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 38
1) ONE NEVER PAYS FOR CAPITAL SINS
(a) When one killed with a downward motion, since if done
unintentionally, there is an atonement, one would think
he does pay ransom and not die - "Every Cherem" teaches
that this is not so.
2) A GIRL THAT WAS ONCE ENGAGED
(b) Question (Rava): We know this from Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah:
1. Just as one who hits an animal pays, whether or not
this was intended, he was aiming for this animal, or
whether he hit with an upward or downward motion -
so too, one who strikes a man is always exempt in
any of these cases.
(c) Answer #2(Rami Bar Chama): Rather, we need it to teach
the case of one who blinds a persons eye and kills him
with a different blow at the same time, he does not pay
money in addition to being executed.
1. From "If there is no fatality", we would only know
the case when he blinded and killed him in one blow.
(d) Question (Rava): But this is also known from another
teaching of Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah!
1. (Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah): "An eye for an eye", and not
an eye an a life for an eye".
(e) Answer #3(Rav Ashi): One night have thought that fines
are special laws, and they are paid even by one who is
executed; "Any Cherem" teaches that this is not so.
(f) Question: According to Rabah, who says that one does pay
a fine together with capital punishment, what does the
(g) Answer: He holds as the Tana that argues on R. Chananya
Ben Akavya (and the verse teaches that there is no Erech
to one sentenced to die).
(a) (Mishnah): A Na'arah that was engaged and divorced - R.
Yosi ha'Galili says she does not receive a fine; R. Akiva
says, she herself collects a fine (and not her father).
(b) (Gemara) Question: What is the reason for R. Yosi
(c) Answer: "That was not engaged" - we infer, if she was
engaged, there is no fine.
1. R. Akiva infers, if she was not engaged, the fine is
to her father; if she was engaged, she receives the
(d) (Beraisa): "That was not engaged" - R. Yosi ha'Galili
says, if she was engaged and divorced, she receives no
2. Question: If so, he should also expound, "Na'arah" -
but a Bogeres receives the fine herself; "Virgin" -
but a non-virgin receives the fine herself!
i. But there, we say the Torah totally excluded
her from a fine - here too, we should say this!
3. Answer: R. Akiva uses "That was not engaged" as the
(e) R. Akiva says, her father receives the fine.
1. This is proper - her father receives money used to
engage her, and the fine of one who rapes or entices
(f) Question: Why does R. Akiva say that "Was not engaged" is
open for a Gezerah Shaveh, and "Virgin" excludes a
i. Just as her gets her engagement money even
after she was engaged and divorced, so too the
2. Question: If so, what do we learn from "That was not
3. Answer: It is open to learn a Gezerah Shaveh.
i. This phrase is used by a rapist and by an
ii. Just as the Torah says that a rapist pays 50
units of currency, so too an enticer.
iii. Just as the Torah says that the currency an
enticer pays is Shekels, so too a rapist.
3) WHEN THERE IS NO FINE
1. Why not say that "Virgin" is open for a Gezerah
Shaveh, and "Was not engaged" excludes a girl that
was engaged and divorced?
(g) Answer: It is better to say that a girl that was engaged
and divorced receives a fine, since she is a virgin
1. Objection: Just the opposite! It is better to say
that "Virgin" is used for the Gezerah Shaveh (and a
non-virgin receives a fine), since she was not
(h) Question: How does R. Yosi ha'Galili know that both fines
are 50, and both are Shekels?
2. Answer: The previous way is better - since there was
no physical change, she still receives a fine.
(i) Answer: "yiSHKoL (He will weigh) money as the Mohar of
virgins" - this (fine of an enticer) should be as Mohar
of virgins (50, as said by a rapist), and Mohar of
virgins should be as this (Shekels).
(j) Question: R. Akiva in the Beraisa argues on R. Akiva in
(k) Answer: The Tana'im of the Mishnah and Beraisa argue over
what was R. Akiva's opinion.
(a) We understand R. Akiva in the Mishnah - "Was not engaged"
is used for a Gezerah Shaveh, but is not uprooted from
its simple meaning.
(b) Question: R. Akiva in the Beraisa totally uproots these
words from their simple meaning (since he says that
having been engaged does not affect the fine)!
(c) Answer (Rav Nachman Bar Yitzchak): They teach that if she
was engaged when raped, there is no fine.
1. Objection: This is obvious, one who rapes her is
(d) (Beraisa): The fine goes to her father; some say, it goes
2. Answer: One might have thought that a fine is a
special law, and even one who is killed pays it.
3. Question: Rabah says that that is really true - how
can he answer the objection:?
4. Answer: He holds as R. Akiva of the Mishnah.
(e) Question: Why should it go to her?
(f) Answer (Rav Chisda): The case is, she was engaged and
divorced; the first Tana is as R. Akiva of the Beraisa,
the latter, as R. Akiva of the Mishnah.
(g) (Abaye): If she died (before the rapist was brought to
trial) there is no fine - "He will give to the father of
the Na'ara" - not to the father of the deceased.
1. This law was obvious to Abaye, but Rava was unsure
(h) If she doesn't receives the law of a Bogeres, her father
receives the fine.
2. Version #1 - Question (Rava): Does a girl receive
the law of a Bogeres after death?
i. If she receives the law of a Bogeres, the fine
passes to her child.