KESUVOS 45 - Dedicated by Dr. Yehoshua Daniel of Efrat, Israel, to honor the memory of his mother z"l, Musha bas Chaim Ze'ev Ha'levi.

1)

(a)Shilo quoted a Beraisa listing three Dinim in connection with a Na'arah. If witnesses testify after she has married, that she committed adultery when she was betrothed, she is sentenced to Sekilah at the entrance of her father's house. What message does this convey to her parents?

(b)Where do Beis-Din put her to death, in the event that the testimony that she committed adultery took place before she married?

(c)And how will the Halachah differ in the event that she committed adultery after she became a Bogeres (irrespective of whether the witnesses testified before the marriage or after it)?

(d)Why is that?

1)

(a)Shilo quoted a Beraisa listing three Dinim in connection with a Na'arah Me'orasah. If witnesses testify after she has married, that she committed adultery when she was betrothed, she is sentenced to Sekilah at the entrance of her father's house - announcing to her parents 'See the fruits of your Chinuch; because it was in this house that this disgusting deed occurred!'

(b)In the event that the testimony that she committed adultery took place before she married - she is put to death at the gate of the Beis-Din of the city.

(c)In the event that she committed adultery after she became a Bogeres (irrespective of whether the witnesses testified before the marriage or after it) - she is sentenced to Chenek and not to Sekilah ...

(d)... because when the physical change takes place inside her, her Din changes correspondingly.

2)

(a)What does the Beraisa say about a man who claims, after his wife became a Bogeres, that she committed adultery whilst she was a Na'arah Me'orasah, should he not be able to substantiate his claim (with regard to Malkus and paying a hundred Shekalim and receiving Malkus)?

(b)What does the Tana mean when he says 'Hi v'Zomemehah Makdimin l'Veis ha'Sekilah'?

(c)Why does this Beraisa pose a Kashya on the Tana of Shilo's Beraisa?

(d)Rava answers that Motzi Shem Ra is different because it is a Chidush. What is the Chidush of Motzi Shem Ra?

2)

(a)The Beraisa rules that a man who claims, after his wife became a Bogeres, that she committed adultery whilst she was a Na'arah Me'orasah, should he not be able to substantiate his claim - neither receives Malkus nor pays a hundred Shekalim

(b)When the Tana says 'Hi v'Zomemehah Makdimin l'Veis ha'Sekilah' - he means either she (if the testimony stands) or the witnesses (should they turn out to be Zomemim) are sentenced to stoning.

(c)This Beraisa poses a Kashya on Shilo's Beraisa - who holds that if the witnesses testify after she has become a Bogeres, she receives Chenek and not Sekilah.

(d)Rava answers that Motzi Shem Ra is different because it is a Chidush - inasmuch as even though he slanders her after they are married, at a time when adultery then would result in Chenek and not Sekilah, she is nevertheless sentenced to Sekilah, as though no change had taken place. Consequently, Bagrus (in the case of Motzi Shem Ra) will not cause her Din to change either.

3)

(a)On what grounds does Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua refute Rava's distinction between Motzi Shem Ra and adultery?

(b)What does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak therefore conclude with regard to the two conflicting Beraisos (whether 'Ishtani Gufa' causes her to adopt the Din of a married woman [to reduce her Din from Sekilah to Chenek] or not)?

(c)The Mishnah in Horayos discusses a Hedyot (an ordinary person or Kohen) who was Chayav a Chatas before becoming appointed king or Kohen Gadol. A Hedyot (an ordinary person) who sins, brings a she-sheep or a she-goat as a Korban Chatas. Which animal is brought by ...

1. ... a king?

2. ... a Kohen Gadol?

3)

(a)Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua refutes Rava's distinction between Motzi Shem Ra and adultery (in the case of Motzi Shem Ra) - on the grounds that, even though marriage will not change her Din, perhaps a physical change such as Bagrus, will.

