Kesubos - Daf 102
- The audio shiur is in the works.
- Why a shtar given to a Kohen stating the father owes him five selaim is effective
A machlokes was brought on the bottom of Daf 101b regarding one who said to another: חייב אני לך מנה – “I owe you a maneh.” Rebbe Yochanan said he is chayav to pay but Reish Lakish says he is patur. The Gemara determined that the case is where he did not say to bystanders, אתם עדיי – “You are my witnesses that I am admitting.” Rather he said to his friend, “I owe you a maneh” using a shtar. Rebbe Yochanan holds he is chayav because אלימא מילתא דשטרא כמאן דאמר להו אתם עדיי – for the very existence of the shtar, even though it is unsigned, is effective in establishing the chiyuv as the admission of one who said to two bystanders, “You are my witnesses.” Rashi explains that since he delivered the shtar in the presence of witnesses, it is considered a valid admission. Reish Lakish does not hold the shtar is effective. The Gemara here attempts to bring a proof for Rebbe Yochanan from a Mishnah stating that where one wrote to a Kohen stating, “I am chayav to you for five selaim, (the amount given to a Kohen for a pidyon haben), he is chayav to pay the Kohen, but his son is not redeemed. This is presumably because the shtar is considered an admission of a prior debt and cannot be used for the pidyon. The Gemara answers that this case is different, דמשעובד ליה מדאורייתא – for one is chayav to give to the Kohen mid’Oraysa. According to Reish Lakish, the note is effective, not because it is an admission, but because the debt is a d’Oraysa, strengthening the document, and making it equivalent to one that was signed by witnesses.
- How the fathers of the chosson and kallah financially obligate themselves
Rav Gidal said in the name of Rav: The father of the kallah asks the father of the chosson, כמה אתה נותן לבנך – “How much are you giving your son?” He responds כך וכך – “Such and such an amount”. The father of the chosson then asks the father of the kallah the same thing. עמדו וקידשו קנו – If they stand up and carry out the act of kiddushin, they have rendered binding the chiyuv that each one accepted upon themselves, הן הן הדברים הנקנים באמירה - for these chiyuvim are made legally binding through speech alone. Rava clarifies Rav’s ruling is not based on the monetary benefit of the kiddushin the father of the kallah receives, since that would only apply to a naarah, and not a bogeress. Rather, בההיא הנאה דקמיחתני אהדדי – it is through the pleasure of marrying the children to each other, גמרי ומקני להדדי – the fathers wholeheartedly enter a binding agreement with one another. This intangible benefit also applies in the case of a bogeress.
- למקום שאמה – זאת אומרת בת אצל אמה
The Mishnah had stated that the first husband who committed to provide support for his wife’s daughter from a previous marriage cannot say, “when she comes to me I will feed her.” Rather, her must bring her food to her למקום שאמה - in the place where her mother lives. Rav Chisda said: זאת אומרת בת אצל אמה – This is in effect saying that the place of a daughter, whether a minor or adult, is with her mother. Rashi explains that the heirs to the father’s estate cannot force her to live with them to reduce the cost of her upkeep. When the Gemara suggests that perhaps this is only in the case of a minor, it answers that if so, the Mishnah should have written למקום שהיא – in the place where she is. Rashi explains by not identifying the place, it can mean in the case of an adult, in her brother’s house, and in the case of a minor, her mother’s house. Since it wrote למקום שאמה – it teaches that the place of a daughter, regardless of age, is with her mother.
