(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 76

KESUVOS 75-80 - dedicated by Mrs. Rita Grunberger of Queens, N.Y., in loving memory of her husband, Reb Yitzchok Yakov ben Eliyahu Grunberger. Mr Irving Grunberger helped many people quietly in an unassuming manner and is sorely missed by all who knew him. His Yahrzeit is 10 Sivan.



(a) Rav Ashi, like Rava establishes the entire Mishnah like Raban Gamliel. When he establishes the Reisha by 'Manah le'Aba be'Yadcha' - he means that, seeing as the Reisha speaks whilst the girl is an Arusah, she is still in her father's domain, in which case, it is the father who is claiming the Kesuvah, and even Raban Gamliel will agree that the Chezkas ha'Guf of the daughter will not help her father's claim.

(b) Despite the fact that our Mishnah follows the opinion of Raban Gamliel, Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa (commenting on the Seifa of our Mishnah - that if the Safek occurred after they were married, the onus lies on the husband ... ) nevertheless states that if the blemishes were fitting to come from her father's house', the onus shifts to the father - because he is referring (not to any blemishes that are *likely* to have occurred there) but to blemishes such as an extra finger, that can only have occurred from birth.

(c) The proof that the father is then expected to bring is - that the husband knew about the blemish and was willing to forego it.

(a) If someone swapped a cow for a donkey, and the owner of the donkey made a Meshichah on the cow - neither of them is permitted to retract (even before the owner of cow makes a Kinyan on the donkey), because the Kinyan that one of them makes on one of the objects, completes the transaction.

(b) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel speaks about a case when the owner of the donkey made a Kinyan on the cow, but, before the owner of the cow was able to take the donkey, it died. Now they are both arguing over when it died. If it died before the Kinyan over the cow took place, then the transaction is void; the donkey died in the domain of the original owner and it is he who must bear his loss; whereas if it died afterwards, then the transaction is valid, and it is the original owner of the cow who must bear the loss.

(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules - that it is the owner of the donkey who must prove that it was alive at the time when the Kinyan was made, otherwise the sale is void and he bears the loss of his donkey.

(d) He proved this from one of the cases of Kalah in our Mishnah.




(a) We suggest that the source of Shmuel (who holds that it is the owner of the donkey who must prove that it was alive at the time when the Kinyan was made) is the Reisha of our Mishnah (where the blemishes were discovered whilst they were still betrothed) - which he establishes like Rebbi Yehoshua (in accordance with Rebbi Elazar explanation), who holds that, irrespective of where the Safek is discovered, the father cannot claim the Kesuvah without proof. Here too, the owner of the donkey cannot establish ownership of the cow without proof that the donkey died after the transaction.

(b) We reject this suggestion however - on the grounds that Rebbi Yehoshua is talking about the father extracting the money from the husband, whereas here, Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel is talking about retaining the cow that he already has (which would not need to be proven).

(c) So we suggest that his source lies in the Seifa (when the blemishes are discovered after they are married, and, like in our case, where the husband comes to establish his money in his own possession. In that case - he will hold like Raban Gamliel (still according to the explanation of Rebbi Elazar), in whose opinion the husband has to prove that the blemishes occurred before the betrothal, even if the Safek occurred before they were married. And if there (where the husband is coming to establish *his own money* in his possession), the onus lies on him to bring the proof, how much more so in Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's case, where he is coming to establish ownership over *someone else's cow*.

(d) We refute this suggestion too - on the grounds that in the case of our Mishnah, the husband (in spite of his Chezkas Mamon) has to bring the proof to counter the woman's Chezkas ha'Guf, whereas in the case of Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, not only does he not need to counter a Chezkas ha'Guf, but he even has the Chezkas ha'Guf of his donkey (which was last known to be alive) on his side together with the Chezkas Mamon.

(a) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak finally reinstates the first suggestion, establishing Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's proof from the Reisha, according to Rebbi Elazar's interpretation, and according to Rebbi Yehoshua. We dispense with the Kashya that we initially asked, that here the owner of the donkey establishes what he has, whereas there the father comes to extract the Kesuvah from the Chasan - by changing the case in the Mishnah to, when the father is claiming, not the Kesuvah, but the money of the Kidushin (which he already has).

(b) In the event that the Chasan dies - some hold that the money of the Kidushin must be returned.

(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel could well hold like that opinion - because that is only when the husband dies, and the Kidushin is certainly broken, but not by Kidushei Ta'us, where the break-up of the Kidushin is only a Safek. There everyone will agree that the father may retain the money.

(d) Rav Yehudah establishes Shmuel like Rebbi Yehoshua, even though he specifically ruled in the first Perek like Raban Gamliel. We could have asked this Kashya on Rav Yehudah. However - seeing as we eventually prove Rav Yehudah wrong anyway, we do not bother to ask it.

(a) A needle that is found in the Beis ha'Kosos (part of the stomach) of a Shechted animal renders the animal T'reifah - when it has pierced the double-layer of skin that surrounds the Beis-ha'Kosos, but not as long as it has only pierced one of the layers.

(b) If, after he Shechts the animal, he discovers that a crust has formed over the surface of the wound, we know that it occurred at least three days before the Shechitah; if not, it is a Safek, says the Beraisa. Assuming that the butcher bought the animal live from the wholesaler - the ramifications of this statement are that, if he bought it within three days of the Shechitah, then the animal must have become a T'reifah in the wholesaler's domain, and he can claim a false sale.

(c) If a crust has not formed, then the Tana rules 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro, Alav ha'Re'ayah'. Assuming that the butcher already paid the wholesaler, this poses a Kashya on Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, who maintains that it is always the original owner of the animal which is a Safek who must bring the proof; whereas here we see that the onus to bring the proof lies on the butcher and not on the wholesaler.

(d) We cannot establish the Beraisa when the butcher has not yet paid - because it is not feasible to suggest that it is normal for a wholesaler to give the butcher a cow before he has paid for it.

(a) As a result of this Kashya, Rami bar Yechezkel negates his brother Rav Yehudah's version of Shmuel's statement. *He* therefore quotes Shmuel as saying - 'the one in whose domain the animal died must bring the proof as to when it died.'

(b) This conforms with Raban Gamliel, according to the interpretation of Rava who holds 'Kahn Nimtze'u, Kahn Hayu'.

(c) According to Rava, the butcher would have to bring the proof, even if he had not yet paid the money. Nevertheless, the Tana uses the expression 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro, Alav ha'Re'ayah' (even though that is not the true criterion) - because he is speaking when the butcher already pay.

(d) We establish the Beraisa when the butcher paid (justifying the use of the Lashon 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro, Alav ha'Re'ayah' - as we just explained) - because it is normal for the wholesaler to give the animal to the butcher only after he has paid.

(a) Assuming there are no bathhouses in the entire town - the Chachamim in our Mishnah hold - that when it comes to hidden blemishes, the husband can claim even after the marriage, that it was a false sale.

(b) Rav Nachman classifies epilepsy - under the category of hidden blemishes.

(c) He agrees however, that even epilepsy is considered a revealed blemish - if her attacks do not occur at fixed times (in which case it will be extremely difficult to hide her ailment from the public).

Next daf


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