(b)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak therefore concludes - that the two conflicting Beraisos (whether 'Ishtani Gufa' causes her to adopt the Din of a married woman [to reduce her Din from Sekilah to Chenek] or not) do indeed argue (as we shall now see from the Mishnah in Horayos)), and that there is no difference between the cases of adultery and Motzi Shem Ra.

(c)The Mishnah in Horayos discusses a Hedyot (an ordinary person or Kohen) who were Chayav a Chatas before becoming appointed king or Kohen Gadol. A Hedyot (an ordinary person) who sins, brings a she-sheep or a she-goat as a Korban Chatas. If the sinner is ...

1. ... a king - he brings a he-goat.

2. ... a Kohen Gadol - he brings a bull.

4)

(a)According to the Tana Kama, a king or a Kohen Gadol who sinned before his appointment, brings the Korban of a Hedyot. What does Rebbi Shimon say if he discovered that he sinned only after his appointment?

(b)How does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak try to connect the Machlokes Tana'im with regard to Ishtani Gufa (that we just cited) with this Machlokes?

(c)On what grounds do we reject this contention? What should Rebbi Shimon have ruled if he were to hold like the Tana of Shilo?

(d)Then what is his reasoning there by Korban Chatas?

4)

(a)According to the Tana Kama, a king or a Kohen Gadol who sinned before his appointment brings the Korban of a Hedyot. According to Rebbi Shimon, if he discovered that he sinned only after his appointment - he is Patur from bringing a Korban at all.

(b)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak tries to connect the Machlokes Tana'im with regard to 'Ishtani Gufa' (that we just cited) with this Machlokes. The Tana of Shilo, who holds 'Ishtani Gufa' changes her Halachah, follows the opinion of Rebbi Shimon (who appears to hold likewise) - whereas the Tana of the second Beraisa holds like the Tana Kama.

(c)We reject this contention however, on the grounds that - if Rebbi Shimon were to hold like the Tana of Shilo (that 'Ishtani Gufa' causes her Din to change), then he should have ruled that the king and the Kohen Gadol bring their respective Korbanos (rather than no Korban at all).

(d)His reasoning by Korban Chatas must therefore be - that he goes after the knowledge as well as the sin (both must be either when he is a Hedyot or when he is a king or a Kohen Gadol).

45b----------------------------------------45b

5)

(a)How did Rebbi Yochanan instruct the Beraisa expert to amend Shilo's Beraisa 'Sarchah v'li'be'Sof Bagrah, Teidon b'Chenek') to resolve the contradiction between the two conflicting Beraisos?

(b)Rebbi Ila'a counters the Kashya from the Pasuk "Na'arah ha'Me'orasah" (which appears to preclude a Bogeres from Sekilah) with the Pasuk "v'Hotzi'u es ha'Na'arah". How does he extrapolate for there to incorporate a Bogeres in the Din of Sekilah?

(c)What problem did Rebbi Chananya have with Rebbi Ila'a's explanation, that caused him to exclaim 'Rachmana Litzlan me'Hai Da'ata!' (May Hash-m save us from your opinion!)?

(d)How did Rebbi Ila'a counter that?

(e)How does Rebbi Yitzchak bar Avin or Rebbi Yitzchak bar Aba explain Rebbi Ila'a distinction between the Din of the girl and that of her husband?

5)

(a)To resolve the contradiction between the two conflicting Beraisos, Rebbi Yochanan instructed the Beraisa expert to amend Shilo's Beraisa 'Sarchah v'li'be'Sof Bagrah, Teidon b'Chenek') to read ' ... Teidan bi'Sekilah'.

(b)Rebbi Ila'a counters the Kashya from the Pasuk "Na'arah ha'Me'orasah" (which appears to preclude a Bogeres from Sekilah) with the Pasuk "v'Hotzi'u es ha'Na'arah" - which is superfluous, and from which he extrapolates 'ha'Na'arah" she'Hayesah K'var' (the girl who was once a Na'arah, even though she has already become a Bogeres).

