POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Kesuvos 9
KESUVOS 6-9 - have been anonymously dedicated by a unique Ohev Torah and
Marbitz Torah living in Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.
1) ONE WHO CLAIMS THAT THE OPENING WAS OPEN
(a) (R. Elazar): A Chasan who claims that the Kalah's opening
was open (i.e. she is not a virgin) is believed, and she
becomes forbidden to him (we suspect that she had
relations with someone after the engagement).
2) THE EPISODE
(b) Question: She should be permitted, because there is a
1. Perhaps she had relations before the engagement.
(c) Answer#1: R. Elazar's law applies to the wife of a Kohen,
who becomes forbidden to her husband even if she was
2. Even if the relations were during the engagement,
perhaps she was forced to have relations against her
(d) Answer#2: His law applies to a girl who became engaged
(through her father) before the age of 3 (in which case
relations definitely occurred during the engagement).
(e) Question: A Mishnah already teaches this (that if one
says that something is forbidden to him, it becomes
forbidden to him, even if he is contradicted)!
1. (Mishnah): One says to a woman, I engaged you to
myself, and she denies it. He may not marry her
relatives, but she may marry his relatives.
(f) Answer: In the Mishnah, he certainly knows the truth. R.
Elazar has to teach his law, since we might have thought
that a man cannot tell if the opening was already open.
(g) Question: Did R. Elazar really say this? (This
contradicts a teaching of his)!
1. (R. Elazar): A woman only becomes forbidden to her
husband through Kinuy (warning not to be in
seclusion with a particular man) and seclusion, as
in the episode (of David and Bas Sheva).
(h) Counter-question: Do you think that R. Elazar says (she
can become forbidden) only through Kinuy and seclusion,
but not through witnesses?!
2. Question: This cannot be correct - there was no
Kinuy and seclusion in that episode!
i. Also - She did not become forbidden!
3. Correction: R. Elazar meant, we see that a woman
only becomes forbidden through Kinuy and seclusion
*from* the episode, in which there was not Kinuy and
seclusion, and she did not become forbidden.
4. The question remains; the claim of an open opening
is not a case of Kinuy and seclusion!
(i) Retraction: R. Elazar's other teaching says: A woman
becomes forbidden through 2 witnesses; if there was Kinuy
and seclusion, even 1 witness can make her forbidden.
1. The claim of an open opening is like 2 witnesses.
(a) Question: Why didn't she become forbidden in the episode?
(b) Answer#1: She was forced.
(c) Answer#2 (Rav Shmuel Bar Nachmani): Everyone who went to
war in David's army wrote a document of divorce to his
3) THE CLAIM OF AN OPEN OPENING
1. (Rav Yosef): "Take Arovasam" - these are things
between man and wife (i.e. marriage, which is taken
(removed) through divorce).
(a) (Abaye): Our Mishnah teaches R. Elazar's law!
1. 'A virgin is married on Wednesday' - but not
Thursday - because the Chasan may calm down (and not
come to Beis Din).
(b) If the concern is that he will pay a Kesuvah (which she
does not deserve) - let him pay it! (It is his own fault
for calming down.)
(c) Rather, we are concerned that he come to Beis Din, so we
will rule that she is forbidden to him.
(d) Suggestion: Isn't it the case, that he claims that the
opening was open?
(e) Rejection: No, he claims that there was no blood.
(f) (Rav Yehudah): One who claims that the opening was open
is believed to deprive her of her Kesuvah.
(g) Question (Rav Yosef): A Mishnah teaches this!
1. (Mishnah): One who eats by his father-in-law in
Yehudah without witnesses cannot later complain that
his Kalah is not a virgin, since he goes in
seclusion with her.
2. We infer, in Galil (where they do not go in
seclusion) he may make such a claim.
3. If the claim is to make her forbidden on him - this
should also apply in Yehudah!
4. Rather, the claim must be to deprive her of her
5. Suggestion: He claims that the opening was open.
6. Rejection: No, the claim is that there was no blood.