ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 28
(a) If a Kohen divorces a woman, assuming the Chatzer belongs ...
According to Rav Papa, should they appear in Beis-Din for a Din Torah, we
place them in Cherem. According to Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua says - one
gives them Malkos de'Rabbanan, too (see Tosfos DH 'Rav Huna').
1. ... to him - *she* is obligated to move out of the Chatzer.
(b) We learn from the Pasuk "Hinei Hashem Metaltelecha Taltelah Gaver" -
that it is harder for a man to move from place to place than for a woman. We
use this S'vara to resolve our She'eilah (as to who has to move when the
Chatzer is owned by both of them) to rule that it is the woman who has to
move out of the Chatzer.
2. ... to her - *he* is obligated to move out.
3. ... to neither but they are both renting - *she* is obligated to move
(c) The woman claims her debts from her husband if the divorce took place
1. ... after the marriage - via a Sh'li'ach, because we are afraid that
direct communication will lead to intimacy.
(d) In light if what we just learned, Rava explained to Rav Ada bar Masna
that, in the case of a Kohen who divorced his former wife to whom he had
been betrothed, he ordered him to pay his debts through the services of a
Sh'li'ach - because he noted from the signs and hints that passed between
them, that they were more familiar than most betrothed couples.
2. ... after the betrothal - directly, because they are not sufficiently
familiar with each other to warrant such a fear.
(a) The cases in our Mishnah of a man testifying on his father's or his
Rebbe's signature or that a woman married in the manner that proves she was
a Besulah, all have in common - that a grown-up is believed to testify that
he saw them when he was a child.
(b) Besides that of his father and of his Rebbe - he is also believed to
testify on the signature of his brother.
(c) Besides that he would be taken from school to be Toveled and to eat
Terumah - the above list includes where he testified that his friend would
receive a portion of Terumah at the Goren.
(d) The Tana incorporates in his list regarding ...
1. ... Tum'ah - that a certain location is a Beis-ha'P'ras.
2. ... Shabbos - how far they used to walk on Shabbos.
(a) A Gadol is not believed when he testifies that he remembers how
so-and-so owned a path leading to his field - because such a weak testimony
is insufficient to extract money (which requires a strong proof).
(b) Neither is he believed when he says 'Ma'amad u'Misped Hayah li'P'loni
ba'Makom ha'Zeh' - meaning that he had the right to eulogize his deceased,
and to stand and sit seven times, as they were being taken to be buried (for
the same reason).
(c) In all of the cases where he *is* believed, he is not believed in the
capacity of a single witness - only together with another witness.
(a) In spite of having taught us that we believe ...
1. ... the man when he attests to the signature of his father, the Tana
nevertheless needs to add that he is also believed when he attests to the
signature of his Rebbe - because a child spends more time with his father
than with his Rebbe, so we might have otherwise believed him on his father's
signature, but not on his Rebbe's.
(b) The reason that we believe him in such an important issue as verifying a
Sh'tar (particularly as it involves extracting money) from the debtor is -
because the verification of a Sh'tar (Kiyum Sh'taros) is only
mi'de'Rabbanan. Min ha'Torah, the witnesses who sign on a Sh'tar are
considered as if their testimony has already been corroborated (as we
learned above on Daf 18b.).
2. ... the man when he attests to the signature of his Rebbe, the Tana needs
to add that he is also believed when he attests to the signature of his
father - even though his fear of his father is not as intense as that of his
3. ... the man when he attests to the signature of his father and of his
Rebbe, the Tana needs to add that he is also believed when he attests to
that of his brother - even though neither of the above reasons applies
(c) And he is believed when he testifies that a woman was a Besulah when she
married, despite the fact that, there too, it is a matter of extracting
money from her husband - because, since the majority of women are Besulos
when they marry, we consider the testimony no more than a 'Giluy Milsa' (a
revelation) on something that is destined to become known anyway.
(d) In spite of the fact that the slave of a Kohen is permitted to eat
Terumah, we know that the school-friend about whom the witness testifies (to
permit him to eat Terumah), is not the slave of a Kohen - because otherwise,
he would not have been in school learning Torah, since, as Rebbi Yehoshua
ben Levi teaches, a man is forbidden to teach his son Torah.