(c)Rebbi Chananya exclaimed 'Rachmana Litzlan me'Hai Da'ata'! - because he could not understand why Rebbi Ila'a's Din should not extend to the husband, to make him pay a hundred Shekalim and to receive Malkus, despite the fact that she is now a Bogeres.

(d)Rebbi Ila'a countered that - with the words 'Adraba; 'Rachmana Litzlan me'Hai Da'ata'!

(e)Rebbi Yitzchak bar Avin or Rebbi Yitzchak bar Aba ascribes Rebbi Ila'a's distinction to the fact that - whereas the girl's sentence is based on her immoral act (which took place before her physical change), the man's is based on his slander, which took place after it.

6)

(a)We have already learned that a Na'arah ha'Me'orasah is stoned to death at the gate of her father's house, in the event of the witnesses testifying after she was already married. Where is she stoned in the event that ...

1. ... she has no father or father's house?

2. ... most of the town's residents are Nochrim?

(b)If someone served idols, the Torah writes in Shoftim "v'Hotzeisa es ha'Ish ha'Hu ... el She'arecha". What do we learn from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from "Ki Yimatzei b'Kirbecha b'Achad she'Arecha"?

(c)And what else do we learn from the word " ... el She'arecha"? How can we learn two Derashos from the same word?

(d)The above Derashah concerns Avodah-Zarah. With regard to Na'arah ha'Me'orasah, the Torah writes "el Pesach Beis Avihah" and it also writes in Bamidbar (in connection with the Mishkan) "Masach Pesach Sha'ar he'Chatzer". How does Rebbi Avahu now learns from there that if a Na'arah ha'Me'orasah has no father or father's house, that she is stoned at the gate of the city where she sinned (see Tosfos DH 'Soklin')?

6)

(a)We have already learned that a Na'arah ha'Me'orasah is stoned to death at the gate of her father's house, in the event of the witnesses testifying after she was already married. In the event that ...

1. ... she has no father or father's house - she is stoned at the gate of the town where she sinned.

2. ... most of the town's residents are Nochrim - then she is stoned at the gate of the Beis-Din where she was sentenced.

(b)If someone served idols, the Torah writes "v'Hotzeisa es ha'Ish ha'Hu ... el She'arecha". We learn from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from "Ki Yimatzei b'Kirbecha b'Achad She'arecha" - that he is stoned at the gate of the town where he served idols and not at the gate of the town where he was sentenced.

(c)We also learn from the word " ... el She'arecha" - that this does not apply in a city where the majority of its residents are Nochrim, though this we learn from the suffix "She'are*cha*".

(d)The above Derashah concerns Avodah-Zarah. With regard to Na'arah ha'Me'orasah, the Torah writes "el Pesach Beis Avihah" and it also writes in Bamidbar (in connection with the Mishkan) "Masach Pesach Sha'ar he'Chatzer". Rebbi Avahu now learns from there that if a Na'arah ha'Me'orasah has no father or father's house, that she is stoned at the gate of the city where she sinned (see Tosfos DH 'Soklin') - a. by considering as if the word "Sha'ar" was written next to "Pesach" by Na'arah ha'Me'orasah, just like it is specifically written next to it in the Pasuk in Bamidbar, and b. by learning a 'Gezeirah Shavah' 'She'arecha" "She'arecha" from someone who served idols.

7)

(a)According to the first Lashon, the Tana Kama in a Beraisa states that a husband who slanders his newly-married wife receives Malkus and has to pay a hundred Shekalim, whether the marriage was consummated (and he claims that he discovered that she was not a Besulah), or not (and his claim is based entirely on the evidence of witnesses). Rebbi Yehudah agrees with this regarding Malkus. What does he say about paying?

