ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 26
KESUVOS 26 & 27 (6th and 7th days of Pesach) - have been generously
dedicated by Dick and Beverly Horowitz of Los Angeles. May they be blessed
with a life of joy and much Nachas from their very special children and
(a) The Torah seems to say that Terumah is given to the Kohen, and Ma'aser
Rishon to the Levi. That is indeed the opinion of Rebbi Akiva in a Beraisa.
According to Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah - Ma'aser Rishon can be given to the
Kohen, too (since Kohanim also belong to the tribe of Levi).
(b) When Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar says that Ma'aser Rishon is no less a
Chazakah (to prove that the one who receives it is a Kasher Kohen) than
Terumah - he is referring to his own times, after the Takanah of Ezra, who
penalized the Levi'im, decreeing that Ma'aser was to be given to the Kohanim
(c) Ezra penalized the Levi'im - because most of them did not return to
Eretz Yisrael from Bavel.
(d) According to Rebbi Akiva - he penalized them by permitting the Kohanim
to become equal partners with the Levi'im.
(a) We conclude that the recipient's father must have been a Kohen, because
otherwise, we would suspect that he was really a Levi, and that an Am
ha'Aretz gave him Ma'aser in spite of Ezra's Takanah. He needs a Chazakah
however - because we are speaking when a rumor began to spread that he was a
ben Gerushah or a ben Chalutzah.
(b) The Chazakah is a valid one even according to those who permit a Zar to
eat Ma'aser Rishon - because even *they* agree that he does not receive a
portion in the granary.
(c) When the Tana of the above Beraisa says that receiving a portion in
Beis-Din is not a Chazakah - he means that if a Kohen (on whom a rumor is
circulating that he is a ben Gerushah or a ben Chalutzah) inherits together
with his brothers in Beis-Din, he does have a Chazakah that he is Kasher.
(d) We might otherwise have thought - that just as his brothers inherit in
order to eat, so too, does he.
(a) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel quoting Rebbi Shimon ben ha'S'gan concludes our
Mishnah with the words 'Ma'alin li'Kehunah al Pi Eid Echad'. The problem
with this statement is - that he appears to be saying the same as Rebbi
(b) We cannot explain that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel instates a Kohen with
one witness even against protesters, whereas Rebbi Elazar does not - because
everyone agrees that two witnesses are required to dispel an official
(c) Neither can Rebbi Elazar hold that even *one* protester necessitates
proof that he is a Kasher Kohen, whereas Raban Shimon ben Gamliel requires
*two* - because everyone agrees that only a protest issued by two people has
(a) We conclude that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rebbi Elazar argue in a
case when, although we know that his father is a Kohen, a rumor began to
spread that he is a ben Gerushah or a ben Chalutzah. Two witnesses are
required to dispel a rumor (as we just explained).
We accept the two witnesses who declare the Kohen to be Kasher, despite the
two witnesses who declare him Pasul - because we place two against two and
put the Kohen on his Chazakah (which was suitably reinstated by the first
witness because the rumor that preceded his testimony, is not comparable to
(b) Following the testimony of the one witness and his subsequent
reinstatement, two witnesses testified that he was indeed a ben Gerushah or
a ben Chalutzah - Beis-Din removed him from the Kehunah and a second witness
came to testify that he was Kasher.
(c) Two individual witnesses whose testimonies tally - may normally combine.
(d) We initially think that the basis of their Machlokes is - whether we
will combine them here (to counter the two witnesses who have declared him
Pasul, or not). The Tana Kama (Rebbi Elazar) will not accept the testimony
of the second witness in this case - because having removed the Kohen twice
from the Kehunah, to reinstate him again, would be making a mockery of
Beis-Din. Whereas Raban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that 'We removed him and we
can return him'.
(a) The problem that Rav Ashi has with the current interpretation of the
Machlokes Tana'im is - that, if that is so, even if *two* witnesses were to
arrive at the end to declare him Kasher, Rebbi Elazar should not reinstate
(b) Rav Ashi connects it with the Machlokes between Rebbi Nasan and the Tana
Kama in a Beraisa. The Tana Kama requires witnesses to testify as a pair in
Beis-Din - Rebbi Nasan permits one witness to testify today, and the second
(c) According to Rav Ashi - Rebbi Elazar requires the two witnesses to
testify simultaneously in Beis-Din (like the Tana Kama), whereas Raban
Shimon ben Gamliel permits them to testify independently (like Rebbi Nasan).
(a) In another Machlokes in the same Beraisa, the Tana Kama requires the
witnesses to see the act simultaneously - Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah accepts
their testimony even if they 'see' it one after the other.
(b) It is possible for two witnesses to have seen the same act at two
different times - if one witnessed the loan, and the other, the admission on
the part of the borrower that the loan took place.
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah permits a woman who was captured to return to
her husband (even if he is a Kohen - see Tosfos DH 'Al-yedei') - if she is
being held hostage for ransom (because her captors are afraid that if they
abuse her, they will lose their money); and he prohibits it (even if he is a
Yisrael) - when she is being held captive under a death-threat (which will
be further explained at the end of the Sugya), because we suspect her of
charming her captors, to save her life).
(b) Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak qualifies our Mishnah, permitting her in the
Reisha only where the Jews have jurisdiction over the Nochrim (including her
captors); but in areas where the Nochrim are in power, she is forbidden even
when she is being held for ransom.
(a) The family of a certain woman in Ashkelon keep away from her - because
she had been given as security for a large sum of money (which was not paid
(b) The same witnesses who testified that she was taken as collateral -
testified that she had neither been secluded with her captors nor had she
been intimate with them.
(c) Rebbi Yossi ha'Kohen and Rebbi Zecharyah ben ha'Katzav testified in the
name of the Chachamim - that 'mi'Mah Nafshach', if they believed the
witnesses (who seem to have been suspect in the family's eyes) that she had
been taken as collateral, then they should also believe them that she had
not been violated, and if, on the other hand, they did not want to believe
them in the latter regard, how could they believe them in the former? (the
principle of 'ha'Peh she'Asar ... ').
(d) According to the first Lashon - the significance of the fact that this
episode took place in Ashkelon - is that Ashkelon was under the authority of
(a) The difference between 'Nechbeshah' and 'Hurhenah' is - that in the
former (a plain case of kidnap for ransom) there is no time limit, so she
never 'belongs' to the kidnappers, whereas in the latter, where she is being
held against a loan, when the time expires, she becomes theirs.
(b) We try to infer from the above episode, which was a case of Hurhenah -
'Hurhenah, In (witnesses are required to permit her), Nechbeshah, Lo' (they
are not - she is permitted even without witnesses). Considering that
Ashkelon is considered a town which is governed by the Nochrim, this is a
Kashya on Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak (who maintains that in such a case,
even if she is being held for money, she is forbidden to her husband).
(c) We refute the proof however - by not differentiating between Hurhenah
(d) The Tana describes a case of Hurhenah - because that happens to be the
case that occurred in Ashkelon.