(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 45



(a) Shilo quoted a Beraisa listing three Dinim by a Na'arah Me'urasah. If witnesses came after she married that she had committed adultery when she was betrothed, she is sentenced to S'kilah at the entrance of her father's house - announcing to her parents 'See the fruits of your Chinuch; because it was in this house that this disgusting deed occurred!'

(b) In the event that the testimony that she committed adultery took place ...

1. ... before she married - she is put to death at the gate of the Beis-Din of the city.
2. ... when she became a Bogeres before the witnesses testified (irrespective of whether they testified before the marriage or after it - she is sentenced to Chenek and not to S'kilah, because when the physical change takes place inside her, her Din changes correspondingly.
(a) The Beraisa states that a Na'arah Me'urasah whom her husband accused of committing adultery, and took to Beis-Din after she had already become a Bogeres - neither receives Malkos nor pays a hundred Shekalim (should he not be able to substantiate his claim).

(b) When the Tana says 'Hi ve'Zomemehah Makdimin le'Veis ha'S'kilah' - he means either she (if the testimony stands) or the witnesses (should they turn out to be Zomemim) are sentenced to stoning.

(c) This Beraisa poses a Kashya on Shilo's Beraisa - who holds that if the witnesses testify after she has become a Bogeres, she receives Chenek and not S'kilah.

(d) Rava answers that Motzi Shem Ra is different because it is a Chidush - inasmuch as even though he slanders her after they are married, at a time when adultery then would result in Chenek and not S'kilah, she nevertheless receives S'kilah, as though no change had taken place. Consequently, Bagrus (in the case of Motzi Shem Ra) will not cause her Din to change either.

(a) Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua refutes Rava's distinction between Motzi Shem Ra and adultery - on the grounds that, even though marriage will not change her Din, perhaps a physical change such as Bagrus, will.

(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak therefore concludes - that the two conflicting Beraisos (whether 'Ishtani Gufa' causes her to adopt the Din of a married woman [to reduce her Din from S'kilah to Chenek] or not) do indeed argue, and that there is no difference between the cases of adultery and Motzi Shem Ra.

(c) A Hedyot (an ordinary person) who sins, brings a she-sheep or a she-goat as a Korban Chatas.

1. A king - brings a male goat.
2. A Kohen Gadol - brings a bull.
(a) According to the Tana Kama, a king or a Kohen Gadol who sinned before his appointment, and who only discovered that he sinned after he is appointment, brings the Korban of a Hedyot. According to Rebbi Shimon - he does not bring a Korban at all.

(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak attempts to connect the Machlokes Tana'im with regard to 'Ishtani Gufa' (in 3c.) with this Machlokes. The Tana of Shilo, who holds 'Ishtani Gufa' changes her Halachah, follows the opinion of Rebbi Shimon (who appears to hold likewise) - whereas the Tana of the second Beraisa holds like the Tana Kama.

(c) We reject this contention however, on the grounds that - if Rebbi Shimon were to hold like the Tana of Shilo (that 'Ishtani Gufa' causes her Din to change), then he should have ruled that the king and the Kohen Gadol bring their respective Korbanos (rather than no Korban at all).

(d) His reasoning by Korban Chatas is therefore - that he goes after the knowledge as well as the sin (both must be either when he is a Hedyot or when he is a king or a Kohen Gadol).




(a) Rebbi Yochanan reconciles the two conflicting Beraisos by amending Shilo's version of the Beraisa ('Sarchah ve'Lib'sof Bagrah, Teidon be'Chenek'). What is Rebbi Yochanan's version?

(b) He counters the Kashya from the Pasuk "Na'arah ha'Me'urasah" (which appears to preclude a Bogeres from S'kilah) with the Pasuk "ve'Hotzi'u es *ha'Na'arah*" - which is superfluous, and from which he extrapolates 'ha'Na'arah" she'Haysah K'var'.

(c) Rebbi Chananyah exclaimed 'Rachmana Litzlan me'Hai Da'ata'! - because he could not understand why Rebbi Ila'a's Din should not extend to the husband, to make him pay a hundred Shekalim and to receive Malkos, despite the fact that she is now a Bogeres.

