(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 41

KESUVOS 41 (5 Iyar)- Dedicated by Marsha and Lee Weinblatt of N.J. -- they, and their extended family, should be blessed with good health and the joy of those who serve Hashem. May we soon merit to see the return of Hashem to Zion!



(a) Someone who, of his own volition, confesses to having seduced a girl, is obligated to pay her father Boshes and P'gam, but not K'nas - because, as we learn from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Asher Yarshi'un Elohim, Yeshalem Sh'nayim le'Re'eihu" 'P'rat le'Marshi'a es Atzmo' (only someone whom *the judges* find guilty, is obligated to pay a K'nas, but not someone who confesses *of his own volition*). Note: By 'confesses', we mean that he actually volunteers the information.

(b) The equivalent Halachah with regard to someone who confesses that he stole will be - that he is obligated to pay for what he stole, but not Kefel (double), and not four or five times, should he steal a sheep or an ox and Shecht or sell it.

(c) If someone admits that his Mu'ad ox (that has already killed three times) killed a person or another ox, he has to pay. Payment for one's ox killing a person - is classified as 'Kofer' (a ransom, because it spares him from Misah bi'Yedei Shamayim).

(d) Following the pattern of the previous examples, he will be Patur - if he admits that his ox killed an Eved Kena'ani (where the payment would be a K'nas of thirty Shekalim).

(a) The Tana discusses the case of someone who admits to having seduced a girl, not to preclude a case where he admitted to having raped her, but - because it is a bigger Chidush (seeing as he is believed despite the fact that he also stigmatizes the girl).

(b) Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah Amar Rebbi Shimon says - that he is not believed because he stigmatizes the girl.

(c) Rav Papa asked Abaye what the Din will be (Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah Amar Rebbi Shimon) if the girl forewent her honor in order to receive the money (presumably he is speaking about a girl who in the meantime became a Bogeres). Abaye replied - that *she* may well be willing to forego her honor, but who says that *her father* is?

(d) And even if ...

1. ... her father too, expresses his willingness to forego his honor for the sake of his daughter) - who says that the other members of her family are willing too?
2. ... the other members of her family express their willingness to forego their honor, too - they can only speak on behalf of themselves, but not on behalf of distant cousins who live overseas. In other words, we contend with the honor of every member of the family.
(a) Rav Papa holds that the half damage which the owner of a Shor Tam (an ox that has not yet gored three times) is Mamon. According to Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua - it is K'nas.

(b) The ramifications of their Machlokes are - whether the Mazik becomes Patur from paying through his own confession or not.


1. ... Rav Papa holds 'Palga Nizka Mamona' - because he maintains that if an ox is not guarded, it is liable to cause deliberate damage.
2. ... Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua holds 'Palga Nizka K'nasa' - because in his opinion, an ox is naturally placid, and will not generally cause deliberate damage if left alone.
(d) According to ...
1. ... Rav Papa, the owner does not then pay full damage - because the Torah took pity on him (whose responsibility to then watch his ox twenty-four hours a day would be overwhelming).
2. ... Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua, the Torah obligates him to pay something - to encourage him to keep an eye on his ox.
(a) The Mishnah in Bava Kama states 'ha'Nizak ve'ha'Mazik be'Tashlumin. According to Rav Papa, this is easily understood (seeing as the Nizak loses half his claim). According to Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua however, the statement at first difficult to understand - because how can the Tana describe the Nizak as sharing in the payment (the loss of his ox), when he should count himself lucky to receive anything at all (seeing as, strictly speaking, the Mazik is not to blame).

(b) Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua therefore explains - that the Tana is not referring to the actual claim, but to the damaged ox, which remains in the owner's domain. Consequently, he is the one who will have to bear the losses should the carcass depreciate ('P'chas Neveilah de'Nizak').

(c) When the Tana of the Mishnah in Bava Kama says 'Tashlumei Nezek: Melamed she'ha'Ba'alim Metaplin ba'Neveilah' - he means 'P'chas Neveilah de'Nizak'.

(d) We need two Mishnos to teach us the same thing - one by a Tam and one by a Mu'ad.

(a) Had the Tana taught us the Din of P'chas Neveilah by a ...
1. ... Tam, we would not have been able to extend it to a Mu'ad - because once his animal becomes a Mu'ad, we would have perhaps placed the responsibility to look after the carcass too, on the Mazik's shoulders.
2. ... Mu'ad, we would not have been able to extend it to a Tam - because we would have said that it is only the owner of a Mu'ad, who is already paying the *full* damage, who is exempt from looking after the carcass, but the owner of a Tam, who only pays for *half* the damage, will perhaps be Chayav to look after the carcass too.
(b) The Mishnah in Bava Kama states - that a Tam pays half the damage from the body of the ox that caused the damage (exclusively), whereas a Mu'ad pays the full damage out of his own pocket.

(c) The fact that the Tana does not insert the fact that a Tam does not pay on his own admission, whereas a Mu'ad does - suggests that a Tam, like a Mu' ad, pays on his own admission, a Kashya on Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua.

(d) We answer 'Tana ve'Shayar' (The Tana omits another case, which justifies omitting this distinction, too). The other distinction that the Tana omits - is 'Chatzi Kofer' (from which a Tam is Patur if it kills a person, whereas a Mu'ad does pay Kofer, as we learned earlier).

