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 46
1) MOTZI SHEM RA - LASHES AND MONEY
(a) Answer #2 (Rav Papa): R. Yehudah said that he is always
stricken - monetarily.
2) THE HUSBAND MUST BRING THE WITNESSES
1. Question: Does the Tana really call paying money
(b) (Beraisa): "He will be punished" - monetarily; "They will
afflict him" - with lashes.
2. Answer: Yes! A Mishnah teaches, one who says, I
pledge half my Erech (fixed value) to Hekdesh, pays
half his value; R. Yosi Bar Yehudah says, he is
stricken and pays his full value.
3. Question: Why is he lashed?
4. Answer (Rav Papa): He is stricken, that he must pay
his full value.
i. This is a decree, on account of one who pledges
the value of half of himself.
ii. Since he cannot live without half of himself,
he must pay his full value.
1. We understand that the punishment is monetary, as
the verse continues, "100 silver pieces".
(c) Question: Where does the Torah warn not to be Motzi Shem
2. Question: How do we know that affliction is lashes?
3. Answer (R. Avahu): We learn "They will afflict" from
"They will afflict", and "They will afflict" from
"Ben (son)", and "Ben" from "Ben" - "If he is Ben
(fitting for) lashes".
(d) Answer #1 (R. Elazar): "Do not go as a talebearer".
(e) Answer #2 (R. Nasan): "Guard yourself from every evil
1. R. Elazar did not learn as R. Nasan - he uses that
verse as R. Pinchas Ben Yair.
i. (R. Pinchas Ben Yair): "Guard yourself from
every evil matter" - a man should not have
thoughts by day and come to impurity at night.
2. R. Nasan did not learn as R. Elazar - he uses "Do
not go Rachil (as a talebearer)" to teach that Beis
Din should not be Rach (soft) to one litigant and
harsh to the other.
(a) (Beraisa): Witnesses testified for him without his
request - he is not lashed and does not pay; she and the
Adim Zomemim that lied about her are stoned.
3) MUST THE HUSBAND HAVE RELATIONS WITH HER?
1. Objection: It makes no sense that she and the Adim
Zomemim are stoned!
(b) We infer, had he requested the witnesses to testify for
him, he would be punished, even if he did not hire them -
this is unlike R. Yehudah.
2. Correction: She or the Adim Zomemim are stoned.
1. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): He is not culpable unless he
(c) Question: What is R. Yehudah's reason?
(d) Answer (R. Avahu): It says "Putting" by Motzi Shem Ra,
just as by usury.
1. Just as there, it refers to money, here also.
(e) Questions (R. Yirmiyah): What is the law if he hired them
for land? For less than a Prutah? Both witnesses for 1
(f) Questions (Rav Ashi): What is the law if he divorces and
remarries her, and is Motzi Shem Ra on the first
marriage? If a Yavam is Motzi Shem Ra on the marriage of
1. We can settle the last question.
2. (Beraisa - R. Yonah): "I gave my daughter to this
man" - to this man, not to a Yavam.
(a) Question: What is the dispute of R. Elazar Ben Yakov and
(b) Answer (Beraisa): Motzi Shem Ra is when a man says, I
found that your daughter is not a virgin. If witnesses
say that she had adultery, her Kesuvah is 100.
1. Objection: If she had adultery, why does she have a
Kesuvah - she is stoned!
(c) If his accusation was false, he is lashed and pays 100
Sela'im, whether or not he had relations with her;
2. Correction: If witnesses say that she had adultery,
she is stoned; if they say that she had relations
before engagement, her Kesuvah is 100.
(d) R. Elazar Ben Yakov says, this was only said (lashes and
a fine) if he had relations with her.
(e) We understand, according to R. Elazar Ben Yakov, "*Uva*
(lit., he came - this word connotes relations) to her",
"I drew close to her".