(d) Rebbi Yitzchak bar Avin or Rebbi Yitzchak bar Aba ascribes Rebbi Ila'a's distinction to the fact that - whereas the girl's sentence is based on her immoral act (which took place before her physical change), the man's is based on his slander, which took place after it.

(a) We have already learned that a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah is stoned to death at the gate of her father's house, in the event of the witnesses testifying after she was already married. In the event that ...
1. ... she has no father or father's house - she is stoned at the gate of the town where she sinned.
2. ... most of the town's residents are Nochrim - then she is stoned at the gate of the Beis-Din where she was sentenced.
(b) If someone served idols, the Torah writes "ve'Hotzeisa es ha'Ish ha'Hu ... el *She'arecha*". We learn from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from "Ki Yimatzei be'Kirbecha be'Achad *She'arecha*" - that he is stoned at the gate of the town where he served idols and not at the gate of the town where he was sentenced.

(c) We also learn from the word " ... el She'arecha" - that this does not apply in a city where the majority of its residents are Nochrim, though this we learn from the suffix "She'are*cha*".

7) The Torah writes by Na'arah ha'Me'urasah "el Pesach Beis Avihah" and it also writes (in connection with the Mishkan) "Masach Pesach Sha'ar he'Chatzer". We now learn from there that if a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah has no father or father's house, that she is stoned at the gate of the city where she sinned - by first of all considering as if the word "Sha'ar" was written next to "Pesach" by Na'arah ha'Me'urasah, just like it is specifically written next to it in the Pasuk in Bamidbar, and then by learning a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' 'She'arecha" "She'arecha" from someone who served idols.


(a) The Tana Kama in a Beraisa states that a husband who slanders his newly-married wife receives Malkos and has to pay a hundred Shekalim in any event - whether the marriage was consummated (and he claims that he discovered that she was not a Besulah), or not (and his claim is based entirely on the evidence of witnesses). Rebbi Yehudah agrees with this with regard to Malkos. With regard to paying - he says that only if the marriage was consummated does he have to pay, otherwise not.

(b) According to this Lashon, it is only Rebbi Yehudah who holds like Rebbi Eliezer ban Ya'akov (whose opinion will be cited later). Despite the fact that, in their opinion, the Parshah of Motzi Shem Ra was only said in a case of Ba'al (when the marriage was consummated), the husband will nevertheless receive Malkos even if the marriage was not consummated - because he contravened the La'av "Lo Seilech Rachil be'Amecha" (see Tosfos DH 'Rebbi Yehudah").

(c) Nor is there a problem with the fact that he receives Malkos for a 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh' - since that is the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah throughout Shas.

(a) The second Lashon establishes both opinions like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, and the Tana Kama speaks specifically when the marriage was consummated. Rebbi Yehudah says - like he said according to the first Lashon: namely, that he receives Malkos in any event.

(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak reconciles Rebbi Yehudah (in both Leshonos) with another Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah says 'Ba'al Lokeh; Lo Ba'al, Eino Lokeh' - by establishing the first Beraisa by Malkos mi'de'Rabbanan (and not mi'd'Oraysa, like we thought until now).

(c) Rav Papa disagrees with Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak. Reestablishing the first Beraisa like we initially understood it, he explains 'Lo Ba'al, Eino *Lokeh*' in the second Beraisa - to mean that he is not *fined monetarily*, since the fine is restricted to where the marriage was consummated (as we explained earlier).

(d) It is perfectly appropriate to refer to Mamon as 'Lokeh' - as we shall now see.

(a) According to the Tana Kama of a Beraisa, if someone says 'Chatzi Erki Alai', Nosen Chatzi Erko. According to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah - he must pay his full Erech.

(b) Rav Papa explains Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah's statement '*Lokeh* ve'Nosen Erech Shalem' - to mean, not that he receives Malkos, but that he is 'hit' financially to make him pay full damages.

(c) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah's reason is - because we decree 'Chatzi Erki' on account of 'Erech Chetzyi', where he is obligated min ha'Din, to pay his full Erech.

(d) Someone who says 'Erech Chetzyi Alai' has to pay his full Erech - because the statement automatically incorporates some limbs upon which his life depends, and someone who undertakes to pay the Erech of even one such limb, is obligated to pay his complete Erech.

Next daf


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