(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


Prepared by P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Kesuvos 35


(a) Suggestion: *Ason* is explained literally (and the verse says, if no one dies, he pays).
(b) Rejection: No, it means if there is no *verdict* that one should die.
(c) Version #2: Question (R. Yochanan): "If there will be no Ason (death), he will pay".
(d) Suggestion: *Ason* means a verdict to die (if there is no verdict, he pays).
(e) Rejection: No, it means if no one dies.
(f) Question: Does anyone really hold that one who inadvertently commits a capital sin must pay?
1. (Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah): "One who strikes an animal ... and one who strikes a man";
2. One who hits an animal, we do not distinguish if it was accidental or deliberate, intended or not, with an upward or downward motion, to exempt him - he must always pay;
3. So too, one who hits a man, we do not distinguish if it was accidental or deliberate, intended or not, with an upward or downward motion, to make him pay - he is always exempt!
(g) Correction (Ravin): One who inadvertently transgresses a capital sin, all agree that he does not pay;
(h) They argue by one who inadvertently transgresses a sin punishable by lashes and money.
1. R. Yochanan says that he must pay - capital sins were equated (above f:1-3) to striking an animal, that we should not make distinctions), sins punishable by lashes were not equated.
2. Reish Lakish says that he is exempt - the Torah explicitly included sins of lashes as capital sins.
(a) Question: Where did the Torah equate them?
(b) Answer #1 (Abaye): A Gezerah Shaveh Rasha-Rasha.
(c) Answer #2 (Rava): A Gezerah Shaveh Makeh-Makeh.
1. Question (Rav Papa): Which occurrences of these words do you mean?
2. Suggestion #1: If "*Makeh* (one who strikes) an animal will pay for it" and "*Makeh* (one who strikes) a man will die" - the latter verse deals with killing a man!
3. Suggestion #2: Rather, "*Makeh* (one who strikes) the soul of an animal will pay for it" and "A man that will put a blemish in his fellow man" - but the word Makeh is not in the latter verse!
4. Answer (Rava): The verse deals with hitting.
(d) Objection: The verse deals with hitting, and this is punishable by money (and not by lashes)!
(e) Answer: If it is not needed to teach about a blow worth a Prutah, it teaches about blow worth less than a Prutah (which is punishable by lashes).

(f) Objection: But payment cannot apply to such a blow!
(g) Answer: As he hit him, he tore his silk (and we learn that he is exempt for paying for the silk).
(a) Question: (Rav Chiya): Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah compared striking an animal and a man. How do we know that the animal was struck on a weekday (and must always pay)?
1. Perhaps he hit it on Shabbos, and is exempt if he knowingly broke Shabbos!
(b) Answer (Rava): "One who strikes an animal will pay for it, and one who strikes a man will die".
1. Suggestion: If there was no warning - why is the one who struck a man killed?
2. We must say he was warned - if he struck the animal on Shabbos (with warning), he would not pay! It must be, he hit it on a weekday.
(a) Question (Rav Papa): Rabah says that (R. Meir holds that) even one sentenced to die pays a fine - as whom does he establish the Mishnah?
1. Suggestion #1: If it is R. Meir - he should pay even for his daughter!
2. Suggestion #2: If it is as R. Nechunya Ben ha'Kanah - why does he pay for his sister?
3. Suggestion #3: If it is R. Yitzchak - why does he pay for a Mamzeres?
4. Suggestion #4: If Rabah holds as R. Yochanan, he can explain as R. Yochanan (there was no warning for lashes).
i. If he holds as Reish Lakish, how can he explain the Mishnah?
(b) Answer (Abaye): Rabah must hold as R. Yochanan.
(c) Question (Rav Masne): According to Reish Lakish, who says that sins of lashes are as capital sins - which Tana argues on R. Nechunya Ben ha'Kanah?
(d) Answer (Abaye): R. Meir or R. Yitzchak.
(a) (Beraisa): There is no fine for rape or seduction of the following:
1. an incestuous relation or a secondary incestuous relation;
2. A girl that does Mi'un;
3. An Ailonis;
4. A girl that leaves her husband because of ill repute.
(b) Question: What are incestuous relations and secondary incestuous relations?
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,