(a) We conclude that the distinction of 'Chatzi Kofer' is not considered an omission - because the author of the Mishnah in Bava Kama is Rebbi Yossi ha'G'lili, who holds 'Tam Meshalem Chatzi Kofer'.

(b) This retraction is necessary - because otherwise, the Mishnah would now present Rav Papa with a Kashya. How would he justify the omission of 'Chatzi Kofer', unless the Tana also omitted the distinction between a Tam and a Mu'ad who admit? It now transpires that, according to Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua, the Tana omits both cases, whereas according to Rav Papa, he omits neither.




(a) 'Heimis Shori es P'loni O Shoro shel P'loni, Harei Zeh Meshalem al-pi Atzmo'. Presuming that this Beraisa is speaking about a Tam - it will present a Kashya on Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua, who holds 'Palga Nizka K'nasa'.

(b) What prompts us to presume that the Tana is talking about a Tam in the Seifa, which states ' ... Avdo shel P'loni, Eino Meshalem al-pi Atzmo'. According to Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua - if we were to establish the Beraisa by a Mu'ad, the problem would be why the Tana finds it necessary to jump from a ben Chorin (in the Reisha) to an Eved (when he could just as well have remained with a ben Chorin, and learned the Seifa by a Tam).

(c) The Beraisa, which incorporates a case of Chiyuv Kofer, could however, be speaking about a Tam - according to Rebbi Yossi ha'G'lili, who holds that a Tam *does* pay (Chatzi) Kofer (in the same way as Rav Papa [the author of the current contention] established the previous Beraisa).

(d) We resolve the former problem (of establishing the Beraisa by a Mu'ad according to Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua) - by pointing out that the Tana prefers to remain with a Mu'ad all the way through (rather than switch to a Tam in the Seifa).

(a) Our Mishnah concludes 'Zeh ha'K'lal, Kol ha'Meshalem Yeser al Mah she'Hizik, Eino Meshalem al-pi Atzmo'. Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua ignores the obvious inference 'Ha Pachos mi'Mah she'Hizik, Meshalem al-pi Atzmo' - because he prefers to make the inference 'Ha K'mah she'Hizik, Meshalem al-pi Atzmo' (as we shall soon see).

(b) In that case, the Tana could simply have written 'Zeh ha'K'lal, Kol she'Eino Meshalem K'mah she'Hizik, Eino Meshalem al-pi Atzmo', which seems to go against Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua. We nevertheless rule like him, giving the reason that the Tana did not want to write that - because of the exceptional of 'Chatzi Nezek Tz'roros', which would not fit into the rule.

(c) 'Chatzi Nezek Tz'roros' - is when an animal kicks up pebbles as it walks, which, in turn, cause damage. This damage falls under the heading of 'Regel'.

(d) It is a 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai' - that Chatzi Nezek Tz'roros pays only half damages.

(a) Due to the ruling 'Palga Nizka K'nasa', if a dog kills a sheep or a cat kills (specifically) a large chicken, and eats it in Bavel, it is considered 'Meshuneh' (unusual), and cannot be claimed in Bavel. (It appears that, for a cat to kill and eat small chickens is natural, in which case it would fall under the category of Shen).

(b) 'Keren Tam' - is the name of a category of damage that incorporates any deliberate damage performed by an animal. The criterion for this category (according to Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua) is the fact that it is unusual.

(c) The Din in Bavel is different than in Eretz Yisrael - because in Bavel there are no S'muchim (people who had S'michah, without which Beis-Din does not have the authority to sentence fines. (Note: S'michah can only be given in Eretz Yisrael, from someone who received S'michah, Ish mi'Pi Ish, from Moshe Rabeinu.)

(d) If the Nizak grabbed something of the Mazik's (see also Tosfos DH 've'I') - he would be permitted to hold it against the damages (which, as we just saw, he would otherwise be unable to claim).

(a) If the Mazik requests a court-hearing in Eretz Yisrael, Beis-Din will grant it to him. In the event of the Nizak's refusing to go - they will place him in Cherem.

(b) Rebbi Nasan in a Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "ve'Lo Sasim Damim be'Veisecha" - that one is forbidden to retain a dangerous dog or to put up a rickety ladder in one's house.

(c) Someone who fails to comply with this - is also placed in Cherem?

***** Hadran Alach Eilu Na'aros *****

***** Na'arah she'Nispatsah *****


(a) If, after a man who raped or seduced a girl has been sentenced by Beis-Din to pay, the girl's father dies, his heirs receive the money.

(b) The girl herself receives it - if her father died *before* the sentence.

(c) If the girl became a Bogeres *after* Beis-Din's sentence - then her father receives the money, *before* it, then she receives the money?

(d) According to Rebbi Shimon, the criterion is not the sentence - but the actual claiming. Consequently, if her father died or she became a Bogeres, before she managed to claim the money, the money belongs to her.

(a) Whatever a girl (as long as she is a Na'arah) produces or finds, also belongs to her father. The criterion with regard to these however - is the moment she produces or finds them. In other words, whatever she produces or finds belongs to her father immediately.

(b) The criterion in this case is different than that of rape or seduction - because they are K'nas, and K'nas only belongs to the claimant from the time that Beis-Din obligates the guilty party to pay. (Note: with regard to Boshes and P'gam (which is Mamon), see Tosfos DH 'Na'arah').

Next daf


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