Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE FINAL RULING

(a) Answer: Rather, both Rav and R. Nasan go after assessment. We understand the one who said that the law is as R. Elazar Ben Azaryah.

1. The one who said that the law is not as him - here, the assessment is that he increases the Kesuvah because of the feeling of closeness, and this happens (before Nesu'in).

(b) R. Chanina: The law is as R. Elazar Ben Azaryah.
(c) R. Yanai: Do not teach thusly in the Beis Midrash - the law is as Chachamim.
(d) R. Yitzchak Bar Avdimi: Rabeinu says, the law is as R. Elazar Ben Azaryah.
(e) Rav Nachman: Shmuel says, the law is as R. Elazar Ben Azaryah.

1. Rav Nachman himself says, the law is not as R. Elazar Ben Azaryah.

(f) Nehardai: Rav Nachman says, the law is as R. Elazar Ben Azaryah.

1. Even though Rav Nachman cursed any judge that will rule as R. Elazar Ben Azaryah - the law is as R. Elazar Ben Azaryah.

(g) In practice, the law is as R. Elazar Ben Azaryah.

(a) Question (Ravin): If there was Chupah, but not relations - does she receive the addition to the Kesuvah?

1. Does the dearness of Chupah acquire?
2. Or, does the dearness of relations acquire?

(b) (Rav Yosef): He only wrote the addition for the dearness of the first night.

1. We understand if the dearness of Chupah acquires - this is the first night.

(c) Question: If the dearness of relations acquires - will they only have relations the first night?

1. Counter-question: If you say, the dearness of Chupah - is Chupah only at night?

i. Counter-counter-question: Can you say that relations are only at night?

A. (Rava): In a dark house, it is permitted by day.

ii. Answer: Rav Yosef teaches that it is normal to have relations at night.

2. We did not yet answer - if you say, the dearness of Chupah - is Chupah only at night?
3. Answer: Since Chupah is for relations, it is normal to do it at night.

(d) Question (Rav Ashi): If she entered Chupah and became Nidah, what is the law?

1. If you say, dearness of Chupah acquires - is this only a Chupah fitting for relations, or is there no distinction?

i. The question is unsettled.

(e) (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): He may write to a virgin ...
(f) Question: Does R. Yehudah really hold, we write receipts?

1. (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): One who paid part of his debt - we destroy the first document and write a new one for the remaining debt;
2. R. Yosi says, we write a receipt.

(g) Answer #1 (R. Yirmeyah): The receipt is written in the Kesuvah itself.
(h) Answer #2 (Abaye): The receipt need not be written in the Kesuvah itself!

1. In the case of the loan, he certainly paid; if he takes a receipt, perhaps he will lose it and have to pay again!
2. In our case, he did not pay anything - she merely *said* she received part - if he guards the receipt, fine; if not, he caused his own loss!

(i) We understand, Abaye did not answer as R. Yirmeyah - the Mishnah does not say that the receipt is in the Kesuvah.
(j) Question: Why didn't R. Yirmeyah learn as Abaye?
(k) Answer: We decree not to write a receipt in the case, on account of a regular case.

(a) The Mishnah implies that she must write that she received 100; it is not enough that she says so.
(b) Question: But this is a monetary matter - and R. Yehudah holds such stipulations work!
(c) (Beraisa - R. Meir): One who engages a woman on condition that he is not obligated to give her food, clothing or relations - the engagement takes effect, his stipulation does not;
(d) R. Yehudah says, in monetary matters, the stipulation is valid.
(e) Answer: R. Yehudah holds that Kesuvah is a Rabbinical enactment, and Chachamim strengthened their words more than Torah laws.
(f) Question: But a husband eats the fruits of his wife's land by Rabbinical enactment, and this was not strengthened!

1. (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): A man always eats the fruits of his wife's land, unless he writes that he has no rights to her property, its fruits, the fruits of its fruits ad infinitum.

2. When the Mishnah says 'writes', it really means 'says'.

(g) Answer (Abaye): Every wife has a Kesuvah, not all have fruits; Chachamim strengthened their enactment by Kesuvah, since this is common, and not by fruits, which are uncommon.
(h) Question: But donkey-drivers (merchants) are common, and Chachamim did not strengthen their enactment!

1. (Mishnah): 2 merchants enter a city. One says, 'My produce is new, his is old; mine is untithed, his is tithed' - they are not believed; R. Yehudah says, they are believed.

(i) Answer #1 (Abaye): A definite Rabbinical enactment was strengthened, not a doubtful one.
(j) Answer #2 (Rava): Chachamim were lenient by Demai (produce of a common person who is not established as reliable regarding tithes.

(a) (Mishnah - R. Meir): Anyone who reduces the Kesuvah from 200 ...
(b) *Anyone* who reduces - even with a condition!

1. He must hold, the condition is null, and the Kesuvah is 200 anyway; since he said that it is only 100, she does not feel that it is 200, and such relations are harlotry.

(c) Question: But R. Meir holds that one who makes a condition contrary to Torah, the condition is null - implying, contrary to Rabbinical law, it is valid!
(d) Answer: R. Meir holds that Kesuvah is mid'Oraisa.
(e) (Beraisa): R. Meir says, anyone who reduces the Kesuvah of a virgin from 200, or of a non-virgin from 100, such relations are harlotry;

1. R. Yosi says, he is permitted; R. Yehudah says, he may write 200 to a virgin, and she writes that she received 100; he may write 100 to a non-virgin, and she writes that she received 50.

(f) Question: Does R. Yosi really hold that he is permitted?
(g) Contradiction (Beraisa): To fix the world, we do not designate Metaltelim to pay a Kesuvah; R. Yosi asks, how does this fix the world? Their value is not fixed, and they depreciate!

1. Question: The first Tana also said that Metaltelim may not be used!
2. Answer: Rather, the 1st Tana qualifies: they may not be used when he did not accept responsibility (to complete payment from other property); if he accepted responsibility, they may be used;

i. R. Yosi says, even if he accepted responsibility, they may not be used - their value is not fixed, and they depreciate!

3. We see that R. Yosi is concerned, lest they depreciate - when he stipulates to definitely decrease the Kesuvah, all the more so!

(h) Answer: This is not difficult! She does not know that Metaltelim will depreciate, that she should pardon the loss - in our case, she knowingly pardoned the decrease!