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 26
KESUVOS 26 & 27 (6th and 7th days of Pesach) - have been generously
dedicated by Dick and Beverly Horowitz of Los Angeles. May they be blessed
with a life of joy and much Nachas from their very special children and
1) CHAZAKAHS FOR TERUMAH
(a) Answer: The brother was believed because he spoke naively
(i.e. without intent to testify).
2) PROTEST THAT A MAN IS NOT A KOHEN
1. (Rav Yehudah): A man naively said, 'I remember when
I was a child ... they took me out of school, ...
and immersed me to eat Terumah'; R. Chiya says that
he continued 'my friends avoided touching me, and
called me 'Yochanan who eats Chalah'.'.
(b) (Beraisa - R. Shimon Ben Elazar): Ma'aser Rishon
establishes that a man is a Kohen, just as Terumah does;
if he takes a portion in Beis Din, this does not
2. Rebbi established him as a Kohen based on this.
(c) Question: But Ma'aser Rishon is given to a Levi!
(d) Answer: Our Tana holds as R. Elazar Ben Azaryah.
1. (Beraisa): R. Akiva says, we give Terumah to a Kohen
and Ma'aser Rishon to a Levi; R. Elazar Ben Azaryah
says, Ma'aser Rishon is given even to a Kohen.
(e) Question: Even R. Elazar Ben Azaryah admits that Ma'aser
may be given to a Levi - (how can we establish the man as
(f) Answer: After Ezra fined the Levi'im, R. Elazar Ben
Azaryah says that Ma'aser Rishon is given only to a
(g) Question: Perhaps it happened to be given to a Levi!
(h) Answer (Rav Chisda): We are dealing with a man whose
father is known to be a Kohen; rumor says that the son is
unfit for Kehunah because his mother was divorced or had
Chalitzah; the son was seen receiving Ma'aser Rishon.
1. He is certainly not a Levi! If he really was an
unfit Kohen, he would not receive Ma'aser.
(i) (From Beraisa above): If he takes a portion in Beis Din,
this does not establish him.
i. Even the opinion that says that anyone may eat
Ma'aser Rishon admits that it is only
distributed to a Levi or Kohen.
(j) Question: If distribution in Beis Din does not establish
him what does?!
(k) Answer (Rav Sheshes): The Beraisa says thusly: One who
receives a share of Terumah with his brothers from his
father's estate is not established as a Kohen.
(l) Question: This is obvious!
(m) Answer: One might have thought, just as the others are
receiving Terumah to eat, so is this one.
1. Rather, it is possible that he is receiving Terumah
(a) (Mishnah (Daf 22B) - R. Yehudah): We do not establish a
man as a Kohen based on 1 witness ...
(b) Question: R. Shimon Ben Gamliel says the same thing as R.
1. Suggestion: Perhaps they argue on this: R. Eliezer
says that protest of 1 witness is considered a
protest, and R. Shimon Ben Gamliel says 2 must
(c) Answer #1: The case is, we know that the man's father is
a Kohen. A rumor said that he is unfit (because of his
mother), so we demoted him from the status of a Kohen.
One witness came and said that he is a proper Kohen, and
we re-instated him;
2. Rejection (R. Yochanan): All agree, at least 2 must
(d) Two witnesses came and said that he is unfit, so we
demoted him from the status of a Kohen. Now, a 2nd
witness came and said that he is a proper Kohen.
3) A WOMAN TAKEN FOR MONETARY PURPOSES
1. All agree that we join witnesses that did not
testify together; here, the question is if we are
concerned for a disgrace to Beis Din.
(e) Question (Rav Ashi): If so, they would argue even if both
witnesses that he is a Kohen came after the 2 that
2. The first Tana (R. Eliezer) says that we do not
allow a disgrace of Beis Din; since we demoted him,
we do not reinstate him.
3. R. Shimon Ben Gamliel says that we reinstate him; we
are not concerned for the disgrace of Beis Din.
(f) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): They argue whether we join
witnesses that testified separately.
1. R. Nasan and Chachamim also argue over this in a
2. (Beraisa): Two witnesses do not join unless they saw
the testimony together; R. Yehoshua Ben Karchah says
that they join even if they saw the testimony at
3. Two witnesses join, only if they testify together;
R. Nasan says, one can testify today, and the other
on another day.
(a) (Mishnah): A woman that was taken by Nachrim who intend
to demand money for her is permitted to her husband; if
she was taken for a capital offense, she is prohibited to
(b) (Gemara - Rav Shmuel Bar Rav Yitzchak): This only applies
when Yisrael are in control; if the Nachrim are in
control, even when abducted for money, she is prohibited
to her husband.
(c) Version #1 - Question (Rava - Beraisa): R. Yosi haKohen
and R. Zecharya Ben haKatzav testified about a girl that
was taken as collateral for a loan in Ashkelon. Her
family distanced themselves from her, even though
witnesses say that she was never in seclusion.
(d) Chachamim: If you believe the witnesses that she was
taken as collateral, believe them that she was not
secluded; if you do not believe them that she was not
secluded do not believe them that she was taken as
1. Suggestion: Ashkelon is a place where the Nacrim are
in control, and it was only a problem because she
was taken as collateral; had she merely been
abducted to charge ransom, no!