REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 23
KESUVOS 21-23 (Seder night, and Chol ha'Moed Pesach) - have been anonymously
dedicated by a unique Ohev Torah and Marbitz Torah living in Ramat Beit
(a) According to the Tana of the Beraisa, if two pairs of witnesses clash
over whether a woman is betrothed or not, or as to whether she is divorced
or not, she is forbidden to marry a second man.
What distinction does the
Tana make between the two cases?
(b) Abaye establishes the Beraisa when it is a case of one witness against
one, and not two against two.
How will that explain the distinction?
(c) What would be the Din in a case of two against two (see Tosfos DH
(a) Rav Ashi retains the original version of the Beraisa (when there two
against two - T'rei u'T'rei), but he switches the Halachos of the Reisha and
What does the Tana now hold ...
(b) How does Rav Ashi explain T'rei u'Trei both in the Reisha and in the
- ... in the Reisha by Kidushin?
- ... in the Seifa by Gerushin?
(c) Why does the Tana need to inform us that, if two witnesses say that they
1. ... the Kidushin, and two say that they did not, she is considered
betrothed and that she must leave the second man? Is this not obvious?
(d) What is the outcome of the Sugya? What do we learn from the Beraisa in
2. ... the Gerushin, and two say that they did not, that she is permitted to
remain with her husband? Why is this not obvious, unless it is to teach us
some people tend to divorce discreetly - which is the same Chidush as the
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah concludes that if witnesses came after she was
already married, she may remain with her husband. According to Rebbi Oshaya,
this refers to the Reisha, when the woman said that she had been married,
but was now divorced.
Still with regard to the end of our Mishnah, how does Shmuel's father
interpret the words ...
What does Rabah bar Avin say?
(b) Why, according to Rabah bar Avin, does the statement only pertain to the
Seifa and not to the Reisha?
(c) On what grounds do we reject the suggestion that Rav Oshaya and Rabah
bar Avin argue over Rav Hamnuna, who says that a woman who says to her
husband that he divorced her is believed (and that Rabah bar Avin disagrees
with Rav Hamnuna)?
- ... 've'Im mi'she'Niseis Ba'u Eidim'?
- ... 'Lo Seitzei'?
(a) What do we do if a woman claims that she was captured, but that she had
not been violated and that she had witnesses to prove it?
(b) What would those witnesses have had to testify in order to be effective?
(c) What will be the Din if, after Beis-Din have permitted a woman who had a
'Peh she'Asar' to marry, witnesses arrive who testify that she was captured
- ... but they do not know whether she was violated or not?
- ... and that she was violated?
(a) What did Shmuel ask his father, who appointed chaperones to keep guard
over some women captives who arrived in Neherda'a to be sold?
(b) His father replied by asking him whether he would not have done the same
thing had it been his own daughters who were captured (not in order to
permit them to marry, but to prevent further violation).
What was the
result of his fateful question?
(c) What did Shmuel's daughters do when their captors took them to Eretz
Yisrael to be sold?
(d) What prompted Rebbi Chanina to comment that they must be the daughters
of a great Talmid-Chacham?
(a) What did Rebbi Chanina say to Rebbi Sh'man bar Aba? What is the
significance of the fact that he said this specifically to *him* (beside the
fact that he was a relation of Shmuel)?
Answers to questions
(b) What objection did Rebbi Sh'man bar Aba raise to Rebbi Chanina's ruling?
(c) What did Rebbi Chanina reply?
(d) Rebbi Chanina implied that, if the witnesses had been present, Rebbi
Sh'man bar Aba would have been forbidden to marry Shmuel's daughters.
didn't Shmuel's father rule that if the witnesses arrive after Beis-Din have
permitted the woman to marry, the concession to get married remains in
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah states that if each of two women, who have
witnesses who testify that they were captured, claims that she is Tahor,
they are not believed.
When *are* they believed?
(b) Since when do we believe one woman to testify?
(c) If a woman testifies that she is Tamei and her friend, Tahor, she is
believed, but vice-versa, she is not, says the Beraisa.
Does the latter
case speak when there are witnesses that she was captured or not?
(a) The Tana continues that if she says that she and her friend are both
Tamei, she is believed regarding herself but not regarding her friend,
whereas if she says that they are both Tahor, she is believed regarding her
friend but not regarding herself.
Why must the former case be speaking
when there are no witnesses that they were captured?
(b) How do we know that 'Einah Ne'emenes al Chavertah' means that her friend
is Tahor (even though the same words in the Reisha do not imply that)?
(c) And why must the latter case (where she says that they are both Tahor)
be speaking when there *are* witnesses?
(d) What does Abaye say to the current contention that the Reisha and the
Seifa speak when there are witnesses, and the middle case, when there are
(a) Rav Papa reestablishes the Beraisa to speak when there are two
witnesses, but when, in each of the four cases, one witness inverts her
Which two principles (besides 'Shavyah le'Nafshah Chatichah
de'Isura') will now govern all four cases?
(b) How will this work in the case where she says ...
(c) Seeing as we already know 'Shavya le'Nafshah Chatichah de'Isura' from
the first case, and that she is believed regarding her friend from the
second, why does the Tana need to add the third case?
- ... 'Ani Temei'ah va'Chaverti Tehorah'?
- ... 'Ani Tehorah va'Chaverti Temei'ah'?
(d) And why does he need to add the fourth case, seeing as we already know
that she is believed to exonerate her friend even against another witness
from the first case (and the fact that she is not believed to exonerate
herself when there are witnesses that she was captured, we have many
(a) Similarly, says the Mishnah, when two men arrive in town, and each one
claims to be a Kohen, they are not believed.
Answers to questions
When *are* they believed,
according to the Tana Kama?
(b) In which regard are they believed?
(c) What does Rebbi Yehudah say? Why is there an additional reason for Rebbi
Yehudah to say this?
(d) According to Rebbi Elazar, as long as no-one protests, one witness is
believed (like the Tana Kama).
In which point does Rebbi Elazar argue with
the Tana Kama?