acher, Zeh she'Masar Lo, Kanah'?

(c) How then, does Shmuel reconcile this with his own opinion?

(a) The Chachamim in the Beraisa to which we just referred, say 'Yachloku'. What is the case?

(b) What do the 'Kahn Amru' say?

(a) In the morning, Rami bar Chama's mother wrote him her Kesuvah.
What did she do in the evening?

(b) Rav Sheishes placed the Kesuvah in the possession of Rami bar Chama. What objection did Rav Nachman raise when Rav Sheishes initially claimed that this was because *his* document was dated earlier?

(c) What did Rav Nachman subsequently rule?

(a) When Rav Sheishes claimed that, like Rav Nachman, he had based his ruling on 'Shuda de'Dayna', Rav Nachman claimed that Rav Sheishes was not a Dayan, and therefore had no authority to apply 'Shuda de'Dayna'.
What other argument did he present to prove Rav Sheishes wrong?

(b) Why would Rav Sheishes otherwise have had the law on his side?

(c) How did Rav Nachman obtain the authority of a Dayan?

(d) Who finally received the Kesuvah?

(a) What did Rav Yosef rule when two claimants came before him, one with a document (of sale) dated the fifth of Nisan, the other, with a document dated Nisan S'tam?

(b) What reason did he give to the other claimant for his ruling?

(c) And what did he tell the latter, when he asked for a document dated from Rosh Chodesh Iyar, authorizing him to claim from the purchasers of the seller (who had accepted responsibility) from then on?

(d) What then, could he do to recoup his losses from the purchasers?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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