(a) An Eved who lent his master money, or whose master appointed him as an
administrator or who put on Tefilin in his master's presence - all have in
common the fact that this is not an indication that their master has set
(b) Included in this list is an Eved who read even just three Pesukim in the
Torah in Shul, which speaks when the Eved did so of his own accord - whereas
Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi (whom we just quoted - in 5d.) is speaking about his
master teaching him Torah (or arranging for him to study in the same way as
he does for his son).
(a) The Tana does not in fact, accept the testimony of the witness in our
Mishnah to allow someone to eat Terumah d'Oraysa - only Terumah de'Rabbanan.
(b) He also accepts the testimony of the same witness when he testifies that
his friend used to receive Terumah at the granary together with him. We know
that he is not the Eved of a Kohen - because otherwise, he would not be
permitted to receive a portion of Terumah at the granary unless he was
accompanied by his master.
(c) In the opinion of Rebbi Yossi - an Eved is indeed permitted to accept
Terumah even when his master is not present.
(d) In the town of Rebbi Yossi therefore, they would not elevate someone to
the Kehunah on the basis of the fact that he received Terumah at the granary
(in case he was an Eved) - in Rebbi Yehudah's town however, they would.
(a) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yossi stated that on the sole occasion that he
testified that someone was a Kohen, the Beis-Din permitted an Eved to the
Kehunah on the basis of his testimony. This statement however, is
unacceptable - because Hashem does not place a stumbling-block to Tzadikim
(to bring about sin through them).
(b) The donkey of Rebbi Pinchas ben Yair refused to eat the un'Ma'asered
food that its captors fed it.
(c) So what he really testified was - that when he testified in the town of
Rebbi Yehudah that he had witnessed how a person (who was actually the Eved
of a Kohen) received a portion of Terumah at the granary in Rebbi Yossi's
town, they wanted to accept his testimony, but realized his mistake in time.
(d) We permit the witness in question to testify regarding the border of
T'chum Shabbos - only because we hold Techumin mi'de'Rabbanan.
(a) A Beis ha'P'ras - is an area of one hundred Amos in all directions from
the spot where a grave was plowed over.
(b) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel permits blowing one's way through a Beis
ha'P'ras in certain instances (see Tosfos DH 'Menafei'ach'). Chazal were not
concerned that one may walk over Tamei bones (and become Tamei be'Ohel) -
because the bones that are only the size of a barley-grain render Tamei
through touching and carrying (and which he will avoid through blowing), but
not through Ohel; and bones that are sufficiently large to render Tamei
through Ohel, can be easily seen and avoided.
(c) When Rav Yehudah bar Ami Amar Rav Yehudah said 'Beis ha'P'ras she'Nidash
Tahor' - he meant that once that area had become well-trodden, the area was
considered Tahor (because any bones that were there, would have been ground
into pieces that are smaller than a barley-grain).
(d) All these leniencies come to prove - that Beis-ha'P'ras is only
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa believes a grown-up who testifies that his
father told him when he was a child that one family is Tamei and another
family, Tamei. What he meant was - that one family was Kasher (from the
point of view of Yuchsin) and one was not.
(b) And when he said 've'she'Achalnu bi'K'tzatzah shel bas P'loni' - he was
referring to a custom that was prevalent in those days: that if one of the
brothers married below his status, they would break a fruit-filled barrel in
the middle of the street, and announce publicly that they did not want their
families to join with his.
(c) He also accepts his testimony when he recalls how they used to carry
Chalah and Matanos to so-and-so - but we restrict this to when the witness
himself was involved in the carrying, and not if he testified that someone
else used to do so.
(a) In all of the above cases - if the grown-up was a Nochri who converted
or an Eved who was set-free and who was now testifying what he saw before
the conversion and the setting-free respectively, he is not believed.
***** Hadran Alach, ha'Ishah she'Nisarmelah *****
(b) Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah maintains - that in this regard, he is
(c) We know that Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah does not come to argue with the
Tana Kama's last statement ('Derech Hayah li'Ploni be'Makom ha'Zeh, Ma'amad
u'Misped Hayah ... ') - because nobody would believe him to the point of
(d) The basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah and the
Rabbanan is - whether we take for granted that a Nochri is not careful in
his assessment of the details (the Rabbanan), or whether we can presume that
his intention to convert causes him to be careful (Rebbi Yochanan ben