(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 40


(a) Our Mishnah cites Rebbi Elazar, who exempts someone who rapes a Yesomah who was divorced after having been betrothed, from paying K'nas.
Why is Rebbi Elazar's statement superfluous, the way it stands?

(b) So what does he really mean to say?

(c) In fact, says Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan, he follows the opinion of his Rebbe.
Which Rebbe? What does *he* say?

(d) What does the Tana rule in the equivalent case with regard to a seducer?

(a) Rav, who is quoted as saying that the Halachah is like Rebbi Elazar, also described him as 'Tuvina da'Chakimi'.
What does that mean?

(b) The *Amora* (Rebbi Yochanan's disciple, known as 'the Master of Eretz Yisrael'), is Rebbi Elazar ben P'das. What is the full name of the *Tana* currently under discussion?

(a) Boshes is not fixed, but depends on the status of both the person who is being shamed and the one who is doing the shaming.
How would Beis-Din form the scale with regard ...
  1. ... to the person who was doing the shaming?
  2. ... to the person being shamed?
(b) How would they view the girl who was being shamed in order to assess her?

(c) K'nas is equal in all cases.
Which principle governs this statement?

Answers to questions



(a) Rebbi Zeira explains that the fifty Shekalim K'nas cannot incorporate Boshes and P'gam, because it is not feasible for the Torah not to make a distinction between a princess who was raped and a girl of low status. Abaye queries Rebbi Zeira's explanation from the Din of Eved. To which Din is he referring? What is his query?

(b) So we scrap the contention that status should make any difference. Rebbi Zeira's proof (that Boshes and P'gam must be an independent obligation - and not part of the K'nas) is from a case of two people, one of whom raped a girl naturally and the other, unnaturally.
What is the case? What is the proof?

(c) How does Abaye counter this proof too, from the same case of Eved?

(d) So how does Abaye himself prove the point from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei (written in connection with the fifty Shekalim that a rapist has to pay) "Tachas Asher Inah"?

(a) Rava learns it from the Pasuk "ve'Nasan ha'Ish ha'Shochev Imah la'Avi ha'Na'arah Chamishim Kesef".
How does he prove it from there?

(b) How do we try to prove that the Boshes and the P'gam go to the father, from the Pasuk in Matos (written in connection with Nedarim) "bi'Ne'urehah Beis Avihah"?

(c) What does Rav Huna learn from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ve'Chi Yimkor Ish es *Bito le'Amah*"?

(d) How does Rav Huna's D'rashah disprove the D'rashah that we just made from the Pasuk "bi'Ne'urehah Beis Avihah"?

(a) Why can we not learn that Boshes and P'gam belong to the girl's father from ...
  1. ... "bi'Ne'urehah Beis Avihah"?
  2. ... K'nas, which as we see, also goes to the father?
(b) So from where *do* we know that Boshes and P'gam belong to the father (and not to the girl herself)?
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that we reckon P'gam by detracting the girl's sale-value after the rape from her value before it.
Why can this not be referring to her value as a slave?

(b) What objection do we initially raise to the suggestion that it is referring to her value as a 'wife' for the owner's slave?

(c) Then what does it refer to?

(a) Who is the author of our Mishnah, which states that a girl who can be sold is not subject to K'nas, and vice-versa?

(b) What do the Chachamim say?

(c) When can she neither be sold nor is she subject to K'nas?

(a) According to Rav Chisda, Rebbi Meir learns his opinion from the Pasuk "ve'Lo Sihyeh le'Ishah".
How does he derive it from there?

(b) The Rabbanan, says Resh Lakish, learn their opinion from the word "Na'arah" itself.
How do they do that?

(a) When Rav Papa told this to Rav Shimi bar Ashi, he claimed to have heard Resh Lakish's statement in connection with the Pasuk on Motzi Shem Ra "ve'Nasnu la'Avi ha'Na'arah ... ".
What did Resh Lakish actually say there?

(b) Why can we not extrapolate from Resh Lakish's statement that, had the Torah not written "Na'arah" with a 'Hey', we would have extended the Din of Motzi Shem Ra to a Ketanah?

(c) So what do we extrapolate from it?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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