(b)According to this Lashon, it is only Rebbi Yehudah who holds like Rebbi Eliezer ban Yakov (whose opinion will be cited later). If, in their opinion, the Parashah of Motzi Shem Ra was only said when the marriage was consummated, why does he receive Malkus even if the marriage was not consummated? What is the source of Malkus for a person slandering his wife?

(c)But how can one receive Malkus for a 'Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh'?

7)

(a)The Tana Kama in a Beraisa states that a husband who slanders his newly-married wife receives Malkus and has to pay a hundred Shekalim in any event - whether the marriage was consummated (and he claims that he discovered that she was not a Besulah), or not (and his claim is based entirely on the evidence of witnesses). Rebbi Yehudah agrees with this regarding Malkus. With regard to paying - he says that only if the marriage was consummated does he have to pay, otherwise not.

(b)According to this Lashon, it is only Rebbi Yehudah who holds like Rebbi Eliezer ban Yakov (whose opinion will be cited later). Despite the fact that, in their opinion, the Parashah of Motzi Shem Ra was only said when the marriage was consummated, the husband will nevertheless receive Malkus even if the marriage was not consummated - because he contravened the Lav of "Lo Selech Rachil b'Amecha" (see Tosfos DH 'Rebbi Yehudah").

(c)Nor is there a problem with the fact that he receives Malkus for a 'Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh' - since that is the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah throughout Shas.

8)

(a)The second Lashon establishes both opinions like Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov, and the Tana Kama speaks specifically when the marriage was consummated. What does Rebbi Yehudah then say?

(b)How does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak reconcile Rebbi Yehudah (in both Leshonos) with another Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah says 'Ba'al Lokeh; Lo Ba'al, Eino Lokeh'?

(c)Rav Papa disagrees with Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak. How does Rav Papa explain 'Lo Ba'al, Eino Lokeh' in the second Beraisa?

(d)Is it appropriate to refer to Mamon as Lokeh?

8)

(a)The second Lashon establishes both opinions like Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov, and the Tana Kama speaks specifically when the marriage was consummated. Rebbi Yehudah says - like he said according to the first Lashon: namely, that he receives Malkus in any event.

(b)Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak reconciles Rebbi Yehudah (in both Leshonos) with another Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah says 'Ba'al Lokeh; Lo Ba'al, Eino Lokeh' - by establishing the first Beraisa by Malkus mid'Rabanan (and not mid'Oraisa, like we thought until now).

(c)Rav Papa disagrees with Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak. Re-establishing the first Beraisa like we initially understood it, he explains 'Lo Ba'al, Eino Lokeh' in the second Beraisa - to mean that he is not fined monetarily, since the fine is restricted to where the marriage was consummated (as we explained earlier).

(d)And it is perfectly appropriate to refer to Mamon as 'Lokeh' - as we shall now see from a Beraisa.

9)

(a)According to the Tana Kama of a Beraisa, if someone says 'Chatzi Erki Alai, Nosen Chatzi Erko'. What does Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah say?

(b)How does Rav Papa explain Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah's statement 'Lokeh v'Nosen Erech Shalem'? Why should he receive Malkus?

(c)What is Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah's reason?

(d)Why does someone who says 'Erech Chetzyi Alai' have to pay his full Erech?

9)

(a)According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, if someone says 'Chatzi Erki Alai', he is obligated to pay half his Erech. According to Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah - he must pay his full Erech.

(b)Rav Papa explains Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah's statement 'Lokeh v'Nosen Erech Shalem' - to mean, not that he receives Malkus, but that he is 'hit' financially to make him pay full damages.

(c)Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah's reason is - because we decree 'Chatzi Erki' on account of 'Erech Chetzyi', where he is obligated min ha'Din, to pay his full Erech.

(d)Someone who says 'Erech Chetzyi Alai' has to pay his full Erech - because the statement automatically incorporates some limbs upon which his life depends, and someone who undertakes to pay the Erech of even one such limb, is obligated to pay his complete Erech.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF