ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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.