REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 16
KESUVOS 16-19 - have been anonymously dedicated by a unique Ohev
Torah and Marbitz Torah living in Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.
(a) How do we reconcile our Mishnah, which does not believe the woman to say
that, when she married, she was a Besulah, with Raban Gamliel in the
(b) Why might we ever have thought otherwise? Is it not obvious that our
Mishnah is speaking in a case of 'Bari u'Bari'?
(c) How do we attempt to prove that the author not only *can be* but *must
be*, Raban Gamliel, from the Seifa, where Rebbi Yehoshua concedes to Raban
Gamliel regarding 'Peh she'Asar'?
(d) How do we refute that proof?
(a) Why can Rebbi Yehoshua's concession not refer to their (Raban Gamliel
and himself) Machlokes in the Mishnah of ...
(b) Seeing as there is no 'Migu' in those two cases, why is she believed?
- ... 'Haysah Me'uberes, ve'Amru Lah Mah Tivo shel Ubar Zeh'?
- ... 'Ra'uhah Medaberes im Echad ve'Amru Lah Mah Tivo shel Ish Zeh ... '?
(c) In fact, the latter case will only not work out according to Rav Asi
(who interprets 'Medaberes' to mean intimacy, and who in fact, was disproved), but according to Ze'iri, it could well be the case we are searching for.
Why is that?
(a) And why can Rebbi Yehoshua's concession not refer to their Machlokes in
the Mishnah of 'Hi Omeres Mukas Eitz Ani, ve'Hu Omer Lo Ki Ela D'rusas Ish
(b) Seeing as there is no 'Migu' there, why *is* she believed?
(c) In fact, the latter case will only not work out according to Rebbi
Yochanan, who establishes the Machlokes by 'Masayim u'Manah', but according
to Rebbi Elazar, who establishes it by 'Manah ve'Lo K'lum', it could well be
the case we are searching for.
Why is that?
(d) So in which case *do* Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Yehoshua argue over
(a) Why does Rebbi Yehoshua concede to Raban Gamliel with regard to 'ha'Peh
she'Asar' (even by 'Bari u'Bari'), but not with regard to 'Migu' (even by
'Bari ve'Shema')? What gives 'ha'Peh she'Asar' the edge over 'Migu'?
Answers to questions
(b) Why does Rebbi Yehoshua not consider 'Migu' a strong proof in its own
(c) We learned above that the fact that the majority of women are Besulos
when they marry, almost makes our Mishnah a case of 'Bari ve'Shema'.
'almost'? Why do we not follow the Rov there?
(d) We conclude that *most* women who marry Besulos have a 'Kol' to
On what grounds did we reject the initial suggestion,
that *all* women who marry Besulos have a 'Kol' to substantiate it?
(a) What should one be afraid of by permitting the woman to claim two
hundred Zuz on the basis of witnesses who testify that was a Besulah when
(b) Rebbi Avahu considers this a proof that one writes a receipt (a fact
that is disputed in Bava Basra).
Why might we hold 'Ein Kosvin Shover'?
(c) How does Rav Papa initially establish our Mishnah?
(d) According to him, what will be the Din in most places, where the Minhag
is to write a Kesubah?
(a) The Beraisa deals with a case where the woman lost her Kesubah, hid it
or it got burnt.
What is the significance of the continuation 'They danced
in front of her, or joked in front of her'?
(b) What are the other two cases mentioned by the Beraisa, which prove that
she was a Besulah when she married?
(c) We ask the same Kashya that we asked on our Mishnah, and cite the same
Machlokes between Rebbi Avahu and Rav Papa. How can Rav Papa establish the
Beraisa in a place where the Minhag was not to write a Kesubah, when the
Tana himself is referring to a case where the Kesubah was lost?
(d) Seeing as, at the end of the day, he wrote her a Kesubah, how do we deal
with the question that we asked originally 'Let us suspect that she will
claim her Kesubah with the witnesses, and then produce her written Kesubah
and claim again?
(a) We just explained that 'Ibdah' means that the Kesubah got burnt. On
this, we ask three questions, the first of which is 'In that case, Ibdah is
the same as Nisrefah'?
What are the other two?
(b) So how do we establish Ibdah and Hitminah on the one hand, and Nisrefah
on the other?
(c) If Rav Papa established the Beraisa in a place where the Minhag is not
to write a Kesubah, then he will certainly do so in the case of our Mishnah;
but not vice-versa.
Why not? What will then be the Machlokes between our
Tana and the Tana of the Beraisa?
(d) If the Minhag is not to give the woman a written Kesubah, on what
grounds will she later be able to claim the Kesubah?
(a) Seeing as the woman may claim her Kesubah with the Eidei Heinumah, why
are we not afraid that she will use witnesses to claim in one Beis-Din, and
then claim again in another Beis-Din using other witnesses?
(b) Rav Ada bar Ahavah interprets 'Kos shel Besorah' (one of the signs
mentioned in the Beraisa that she was a Besulah when she married a Kohen) as
a cup containing Terumah that they passed before her, as if to declare her
fit to eat Terumah, because she was a Besulah when she married the Kohen.
What objection does Rav Papa raise against this explanation?
(c) So how does *he* interpret 'Kos shel Besorah'?
(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, they would pass a cup of wine
in front of her. Rav Ada bar Ahavah explains that, in fact, they would pass
a cup in front of the Kalah, whether she was a Besulah or a Be'ulah.
Answers to questions
would they then know whether she was a Besulah or a Be'ulah?
(b) Why did they not simply pass the cup in front of a Besulah, but not in
front of a Be'ulah?