ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 15
KESUVOS 15 (9 Nisan 5760) - sponsored by Alex and Helen Gross of Rechavya,
Jerusalem in honour of the birth of their granddaughter -- Mazel Tov! May
their love of Torah and their fellow Jews continue to be a living example
for all of their descendants, "Ad Me'ah v'Esrim"!
(a) Rav Nachman establishes Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri in our Mishnah (who
requires the majority of the town's inhabitants' wives and daughters to be
Kasher li'Kehunah for the raped girl to be Kasher too) 'bi'K'ronos shel
Tzipori', adding 'u'che'de'Rebbi Ami ... u'che'de'Rebbi Yanai ... '. Rebbi
Ami adds to the Rov of 'Rov Anshei ha'Ir Masi'in li'Kehunah' -'Si'ah shel
B'nei Adam Kesheirin Overes le'Sham' (most of whom were Kasher).
(b) When Rebbi Yanai says 'Niv'eles bi'K'ronos, Kesheirah li'Kehunah' - he
means that the rape took place *at the time* when the caravan passed (not
'in the K'ronos').
(c) Had we known that it was a resident from the town (which had a Rov
Masi'in li'Kehunah) that raped her - she would be forbidden to marry a
(a) When Rav Dimi Amar Ze'iri Amar Rebbi Chanina ... arrived from Eretz
Yisrael, he said 'Holchin Achar Rov ha'Ir, ve'Ein Holchin Achar Rov Si'ah',
a statement which is unacceptable - because if we go after Rov ha'Ir, whose
inhabitants are static, then we would certainly go after Rov Si'ah which
(b) What he really said therefore, was - 'Holchin Achar Rov ha'Ir, ve'Hu
de'Ika Rov Si'ah Bahadah'.
(c) Strictly speaking, the woman should really be permitted no less than by
Rov Si'ah, in a case of Rov ha'Ir - if it was the man who went out to the
woman (because of the principle 'Kol de'Parish me'Ruba Parish').
(d) Rebbi Yehoshua permits neither of them on its own - on account of where
she visited the man in his home (where we will apply 'Kol Kavu'a ke'Mechtzah
al Mechtzah Dami').
(a) If someone ...
1. ... purchased a piece of meat from a butcher in a town where nine
butcher-shops sell Kasher meat, and one, non-Kasher meat, and (presumably
unaware of the existence of the non-Kasher store) he cannot recall from
which store he purchased it - the meat is forbidden (because of the
principle 'Kol Kavu'a ... ').
(b) In the latter case - it will make no difference whether the gates of the
city were open (creating the possibility that the meat came from a passing
butcher or from another butcher in the same country [of whom the majority
are Kasher]), because Rebbi Zeira established the Beraisa even when the
gates of the city are shut.
2. ... finds a piece of meat lying on the street in the same town - the meat
is permitted (because of 'Kol de'Parish ... ').
(c) Rebbi Yehoshua requires a double Rov in our Mishnah - because he
maintains that Chazal were stringent by Yuchsin (cases of marriage regarding
(a) Rebbi Zeira, who teaches us the Din of 'Kol Kavu'a ke'Mechtzah al
Mechtzah Dami' - makes no distinction between le'Kula and le'Chumra (he
holds of the principle - even le'Kula).
(b) The Beraisa forbidding the meat that one purchased from a butcher in a
town where nine stores sold Kasher meat, and one non-Kasher meat, is not an
absolute source for Rebbi Zeira's principle - because it speaks only
le'Chumra (which is not such a great Chidush).
(c) Neither is the Beraisa which renders Tamei someone who touched one out
of a pile of nine frogs and one toad a better source - for the same reason.
(d) The source for Rebbi Zeira's principle is the reverse case - where the
Beraisa renders Tahor someone who touched one out of a pile of nine toads
and one frog in a Reshus-ha'Rabim (because in a Reshus ha'Yachid, we learn
from Sotah that he is Tamei). If not for 'Kol Kavu'a', the Rov would have
rendered him Vadai Tamei.
(a) Rebbi Shimon learns from the Pasuk "ve'Arav Lo ve'Kam Alav" - that one
is not Chayav if one throws a stone at Reuven and kills Shimon.
(b) 've'Rabbanan Amri de'Bei Rebbi Yanai P'rat le'Zorek Even le'Gav'. This
cannot be speaking when ...
1. ... the majority of the group are Nochrim - because then he would be
Patur anyway, seeing as a majority are Nochrim.
(c) The case therefore speaks when he threw a stone into a group of people
comprising a majority of Jews and a minority of Nochrim.
2. ... half were Jews and half are Nochrim - because he would still be Patur
because of the Pasuk in Mas'ei "ve'Hitzilu ha'Eidah".
(a) Rav Chiya bar Ashi Amar Rav rules like Rebbi Yossi (and Rebbi Yochanan
ben Nuri) in our Mishnah. According to Rav Chanan bar Rava Amar Rav - the
ruling in our Mishnah was a Hora'as Sha'ah (a momentary concession, but
generally, a double Rov is required).
(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah asked on them from a Mishnah in Machshirin which
(according to Rav himself) does not permit a castaway child whom one found
in a town with a majority of Jews to marry li'Kehunah (on the basis of one
majority). According to Rebbi Yirmiyah - our Mishnah speaks when there is
only one Rov (Rov ha'Ir). Consequently ...
