(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 13

KESUVOS 11-14 - have been anonymously dedicated by a unique Ohev Torah and Marbitz Torah living in Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.


(a) Should a man who discovers that his wife is not a Besulah claims that she had relations with a man before the betrothal,, Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer again maintain that she is believed.
What is the woman's counter-argument?

(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan, she claims two hundred Zuz, and according to Rebbi Elazar, one hundred.
What are their respective arguments?

(c) And what is their dispute regarding the husband's claim, where, according to Rebbi Yochanan, she is only entitled to receive one hundred and according to Rebbi Elazar, nothing at all?

(d) Rebbi Elazar obviously disagrees with Rebbi Yochanan's interpretation of the Machlokes, to avoid establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Meir (who holds that a Mukas-Eitz always receives two hundred Zuz).
But on what grounds does Rebbi Yochanan disagree with Rebbi Elazar's explanation?

(a) According to Rebbi Elazar, we need the Mishnah of 'mi'she'Eirastani Ne'enasti', where the Tana inserts 've'Hayah Mikchi Mekach Ta'us', to preclude from Rav Chiya bar Avin, who maintains that 'Kansah be'Chezkas Besulah ... , Yesh Lah Manah'. And we need the Mishnah of 'Mukas Eitz Ani' to preclude from Rami bar Chama.
What does Rami bar Chama say?

(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan however, who concurs with Rav Chiya bar Avin, both Mishnahs seem to be telling us the same thing.
Why do we in fact, need the Mishnah of ...

  1. ... 'mi'she'Eirastani Ne'enasti'?
  2. ... 'Mukas Eitz Ani'?
(a) The same Tana'im argue with regard to P'sul Kehunah - if they saw an unmarried woman 'talking' to a man. According to Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer, we believe her when she claims that the man was a Kohen.
What does Rebbi Yehoshua say?

(b) What is their second Machlokes in the same Mishnah?

(c) According to Ze'iri, 'talking' means secluding herself with him.
How does Rav Asi explain it?

(a) We justify the Lashon 'talking' according to Rav Asi, from the Pasuk in Mishlei "Achlah u'Machsah Pihah, ve'Amrah Lo Pa'alti Avon".
What do we learn from that Pasuk?

(b) According to Rav Asi, who interprets 'talking' as intimacy, why does the Tana need to add the second case in the Mishnah ('Haysah Me'uberes')?

(c) How will we interpret the Mishnah according to those who hold that even if *she* is permitted, *her daughter* is not?

(d) We just explained that according to Ze'iri, 'talking with a man' means being secluded with him.
Does this mean that Rav, who says 'Malkin al ha'Yichud *ve'Ein Osrin al ha'Yichud*', rules like Raban Gamliel (seeing as, according to Rebbi Yehoshua, she is not believed)?

Answers to questions



(a) The Beraisa cites the same Machlokes Tana'im in a case when a woman was seen entering 'le'Seiser O le'Churvah'.
What is the difference between the two?

(b) Why does this pose a Kashya on Rav Asi (who interprets 'talking' as intimacy)?

(c) On what grounds do we reject the suggestion that they are both one and the same case?

(d) According to Rav Asi, we ultimately explain 'Seiser' to refer to a town-ruin, and 'Churvah', to a ruin out of town.
Why does the Tana find it necessary to mention both? Why mention ...

  1. ... Churvah?
  2. ... Seiser?
(a) In a Tosefta, the Tana elaborates on the Machlokes between Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua. When Rebbi Yehoshua asked whether they did not agree that a woman on whom witnesses testified that she was captured is not believed to say that she had relations with a Kasher Jew, they replied 'Aval'.
What does 'Aval' mean?

(b) What did Rebbi Yehoshua reply that prompted them to respond 'Rov Ovdei Kochamim P'rutzim ba'Arayos' (a meaningless statement, if it comes to answer his previous one ('Af le'Zu Yesh Eidim, she'Harei K'reisah bein Shinehah')?

(c) Rebbi Yehoshua compares Medaber to Sh'vuyah, as we just explained. On what grounds does he reject Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer's argument 'Sha'ani Sh'vuyah de'Rov Akum P'rutzim ba'Arayos'?

(a) How does this Beraisa prove conclusively that Rav Asi (who interprets 'Medaberes' in our Mishnah as intimacy) wrong?

(b) The fact that Rebbi Yeshoshua does not differentiate between 'Medaberes' and 'Sh'vuyah' on the grounds that in the former, most people are permitted, whereas in the latter, most people are forbidden, is a proof for Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi.
What does *he* say*?

(c) Rebbi Yochanan maintains that whoever permits the woman to marry a Kohen also permits her daughter.
What does Rebbi Elazar say?

(d) How does Rabah explain Rebbi Elazar?

(a) Rebbi Yochanan explains the Beraisa, which declares the daughter of a woman whom one believes, to be a Sh'tuki, to mean Sh'tuki ve'Kasher.
What does 'Sh'tuki ve'Kasher' mean?

(b) We have a precedent for 'Sh'tuki ve'Kasher' in a ruling of Shmuel regarding a group of ten Kohanim (that we also learned in Yevamos 110b.). Which ruling?

(c) Why can 'Sh'tuki' there not mean 'Meshaskin Oso mi'Nechsei Aviv'?

(d) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Pinchas "ve'Haysah Lo u'le'Zar'o Acharav"?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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