Daf Yomi - Kesuvos 53 - Highlights

Rav Papa and Yehudah

Rav Papa was making arrangements for his son to be married to the daughter of Abba of Sura (his father-in-law; Rav Papa’s son was obviously born to him from a previous marriage, for otherwise, he would be prohibited for him to marry his mother’s sister). Rav Papa went there to write the kesuvah for the bride. When Yehudah ben Mereimar heard of his arrival, he left his house and came before Rav Papa. When they reached the door of Abba of Sura’s house, Yehudah wished to depart. Rav Papa said to him, “Will the Master come in with me?” Rav Papa observed that it was distasteful to him to enter. Rav Papa asked him: What is it that you have on your mind? Are you reluctant to enter because Shmuel said to Rav Yehudah: “Smart one! Do not be present when an inheritance is being transferred (away from the rightful heir) even when it is from a bad son to a good son, because one never knows what offspring will come forth from him (the bad son) and certainly when the transfer is from a son to a daughter (even though the transfer is valid, it should not be condoned).” (Here too, a father is writing a dowry to his daughter and is pledging property that should belong to his sons.) Rav Papa explained to him that providing a dowry is an enactment of the Rabbis, as Rabbi Yochanan stated in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai (and therefore there is nothing wrong if you are present by this transfer).

Yehudah replied: Perhaps this enactment applies only to one who acts willingly; may we force the father to write a dowry?

Rav Papa said: I didn’t mean for you to come in and force the father; I meant that you should come in without forcing him.

Yehudah answered him: If I would go in, it would amount to compulsion (Abba of Sura would be ashamed to offer a small dowry in the presence of a distinguished guest).

Rav Papa urged him to enter, but having sat down, he remained silent. Abba thought that Yehudah was displeased with the amount that he pledged and consequently assigned to his daughter all that he possessed. Finally, however, Abba said to him: Will the Master not speak even now? By the life of the Master, I have left nothing for myself!

Yehudah replied: If you would have listened to me, even the initial amount that you assigned did not give me any pleasure.

Abba asked: May I retract from what I pledged?

Yehudah responded: I do not want that you should become a retractor (he is legally permitted to retract since there was no erusin yet). (52b – 53a)

Selling her Kesuvah

Rav Yeimar Sava inquired of Rav Nachman: If a woman sold her kesuvah to her husband, does she still have the kesuvah condition for the male children or not (perhaps she has no right to sell the rights that her sons have in the dowry)?

Rava asks: Why didn’t you inquire regarding a case where she waives her right to the kesuvah?

Rav Yeimar Sava explains himself: I inquired regarding a case where she sold her kesuvah, for even though her financial situation compelled her to sell it, she still might lose the rights to the conditions in the kesuvah; certainly, she might lose her rights to the kesuvah conditions when she waives her rights to the kesuvah.

Rava said: In a case that she sells her kesuvah to others, she retains the right to the kesuvah conditions for the male children because she only sold the kesuvah due to her financial situation. If she waived the rights to her kesuvah, she has forfeited the right to the kesuvah conditions for the male children because she has willingly waived her right to the kesuvah.

Rava inquired: Is selling the kesuvah to her husband tantamount to selling it to others (and she would retain the right to the kesuvah conditions for the male children) or is it like she waived the rights to the kesuvah to her husband?

Rava resolved the inquiry himself: Selling the kesuvah to her husband is tantamount to selling it to others.

Rav Idi bar Avin challenged Rava by citing a Mishna in Yevamos (87b): If a woman's husband went overseas, and they came (one witness) and said to her, “Your husband died,” and she married, and afterwards her husband returned, she must leave this one and this one. And the heirs of neither this one, nor of this one inherit her kesuvah.

The Gemora there (91a) asked: Why are we mentioning kesuvah here? The Mishna had already taught us that she does not receive a kesuvah.

Rav Papa answered: The Mishna now is referring to the kesuvah conditions for the male children. (Stipulated in the kesuvah is that her sons are entitled to receive her kesuvah from their father's estate when he dies, even if their mother died first and their father married again and had sons with his second wife. They receive her kesuvah in addition to their shares in their father's estate to which the sons of both the first and the second wife are equally entitled. In the case spoken of in our Mishna, however, the sons of the first wife lose their claim to her kesuvah.)

Rav Idi concludes his question: Why do we say that she forfeits the right to the kesuvah conditions? Why don’t we say that her evil inclination compelled her (just as here, her financial situation compelled her to sell the kesuvah) to accept the testimony of one witness because she wanted to remarry and she should not lose the right to the kesuvah condition?

The Gemora answers: The Rabbis penalized her there because she did not investigate the matter thoroughly, and that is why she loses her rights to the conditions of the kesuvah. (53a)
She Waived her Right
Ravin bar Chanina sat before Rav Chisda and he said in the name of Rabbi Elozar: If a woman waives her right to the kesuvah to her husband, she does not receive sustenance from the husband’s estate after she is widowed.