1. Question: How do Chachamim explain these verses?
(f) We understand, according to R. Elazar Ben Yakov, "I did
not find your daughter to be a virgin".
2. Answer: He came - with accusations; I drew close -
1. Question: How do Chachamim explain this?
(g) We understand, according to R. Elazar Ben Yakov, "They
will spread the sheet (on which they had relations, to
check for virginal blood).
2. Answer: I did not find witnesses that disprove the
witnesses who say she had adultery.
1. Question: How do Chachamim explain this?
(h) (R. Yitzchak Bar Rav Yakov): Even though the Torah never
distinguishes between normal and abnormal relations
regarding lashes or punishments, it does distinguish by
Motzi Shem Ra - the husband is only punished if he had
relations (even) abnormally, and claims that she had
relations with the adulterer normally.
2. Answer (R. Avahu): They will clarify (the
accusations) he put on her.
i. (Beraisa): "They will spread the sheet" - the
witnesses for each side come, and they make the
matter as clear as a new sheet;
ii. R. Elazar Ben Yakov says, the verse is
understood simply, a sheet.
(i) Question: As whom does R. Yitzchak hold?
1. If as Chachamim - even if he didn't have relations
2. If as R. Elazar Ben Yakov - he also must have normal
relations with her!
(j) Correction (Rav Kahana): He is only punished if he had
normal relations, and claims that she had normal
relations with the adulterer.
4) PRIVILEGES A FATHER HAS IN HIS DAUGHTER
(a) (Mishnah): A father has rights to engage his daughter
(and keep the money) through money, a document, or
(b) He receives objects she finds and her earnings;
(c) He may annul her vows, and receive a document of divorced
from her husband (during engagement);
(d) He does *not* eat the produce of her property in her
(e) If she gets married, her husband has a privilege above
what a father has - he eats the produce of her property
in her lifetime;
(f) The husband is obligated to feed, redeem and bury her; R.
Yehudah says, even the poorest Yisrael must get 2
flutists and a woman to arouse the wailing.
(g) (Gemara) Question: How do we know that he receives the
(h) Answer (Rav Yehudah): "She will leave free, there is no
money" - this master (of a slave who goes free when she
becomes a Na'arah) does not receive money, but another
master receives money - her father.
(i) Question: Say that she receives the money!
(j) Answer: The father engages her - "I gave my daughter to
this man" - is it reasonable that she keeps the money?!
(k) Question: Perhaps this only applies to a minor, that
cannot engage herself - but a Na'arah, that is able to
engage herself - let her engage herself and keep the
(l) Answer #1: "Being a Na'arah in her father's house" - all
profits of a Na'arah go to her father.
1. Objection: Rav Huna learned that her earnings go to
her father from "When a man will sell his daughter
as a slave" - just as a slave's earnings go to her
master, a girl's earnings go to her father.
(m) Answer #2: When a slave leaves her master, no money goes
to the master she leaves - the implication is that in a
similar case (engagement), money goes to the master she
leaves - her father.
i. Why couldn't he learn from "A Na'arah in her
2. Suggestion: Let us learn that the father gets her
engagement money, just as he can annul her vows!
ii. We must say, that verse only talks about
3. Rejection: We do not learn monetary laws from
4. Suggestion: The father receives the fine for one who
rapes or entices her - let us learn from this!
5. Rejection: We do not learn monetary laws from fines.
6. Suggestion: The father receives the payments for
embarrassment and blemish let us learn from this!
7. Rejection: Those are different, since they affect
(n) Objection: These are not comparable! A slave entirely
leaves her master - but an engaged girl doesn't leave her
father until Chupah!
(o) Answer: She does leave his jurisdiction regarding vows.
1. (Mishnah): An engaged Na'arah, her father and
husband jointly annul her vows.
(p) (Mishnah): The father can engage her via a document or
1. We learn this from "She will be (engaged) to another
man" - all methods of engagement are equated.
(q) (Mishnah): He merits objects she finds.