ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 14
KESUVOS 11-14 - have been anonymously dedicated by a unique Ohev Torah and
Marbitz Torah living in Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.
(a) An engaged couple came before Rav Yosef. Both agreed that the woman was
pregnant from her betrothed. Rav Yosef accepted their testimony on the
grounds that they both agreed. He would have accepted it even if the man had
denied being the father of the baby however - on the grounds that Shmuel
rules like Raban Gamliel (that *she* is believed in any case).
(b) Abaye queried Rav Yosef's ruling in this case - on the grounds that
Shmuel himself ruled like Raban Gamliel only Bedieved (if she had already
married a Kohen without consulting Beis-Din), but not to marry him
(c) Rav Yosef justified his ruling however - by pointing out that this case
too, was a case of Bedieved, seeing as she was already pregnant (and it is a
question of invalidating the baby when it is born), and in addition, they
were already betrothed, and it was a matter of remaining together
(a) Assuming 'Almanas Isah' to be a S'fek S'feika' (like Rav Yosef Tuv
Ileim), an Almanas Isah' is a case where - firstly, the woman is a Safek
Megureshes (because we do not know whether the Get that her husband threw to
her was closer to her or to him); then her husband died within three months,
and still within the three month period, she went and married a Kohen, and
became pregnant immediately. We now have a Safek whether the child is the
son of the first husband (and Kasher), or the son of the second husband, the
Kohen. And even if he is the son of the Kohen, perhaps the Get was not valid
and the baby, born to a Kohen who married an Almanah, will be Kasher.
(b) Rebbi Yehoshua and Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira rule - that an Almanas Isah
is Kasher li'Kehunah.
(c) We reconcile this ruling with Rebbi Yehoshua's ruling in our Mishnah,
where he does not believe the woman who says that the man she had been
'talking to' was a Kohen - because a woman is careful whom she *marries* (in
which case we can *believe her*), but not with whom she has illicit
relations (so we *cannot*).
(d) We retract from this answer however, in light of the fact that Raban
Gamliel's two rulings also appear contradictory. We reconcile ...
1. ... Raban Gamliel, who believes the woman in our Mishnah, but not an
Almanas Isah - because he confines his ruling there to a case where the
woman is certain (even when there is only *one* Safek), but not to a case
where she is *not* (such as 'Almanas Isah' - even when there are *two*).
2. ... Rebbi Yehoshua (finally), who believes her here by Almanas Isah but
not in our Mishnah - because he confines his ruling here to a case where
there *are two S'feikos* (even when she is *not certain*), but not to a case
when there is only *one* (even when she *is*).
(a) The case currently under discussion is called 'Almanas Isah' - because,
like a dough, which is made-up of various ingredients, it is made up of
(b) The significance of Safek Mamzeirus, Nesinus and Avdei Melachim with
regard to Almanas Isah - is that, if any of them are included in the
S'feikos, Rebbi Yehoshua will not declare her Kasher.
(c) 'Avdei Melachim' - refers to the slaves in the palace of Shlomoh
ha'Melech, who used their wealth and power to marry B'nos Yisrael, and to
the offspring of Hurdus, slave of the Chashmona'im who overpowered his
masters and assumed the throne.
(a) We initially infer (with regard to a Safek Chalal) from the Tana's
exclusive list (of the three above-mentioned P'sulim - Safek Mamzeirus,
Nesinus and Avdei Melachim) - that, if a Safek Chalal were to be included in
the S'feikos, Rebbi Yehoshua would declare her Kasher.
(b) The Tana's distinction between Safek Chalal and other cases of Safek
P'sul is difficult to understand however - seeing as the P'sul of Chalal is
d'Oraysa no less than the other three Pesulim.
(c) The problem with Rebbi Meir, who says in the Beraisa 'Kol she'Ein Bah
Echad mi'Kol Eilu, Masi'in li'Kehunah' is - that he seems to be merely
echoing the words of the Tana Kama, instead of arguing with him?
(d) The Tana also writes '*ve'Chein* (similarly) Amar Rebbi Shimon ben
Elazar Amar Rebbi Meir ki'D'varav', and then goes on to say 'Makirin Yisrael
Mamzeirim she'Beineihem, ve'Ein Makirin Chalalim she'Beineihem' (suggesting
that Almanas Isah that incorporates a Safek Mamzer is permitted, whereas if
it incorporates a Safek Chalal, she is forbidden) - which is quite the
opposite of what the Tana Kama said).
(a) Rebbi Yochanan bases the triple Machlokes in the Beraisa on two issues
(Chalal Shosek and Mamzer Tzovei'ach). Rebbi Meir and the Tana Kama argue
over Chalal Shosek. The Tana Kama permits Almanas Isah to marry li'Kehunah
provided Mamzeirus, Nesinus and Avdei Melachim are not included in the
Safek. The reason for these three is - because we are speaking in a case
when, whenever one called him any of these, he was silent, and we have a
principle 'Sh'sikah ke'Hoda'ah' (silence is tantamount to admission).
(b) Consequently, the same will apply to a Safek Chalal.
(c) Rebbi Meir declares her Kasher li'Kehunah in the case of a Safek
Chalal - because her deceased husband chose to be silent when they referred
to him as a Safek Chalal, not because he agreed with them but because he did
not mind as long as they did not refer to him as a P'sul Kahal.
(a) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar Amar Rebbi Meir disagrees with the Tana Kama
quoting Rebbi Meir in a number of points. With regard to ...
1. ... Chalal ve'Shosek - he holds that he is Pasul, because of Sh'sikah
ke'Hoda'ah (like the Tana Kama of Rebbi Meir), because he is afraid that,
should he raise a protest, people will discover that he really is Pasul
(otherwise, people do not recognize the Chalalim among them).
(b) He agrees that a Almanas Isah that incorporates a Safek Chalal whom we
know for sure to have been a Chalal is Kasher (such as the case of Safek
Gerushah that we discussed initially).
2. ... Mamzer ve'Shosek - he holds that he is Kasher, because his silence is
due to the fact that people know who the Mamzeirim really are, so he does
nor bother to protest.
(c) If Almanas Isah incorporates a case of Mamzer ve'Tzovei'ach, she is
(a) Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri ruled - that the girl who was raped when she
went down to the well to draw water from the spring, was Kasher as long as
most of the people of the town were fit to marry Kohanim.
(b) Rava has a problem with Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri's ruling - inasmuch as
Rebbi Yehoshua invalidates her even in a town with a majority of people who
are Kasher, whereas Raban Gamliel validated her even a town where he
majority were Kasher; so with whom does Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri concur?
(c) Rav Nachman establishes Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri's ruling in accordance
with Rebbi Yehoshua. The incident occurred however, 'bi'K'ronos shel
Tzipori' - meaning that there was a second Rov to complement the first one
(namely, when the wagons came in from Tzipori, most of the travellers who
passed by were Kasher), in which case, even Rebbi Yehoshua will permit her
to marry li'Kehunah.