Rav Chisda replied: If you had not reported this halacha to me in the name of a great man, I would have thought that the woman should not lose that right because it is written [Mishlei 17:13]: If one repays good with evil, evil will not depart from his house. (She did a favor to the husband by waiving her right to the kesuvah, he should repay the favor and she should be supported from his estate while she is a widow.) (53a)
Burying an Arusah
Rav Nachman, Ula and Avimi bar Papi were sitting and Rav Chiya bar Ammi was sitting with them. A man, whose arusah had died, came before them. They told him: Go bury her or give her kesuvah to her (this is referring to the statutory amount of the kesuvah, these Rabbis being of the opinion that the husband has been allowed to retain the kesuvah of his deceased wife for the expenses he incurred in the burial).

Rav Chiya asked them from the following braisa: If a wife from erusin dies, the husband is not deemed to be an onein (one whose close relative passed away and has not been buried yet), he may not become tamei to her if he is a Kohen; and similarly (if he dies) she is not an onein, she does not have to be busy with his burial. If she dies, he does not inherit her and if he dies, she collects her kesuvah. Rav Chiya concluded: The reason why she collects her kesuvah is because the husband died first; however, it is evident that if she dies first, there are no kesuvah obligations (and the husband would not be required to bury her).

The Gemora asks: What is the reason for this halacha?

Rav Hoshaya answers: For the following is written in the kesuvah: When you marry another man, you can take what is written for you. This implies that she collects her kesuvah only if she may marry another man and that doesn’t apply when she died first.

Ravin came from Bavel to Eretz Yisroel and said in the name of Rish Lakish: An arusah who dies (before the husband) does not have a right to her kesuvah (the husband is not required to bury her).

Abaye said to the Chachamim: Go tell Ravin: Your favor is taken away and cast onto thorns (the information which he intended to be an assistance to the students was of no use to them), for Rav Hoshaya already explained this ruling in Bavel. (53a – 53b)
Terminating Support for the Daughters
The Mishna had stated: The daughters that I will have from you they will sit in my house and be supported by my estate until they are taken as wives by men is (also automatically) obligatory, as it is a condition of Beis Din.

Rav taught the Mishna in the following manner: The daughters will be supported until they are taken into marriage. Levi taught: The daughters will be supported until they reach the state of bagrus (generally, at twelve and a half).

The Gemora explains: They both agree that if the daughter becomes a bogeres or if she enters into nisuin, her right to support expires. They only argue regarding an arusah who has not reached the state of bagrus yet.

The Gemora cites a braisa: Until when is a daughter supported? Until she becomes an arusah. It was said in the name of Rabbi Elozar: Until she becomes a bogeres. (Rav is following the opinion of the Tanna Kamma and Levi is following Rabbi Elozar’s opinion.)
Support for an Arusah
Rav Chisda said to Rav Yosef: Have you ever heard from Rav Yehudah whether an arusah receives support from her father’s estate or not?

Rav Yosef said to him: I never heard from Rav Yehudah regarding this, but I logically assume that she is not entitled for support. The reason that the Rabbis established that the daughters will be supported by their father’s estate is because we didn’t want them to be compelled to suffer the humiliation of begging for food; however, this is not applicable by an arusah. Her husband would not allow her to beg for food (and he will sustain her) and there is therefore no necessity for her to be sustained by her father’s estate.

Rav Chisda replied: If you did not hear anything regarding this, my logic dictates that she should receive support. Since the husband has not completely decided if he will marry her (perhaps she has defects), he will not throw away his money for nothing.

The Gemora cites another version of this discussion: Rav Yosef said to Rav Chisda: I never heard from Rav Yehudah regarding this, but I logically assume that she is entitled for support. Since the husband has not completely decided if he will marry her (perhaps she has defects), he will not throw away his money for nothing.

Rav Chisda replied: If you did not hear anything regarding this, my logic dictates that she should not receive support. Since her husband would not allow her to beg for food (and he will sustain her), there is therefore no necessity for her to be sustained by her father’s estate. (53b)
Support for a Girl who Performed Mi’un
They inquired of Rav Sheishes: Regarding a minor girl who performed mi’un (A girl whose father had died could be given in marriage while still a minor (under the age of twelve) by her mother or older brother. This marriage is only valid Rabbinically. As long as she has not attained the age of twelve, she may nullify the marriage by refusing to live with her husband. This act of refusal, referred to as mi’un nullifies the marriage retroactively.); is she entitled to be supported by the father’s estate (because the nisuin has been retroactively nullified) or not (since she left her father’s authority through nisuin)?

Rav Sheishes cited the following braisa to them: A widow in her father’s house (after erusin), a divorced woman in her father’s house or a woman who was awaiting yibum in her father’s house is entitled to be supported from her father’s estate. Rabbi Yehudah said: Only a woman who is still in her father’s house is entitled to support, but a woman who is no longer in her father’s house is not entitled to support. It would seem that Rabbi Yehudah and the Tanna Kamma are ruling in an identical manner. The difference between them must be regarding a minor girl who performed mi’un. The Tanna Kamma maintains that she is entitled to be supported and Rabbi Yehudah disagrees. (53b)
Support for the Daughter of a Yevamah
Rish Lakish inquired: Does the daughter of a yevamah receive support from her father’s estate or not?

The Gemora elaborates: Since the yevamah receives her kesuvah from her initial husband, it would seem logical that she does not receive support from her father’s estate. Or perhaps, since, if there is no available kesuvah from her initial husband, she collects the kesuvah from the yavam, the daughter may receive support from his estate as well?

The Gemora lets this question remain unresolved.

[END]