(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 13

KESUVOS 11-14 - have been anonymously dedicated by a unique Ohev Torah and Marbitz Torah living in Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.



(a) Should a man who discovers that his wife is not a Besulah claims that she had relations with a man before the betrothal, Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer again maintain that she is believed - when she counter-claims that she was a Mukas-Eitz.

(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan, she claims two hundred Zuz - because, in his opinion, the Tana of our Mishnah holds like Rebbi Meir, that a Mukas-Eitz is entitled to two hundred Zuz, whether her husband knew about it or not; and according to Rebbi Elazar, one hundred - because in his opinion, the Tana holds like the Rabbanan, that she only receives a Manah.

(c) And as for the husband's claim, they argue over whether 'Kansah be'Chezkas Besulah ve'Nimtzeis Be'ulah' is entitled to a Manah (Rebbi Yochanan), or to nothing at all (Rebbi Elazar).

(d) Rebbi Elazar obviously disagrees with Rebbi Yochanan's interpretation of the Machlokes, to avoid establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Meir (who holds that a Mukas-Eitz always receives two hundred Zuz). Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Rebbi Elazar's explanation - because he holds 'Kansah be'Chezkas Besulah ve'Nimtzeis Be'ulah, Yesh Lah Masayim' (the starting point of their Machlokes), in which case the Tana of our Mishnah cannot possibly be the Rabbanan. Because seeing as he claims that she is due to receive a Manah, if a Mukas Eitz would also receive a Manah, like the Rabbanan, then what would there bone of contention be?

(a) According to Rebbi Elazar, we need the Mishnah of 'mi'she'Eirastani Ne'enasti', where the Tana inserts 've'Hayah Mikchi Mekach Ta'us', to preclude from Rav Chiya bar Avin, who maintains that 'Kansah be'Chezkas Besulah ... , Yesh Lah Manah'. And we need the Mishnah of 'Mukas Eitz Ani' to preclude from Rami bar Chama - who holds that Mukas Eitz of which the husband was not aware is not entitled to anything.

(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan however, who concurs with Rav Chiya bar Avin, both Mishnahs seem to be telling us the same thing. In fact, we need the Mishnah of ...

1. ... 'mi'she'Eirastani Ne'enasti' - to demonstrate the extent of Rebbi Yehoshua, who does not believe her even when she *has a 'Migu'*.
2. ... 'Mukas Eitz Ani' - to demonstrate the extent of Raban Gamliel, who believes her even when she has *not*.
(a) The same Tana'im argue with regard to P'sul Kehunah - if they saw an unmarried woman 'talking' to a man. According to Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer, we believe her when she claims that the man was a Kohen. According to Rebbi Yehoshua - 'we do not live by her mouth', and she has a Chezkas Be'ulah to a Nasin and Mamzer.

(b) Their second Machlokes in the same Mishnah - concerns an unmarried woman who is pregnant, adding her daughter's status to their Machlokes.

(c) According to Ze'iri, 'talking' means secluding herself with him - Rav Asi explains it to mean intimacy.

(a) We justify the Lashon 'talking' according to Rav Asi, from the Pasuk in Mishlei "Achlah u'Machsah Pihah, ve'Amrah Lo Pa'alti Avon" - from which we learn that the Torah speaks modestly in these matters, substituting 'Achilah' for 'Bi'ah'.

(b) According to Rav Asi, who interprets 'talking' as intimacy, the Tana needs to add the second case in the Mishnah ('Haysah Me'uberes') - to teach us that even her daughter is permitted to marry a Kohen, too.

(c) According to Rav Asi - it is impossible to interpret the Mishnah according to those who hold that even if *she* is permitted, *her daughter* is not. So Rav Asi must hold like those who say that the daughter is permitted too. Incidentally, this Machlokes will be discussed towards the end of Amud Beis.

(d) We just explained that according to Ze'iri, 'talking with a man' means being secluded with him. This does not necessarily mean that Rav, who says 'Malkin al ha'Yichud *ve'Ein Osrin al ha'Yichud*', rules like Raban Gamliel (seeing as, according to Rebbi Yehoshua, she is not believed) - because it is only regarding Yuchsin that Rebbi Yehoshua is strict, due to 'Ma'alah Asu be'Yuchsin' (Chazal were particularly stringent with regard to the marriage of Kohanim), but not in other regards.




