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


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

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.



(a) When Rebbi Elazar states that a man who says 'Pesach Pasu'ach Matzasi' is believed - he is speaking in a case when there is no blood, either because his wife is from the family of Durteki (which does not have Dam Besulim), or because the cloth went lost.

(b) He is believed - because of the principle 'Shavya Anafshei Chatichah de'Isura', just like anyone is believed when he pronounces something forbidden , but only regarding himself (as if it was a Neder), but not regarding others. Consequently, he is not believed to deprive his wife of her Kesuvah.

(c) We ask why he should not remain permitted, seeing as it is a S'fek S'feika - a Safek whether the incident did not perhaps occur before they were engaged, and even if it occurred afterwards, perhaps she was raped (either way, she will still be permitted to him).

(d) One answer is that Rebbi Elazar speaks about the wife of a Kohen (who is forbidden to her husband even if she was raped). The second answer is - that he is speaking when she became engaged to him before she turned three (in which case, the incident cannot have occurred before the engagement, because her Besulim would have returned).

(a) Rebbi Elazar's Chidush is that 'Shavya Anafshei Chatichah de'Isura'. Despite the fact that we already know this from the Mishnah in Kidushin, where a man who says to a woman 'Kidashtich', is forbidden to marry her relatives, even though she remains permitted to marry his - he needs to repeat the Chidush here, because, whereas there, the husband knows with absolute certainty that he betrothed that woman, here, it is possible that he made a mistake, because a Bachur who marries for the first time might easily err in this matter.

(b) The reason that, in the Mishnah in Kidushin, do we not simply ask the witnesses, to ascertain whether he really did betroth her or not - is because the Tana speaks in a case when the witnesses went overseas and were not available for questioning.

(a) In another statement - Rebbi Elazar requires Kinuy and S'tirah (the wife having been warned and having gone with the man whom she was warned not to see, into a secluded place), before a woman becomes forbidden to her husband.

(b) When he adds 'ke'Ma'aseh she'Hayah' - we initially interpret this to mean like the case of David and Bas-Sheva, who was warned by her husband Uri'ah before secluding herself with David ha'Melech.

(c) The problem with those words then is - that her husband did not warn her (How could he have, seeing as Bas-Sheva had had no dealings with David before that incident?).

(d) We also ask that in any event, Bas Sheva was not forbidden to Uri'ah - because if she would have been, she would also have been forbidden to David (and he would subsequently not have been permitted to marry her).

(a) We therefore reinterpret 'ke'Ma'aseh she'Hayah' - to mean that from David and Bas-Sheva we learn that when there is no Kinuy and S'tirah, a woman is permitted to her husband.

(b) We present a contradiction between Rebbi Elazar's two statements after inferring from his second statement 'be'Kinuy u'S'tirah In, Pesach Pasu'ach, Lo'. This inference is proved unacceptable however, because then, we could also infer 'be'Kinuy u'S'tirah In, Eidim, Lo', which we know to be incorrect - either from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Ki Matza Bah Ervas Davar" or from the Pasuk in Naso "ve'Hi Lo Nispasah".

(c) We finally establish that, according to Rebbi Elazar, either two witnesses or one witness following Kinuy and S'tirah, will cause a woman to become forbidden to her husband. We know that she is not forbidden to her husband through the testimony of one witness (where there was no prior Kinuy and S'tirah) - from a 'G'zeirah-Shavah, "Davar" "Davar" mi'Mamon.

(a) Throughout the Torah - the word "Eid" implies two witnesses (unless the Torah explicitly writes 'two').

(b) We can therefore infer from the Pasuk "ve'Eid Ein Bah" - that there were not two witnesses, only one, from which we learn that when there has been Kinuy and S'tirah, a woman subsequently becomes forbidden, even when there is just one witness that they committed adultery.

(c) In light of the two Dinim of Rebbi Elazar - we view Pesach Pasu'ach like two witnesses, rendering the woman forbidden to him even without Kinuy and S'tirah.

(d) The problem with Bas-Sheva is - that seeing as it was common knowledge that David had committed adultery with Bas-Sheva, why was she not forbidden to him, like 'Pesach Pasu'ach'? (See also Tosfos DH 'Mipnei').




(a) One reason that Bas Sheva was not forbidden to her husband and to David is because she was an Anusah. The other is - because the soldiers in Shaul (and later David's) army used to write a Get before going into battle, on condition that, should they die in battle, his wife was divorced retroactively.

(b) When Yishai instructed David "... ve'es Arubasam Tikach" - he meant that he should withdraw their Kidushin (by collecting their Gitin).

(a) A Besulah must marry on Wednesday - because of the fear that otherwise, assuming that he discovers that she is not a Besulah, by the time Beis-Din convene (on the following Monday), his anger will have abated, and he will forgive her and not take her to Beis-Din.

(b) This cannot be due to a concern that, due to his anger abating, he will pay her the Kesuvah - because why should it bother us if he volunteers to pay her Kesuvah, even if he *is* forbidden to live with her?

(c) Abaye proves from here that 'Pesach Pasu'ach Matzasi' is believed, is not valid - because who says that the Tana is referring to Ta'anas 'Pesach Pasu'ach' and not to Ta'anas Damim?

(d) Ta'anas Pesach Pasu'ach may well not forbid the man on his wife, even if Ta'anis Damim does - because, whereas the latter Ta'anah is one hundred per cent sure, the former is not (as we explained on the previous Amud [see 2a.]).

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel goes even further than Rebbi Elazar with regard to Pesach Pasu'ach. According to him, the husband is even believed to deprive his wife of her Kesuvah.

(b) We will learn later in a Mishnah (on Daf 12a.) that someone who eats by his father-in-law *in Yehudah* without witnesses, is not believed if, after the wedding, he claims that his wife was not a Besulah. We can infer from here - that elsewhere, he is believed.

(c) The Tana cannot be referring to his wife becoming forbidden to him - because if so, why should the husband not be believed (because of 'Shavya Anafshei') even in Yehudah (seeing as he obviously claims that they were not intimate before the wedding).

(d) So he must be referring to the woman losing her Kesuvah - from which Rav Yosef tries to prove Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's Din (posing a Kashya why they need to mention what is already contained in a Mishnah).

(a) If the Ta'anah in the above Mishnah is one of Pesach Pasu'ach, he is not believed in Yehudah, when he says that she is not a Besulah - because the likelihood is that they *were* intimate, and either he forgot about it, or he was playing with her, and did not realize that he had broken her Besulim already then.

(b) He is believed elsewhere - because otherwise, why would he have taken the trouble to organize a wedding-feast. Had he hated her earlier, he could have divorced her *before* the wedding, and saved himself the trouble and the expense.

(c) We refute the proof from here that Pesach Pasu'ach is believed even to cause his wife to lose her Kesuvah, on the grounds that - he is not believed elsewhere because of Pesach Pasu'ach, but because of Ta'anas Damim.

Next daf


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