1. ... Rav Chiya bar Ashi rules - that one Rov will always suffice.
(c) Rebbi Yirmiyah erred inasmuch as - he was unaware of Rav Yehudah Amar
Rav's statement ('bi'K'ronos shel Tzipori Havi Ma'aseh').
2. ... Rav Chanan bar Rava Amar Rav says - that our Mishnah was a Hora'as
Sha'ah, but that generally, a double Rov is required when it comes to
(d) What ...
1. ... Rav Chiya bar Ashi really rules is - that one always requires a
double Rov for Yuchsin (like our Mishnah).
2. ... Rav Chanan bar Rava Amar Rav really says - is that although our
Mishnah speaks when there was a double Rov, that was a Hora'as Sha'ah.
Normally, one Rov will suffice (even for Yuchsin). There is no way of
reconciling this statement of Rav with Rav himself, who comments, with
regard to the Beraisa of 'Matza Bah Tinok' 'Aval le'Yuchsin, Lo'. He either
said one, or the other, but not, both.
(a) We just cited the Mishnah in Machshirin: that if one finds a baby in a
town which has a majority of Jews, assuming that it is a girl, one majority
is insufficient to permit her to marry a Kohen. The Tana does not contend
with the possibility that the baby may be a foundling (in which case she
would be Pasul li'Kehunah anyway) - because he is speaking in a case when
the baby's limbs were well-formed (a clear indication that she is not a
(b) When Rav comments 'Lo Shanu Ela le'Hachyoso, Aval le'Yuchsin, Lo', he is
referring to the case of 'Rov Yisrael' (as we just explained). Shmuel, who
comments 'af Mefakchin Alav es ha'Gal', cannot be referring to the same
case - because he holds that, in matters of Piku'ach Nefesh, we do not
follow the majority (in which case, the Beraisa would not require a Rov
Yisrael to permit digging away the rubble on Shabbos, seeing as this is a
case of Safek Piku'ach Nefesh).
(c) In fact, Shmuel is referring to the previous case in the Beraisa - 'Im
Rov Ovdei Kochavim, Oved Kochavim, to which he adds 'u'le'Fakei'ach Alav es
ha'Gal, Eino Kein'.
(a) According to Shmuel's previous statement, the Tana considers the child
to be a Nochri, by Rov Nochrim, says Rav Papa - with regard to feeding him
(b) ... and certainly with regard to not returning him his lost articles and
(c) And the Tana rules 'Im Rov Yisrael, Yisrael', says Rav Papa - with
regard to returning him his lost articles.
(d) Besides the fact that one would be depriving the finder of the article,
it would also be forbidden to return a lost article to this child were he to
be a Nochri - because Chazal in Sanhedrin, have forbidden this, quoting the
Pasuk in Nitzavim "Lo Yoveh Hashem S'lo'ach Lo".
(a) The Tana says 'Mechtzah al Mechtzah Yisrael, regarding damages, explains
Resh Lakish. The difference between a Jew and a Nochri in this regard is -
that a. if the property of a Jew damages that of a Jew, he is Chayav; of a
Nochri, he is Patur. b. That if an ox of a Jew gores that of a Jew he is
obligated to pay only half damages (the first three times), whereas, if the
ox of a Nochri gores that of a Jew, he is obligated to pay full damages.
***** Hadran Alach Besulah Niseis *****
(b) The Tana cannot be referring to a case where an ox belonging to a Jew
gored one belonging to a Nochri - because in that case (based on the
principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro, Alav ha'R'ayah'), the Jew could say to the
Safek, 'Prove that you are a Jew, and I will pay you damages'.
(c) Consequently, it must refer to a case where it is the Safek's ox that
gored the ox of a Jew. He pays half damages anyway (just like a Jew), and
when the Jew claims the other half, he replies 'Prove that I am a Nochri,
and I will pay you'.
***** ha'Ishah she'Nis'armelah *****
(a) If a divorced woman claims that, when her husband married her she was a
Besulah, and he claims that she was an Almanah, she will receive a Manah,
unless she can produce witnesses. To enable her to receive two hundred Zuz -
the witnesses will need to testify that she went to the Chupah as a Besulah,
either with a Heinumah (which will be explained later) or with her hair let
loose over her shoulders.
(b) If her husband died, and she has the same argument with his heirs - then
the Din will be exactly the same.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah adds another sign that she was a Besulah to
that of the Tana Kama - the fact that they distributed 'K'layos' (ears of
corn that were dried when they was still moist [a process that ensures that
they remain constantly sweet]) when to the children.
(a) Rebbi Yehoshua concedes that 'ha'Peh she'Asar Hu ha'Peh she'Hitir' is
believed. The case is - if a man points to a certain field, and says to his
friend that at one stage, it had belonged to his (friend's) father, but that
he had bought it from him.
(b) He is believed - because if he had not said anything, it would have been
his, anyway (we only know that it had previously belonged to his friend's
father through his testimony).
(c) He will not be believed however - if there are witnesses who testify
that the field had originally belonged to the other man's father, because
then it is no longer a 'Peh she'Asar'.