(a) The Beraisa cites the same Machlokes Tana'im in a case when a woman was seen entering 'le'Seiser O le'Churvah'. 'Seiser' implies Yichud (seclusion) in any discreet location - whereas a 'Churvah' is a location that is particularly designated for intimacy.

(b) This poses a Kashya on Rav Asi (who interprets 'talking' as intimacy) - because, if they were seen being intimate, what difference does the location make? So why the need to mention both locations?

(c) We reject the suggestion that they are both one and the same case (i.e. 'le'Seiser de'Churva') - because the Tana said 'le'Seiser *O* le'Churvah' (which one cannot simply discard, like Rava argued earlier with regard to the word 'Lo').

(d) According to Rav Asi, we ultimately explain 'Seiser' to refer to a town-ruin, and 'Churvah', to a ruin out of town. The Tana finds it necessary to mention ...

1. ... Churvah - to teach us that even there, Raban Gamliel disagrees with Rebbi Yehoshua and holds that she *is believed*.
2. ... Seiser - to teach us that even there, Rebbi Yehoshua disagrees with Raban Gamliel and holds that she is *not*.
(a) In a Tosefta, the Tana elaborates on the Machlokes between Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer with Rebbi Yehoshua. When Rebbi Yehoshua asked whether they did not agree that a woman on whom witnesses testified that she was captured is not believed to say that she had relations with a Kasher Jew, they replied 'Aval' - which means 'Yes' (it is true - like in the Pasuk in Vayeira "Aval Sarah Ishtecha").

(b) Rebbi Yehoshua, in reply to their question that his answer only covered the case of a 'Me'uberes', but how about the case of 'Medaberes'? replied that he considered 'Medaberes' on a par with 'Sh'vuyah' - prompting them to respond 'Rov Ovdei Kochamim P'rutzim ba'Arayos' (a meaningless statement, if it came to answer his previous statement - 'Af le'Zu Yesh Eidim, she'Harei K'reisah bein Shinehah').

(c) Rebbi Yehoshua compares Medaber to Sh'vuyah, as we just explained. He rejects Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer's argument 'Sha'ani Sh'vuyah de'Rov Akum P'rutzim ba'Arayos' - because, in his opinion, by Medaberes too, since they were secluded, we apply the principle 'Ein Apotropos la'Arayos' (there is no guarantee that they did not commit adultery).

(a) This Beraisa proves conclusively that Rav Asi (who interprets 'Medaberes' in our Mishnah as intimacy) wrong - because clearly, the Tana explains it to mean 'secluded'.

(b) The fact that Rebbi Yeshoshua does not differentiate between 'Medaberes' and 'Sh'vuyah' on the grounds that in the former, most people are permitted, whereas in the latter, most people are forbidden, is a proof for Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi - who says that those who permit the woman to marry a Kohen, permit her even when the majority of people are Pasul to her; whereas those who forbid her, do so even when the majority are Pasul.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan maintains that whoever permits the woman to marry a Kohen, also permits her daughter to do so. Rebbi Elazar maintains - that the daughter is forbidden.

(d) The reason for this, explains Rabah is - because the mother's Chezkas Kashrus does not extend to her daughter.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan explains the Beraisa, which declares the daughter of a woman whom one believes, to be a Sh'tuki, to mean 'Sh'tuki ve'Kasher' - meaning that, assuming the child to have indeed been a girl, then she is permitted to marry a Kohen. If however, it was a boy, then although his future daughter and widowed wife will be permitted to marry Kohanim, he himself, is invalidated from serving as a Kohen.

(b) We have a precedent for 'Sh'tuki ve'Kasher' in a ruling of Shmuel -regarding a group of ten Kohanim, one of whom separated from the group and was intimate with a woman, a subsequent child that the woman bears is a Sh'tuki and is Kasher (as we also learned in Yevamos 110b.).

(c) 'Sh'tuki' there cannot mean 'Meshaskin Oso mi'Nechsei Aviv' -because we do not know who his father is in the first place.

(d) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Haysah Lo u'le'Zar'o *Acharav*" - that a Kohen must know who his father is in order to be Kasher to eat Terumah and to serve in the Beis Hamikdash.

Next daf


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