(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 44



(a) According to Rav Nachman, when someone produces two of the same documents with two different dates - the second document negates the first.

(b) Faced with Rav Huna, who said above that a woman who produces two Kesuvos, one of two hundred Zuz and one of three, may claim with whichever Kesuvah she chooses - we initially suggest that the two Amora'im argue.

(c) We reconcile the two opinions however, by citing Rav Papa who states - that Rav Nachman will concede that the owner of the document may claim with whichever document he pleases, if the second document adds as much as one date-palm to the sale or the gift.

(d) If one of the documents is described as a sale and the other, as a gift, the second one will not cancel the first either. The first document always has the advantage of authorizing the claimant to claim from earlier buyers. The advantage of the second document if the first document is described as ...

1. ... a sale and the second one as a gift - will be that the owners of the neighboring fields will not have a claim on the field (that they had first rights to purchase it - known as 'Dina de'Bar Metzra'), which does not extend to a gift.
2. ... a gift and the second one as a sale - will be that the seller has accepted responsibility to reimburse him should a creditor claim the field (which applies automatically to a sale but not to a gift).
(a) The second document negates the first one - only if both documents are identical (either proof of a sale or of a gift, with nothing added in the second document).

(b) According to Rafram, the reason for this is because writing a second document that is no different than the first is tantamount to admitting that the first one was forged - according to Rav Acha, it is because the recipient has been Mochel the Shibud (foregone the additional rights that enable him to claim from the buyers) from the earlier date.

(c) One of the ramifications of the Machlokes between Rafram and Rav Acha is that according to the former, the witnesses are Pasul, too (see Tosfos Rid), whereas, according to Rav Acha, they are not. The second, is with regard to reclaiming any fruit that the recipient ate in between the two dates, and who has to pay the field-tax for that period (according to Rafram, the original owner remained the owner in both regards, whereas according to Rav Acha, it was the recipient).

(a) Concluding the Sugya that we began above (on 43b), Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel cites Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, who holds that the father may claim the Manah or the Masayim already from the Eirusin and the Tosefes from the Nisu'in (when the Kesuvah was written). The Chachamim say - that he may claim both only from the time of the Nisu'in.

(b) The Halachah is like the Chachamim.

(a) If a Giyores who converted (even before she turned three) together with her mother, became betrothed and committed adultery - she is sentenced to Chenek (strangulation - as if she was a Be'ulah) and not to S'kilah (stoning - like a Besulah).

(b) The Din of both 'Pesach Beis Avihah' (putting her to death at the entrance of her father's house) and 'Me'ah Sela' (if her husband slandered her the morning after the wedding) will not apply to her either.

(c) If the same girl was conceived before her mother's conversion but born after it - she will be sentenced to S'kilah, and not Chenek (though she will not be considered a Jewess in the other two regards).

(d) If she was both conceived and born after her mother converted - she is considered a fully-fledged Jewess in all of the above regards.

(a) The Torah writes that a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah should be stoned "el Pesach Beis Avihah". In fact though, she is stoned even if she has no father or if her father does not own a house (we shall see later in the Sugya, where).

(b) The Torah writes "el Pesach Beis Avihah" - as a Mitzvah, but not as a crucial condition of the S'kilah.




(a) Resh Lakish learns from the Pasuk "u'S'kaluhah Kol Anshei Irah ba'Avanim *va'Meisah*" - that a betrothed girl who was born bi'Kedushah but not conceived bi'Kedushah, is sentenced to S'kilah.

(b) We learned this Halachah from the otherwise superfluous word "va'Meisah" - restricting the Limud to the Din of S'kilah of the girl, to the preclusion of the Din of Malkos and payment of a hundred Shekalim for speaking Lashon ha'Ra pertaining to her husband.

(c) The Pasuk cannot come to include a girl who was ...

1. ... both born bi'Kedushah and conceived bi'Kedushah - who is a fully-fledged Jewess in all regards, as we explained earlier.
2. ... born and conceived she'Lo bi'Kedushah - because of the Pasuk "Ki As'sah Nevalah *be'Yisrael*", from which we learn that she must be at least a partial Yisre'eilis.
(a) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina learns from the Pasuk (written in connection with a Motzi Shem Ra) "ve'Nasnu *la'Avi* ha'Na'arah" - that the Dinim of Motzi Shem Ra do not apply to a husband who slanders his orphaned wife.

(b) Rebbi Yossi ha'G'lili in a Beraisa learns from the Pasuk (written in connection with a Mefateh) "ve'Im Ma'ein Yema'ein Avihah", 'le'Rabos Yesomah li'K'nas'. Rebbi Yossi bar Avin or Rebbi Yossi bar Z'vida explains - that according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina this speaks when she became an orphan after the marriage had been consummated.

(c) Rava disagrees with Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina. He extrapolates that a Yesomah is entitled to K'nas (irrespective of when her father died) from the Beraisa cited by Ami: "Besulas Yisrael" 've'Lo Besulas Geirim' - because if even a Jewish orphan would not be subject to K'nas, why would we need to preclude a Giyores (who also has no father)?

(d) We know that a Besulas Geirim is an orphan - because of the Pasuk in Yechezkel "ve'Zarmas Susim Zarmasam", which teaches us that the Torah considered the Zera of a Nochri like that of an animal (as we learned in Yevamos).

(a) Rav Ada bar Ahavah takes for granted that a man would not be Chayav for being Motzi Shem Ra on his wife who is a Ketanah. The Pasuk could not possibly be talking about a Ketanah - because how could it then go on to sentence her to S'kilah, should his accusation be substantiated?

(b) Resh Lakish learns from the fact that "Na'arah" is written there with a 'Hey' - that whenever it is written without a 'Hey', the Torah incorporates a Ketanah.

Next daf


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