REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 102
(a) If our Mishnah (which validates a man's obligation to feed his wife's
daughter for five years) is not speaking when he gave her an unsigned
document (which would pose a Kashya on Resh Lakish), then how is it
(b) What does Rav Gidal Amar Rav say regarding Sh'tarei P'sikta 'Hein Hein
ha'Devarim ha'Niknin ba'Amirah'? How does he describe Sh'tarei P'sikta?
(c) What did Rav Gidal Amar Rav mean by that? Why does he refer to Sh'tarei
P'sikta in this way?
(a) What does the Beraisa say about a man who writes on a piece of paper
that he owes a Kohen five Sela'im (for Pidyon ha'Ben)?
According to the Torah law, when would the boy be redeemed?
(b) How will Resh Lakish (who does not validate an unsigned I.O.U.) explain
(c) In that case, why did he need to write anything at all?
(d) The reason that his son is not redeemed is because of Ula.
Ula say? What else may one not use to redeem a firstborn son?
(a) What does the Tana Kama of a Beraisa say about a guarantor who signed
his name after the signatures of the witnesses on a document?
(b) Why can one not claim from the guarantor's Meshubadim?
(a) What did ben Nannes comment to Rebbi Yishmael, when he issued a ruling
like the Tana Kama?
Answers to questions
(b) What reason did ben Nannes give for his opinion?
(c) How do we try to connect this Machlokes to the Machlokes of Rebbi
Yochanan and Resh Lakish (who argue over the validity of an unsigned
(d) What is the source of Arvus (the obligation of an Areiv to fulfill his
undertaking to pay on behalf of the debtor)?
(a) We conclude that Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish do not argue about the
opinion of ben Nannes.
Why is there no way that ben Nannes could
theoretically hold like Rebbi Yochanan?
(b) We establish that they argue over Rebbi Yishmael's opinion.
the Machlokes then be?
(a) We learned above the statement of Rav Gidal Amar Rav regarding Sh'tarei
P'sikta ('Hein Hein ha'Devarim ha'Niknin ba'Amirah').
On what grounds does
(b) Why then, does 'Hein Hein ha'Devarim ... ' apply, even though the
parents receive no money in exchange?
- ... contend that, logically speaking, Rav's statement should be restricted to the father of a Na'arah (but not to the father of a Bogeres)?
- ... conclude that that cannot be the case?
(c) Ravina asked Rav Ashi whether these undertakings should be documented
(even without the explicit consent of either party) or not.
What are the
ramifications of this She'eilah?
(d) What did Rav Ashi reply?
(a) How does Rav Ashi explain our Mishnah 'ha'Pikchin Hayu *Kosvin* Al-menas
she'Azun es Bitcha ... Kol Z'man she'At Imi'?
(b) What did Rebbi Chiya comment on the Mishnah (in Af-al-Pi) writes
'ha'Kosev le'Ishto Din u'Devarim ... '? What do we learn from there?
(c) We learned in a Beraisa 'Ein Kosvin Sh'tarei Eirusin ve'Nisu'in Ela
mi'Da'as Sh'neihem'. Assuming that the Tana is not referring to Sh'tarei
P'sikta (posing a Kashya on Rav Ashi), then to what *is* he referring?
(d) This conforms with the opinion of Rav Papa and Rav Sh'ravya.
In a case
when they went and wrote a Sh'tar Kidushin without the consent of the Kalah
(even though she agreed to the actual Kidushin itself), what was the ruling
- ... Rabah and Ravina?
- ... Rav Papa and Rav Sh'ravya?
(a) How do we establish our Mishnah which states: 'If the husbands died,
their daughters are fed from B'nei Chorin, whilst her daughter is fed from
Meshubadim, because she is like a creditor', to reconcile it with Rav Ashi?
What is the final reason (according to Rav Ashi), for the fact that their
daughter may not claim from Meshubadim, in spite of the Kinyan, even though
her daughter may?
(b) If they made a Kinyan for the latter, then why do we think that they
might not have done so for the former?
(c) How is it in fact possible for their daughters to have been present at
the time of the Kinyan (leaving us with a Kashya on Rav Ashi)?
(d) So we try to answer that a Kinyan will only be effective by her
daughter, who is not included in the T'nai Beis-Din, but not by their
daughter, who is.
On what grounds do we reject this answer?
(a) What does Rav Chisda observe from our Mishnah, which states that the
first husband is obligated to send her Mezonos 'le'Makom she'Imah'? What are
the ramifications of this observation?
Answers to questions
(b) We query this however, on the grounds that the Tana may be referring to
What is the significance of this answer?
(c) To which incident are we referring?
(d) How do we prove that the Tana is in fact, referring even to a Gedolah,
and that this is therefore considered the normal thing to do?