REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 41
KESUVOS 41 (5 Iyar)- Dedicated by Marsha and Lee Weinblatt of N.J. -- they,
and their extended family, should be blessed with good health and the joy of
those who serve Hashem. May we soon merit to see the return of Hashem to
(a) Someone who, of his own volition, confesses to having seduced a girl, is
obligated to pay her father Boshes and P'gam, but not K'nas.
Why is that?
From which Pasuk do we learn it? Note: By confesses, we mean that he
actually volunteers the information.
(b) What will be the equivalent Halachah with regard to someone who
confesses that he stole?
(c) If someone admits that his Mu'ad ox (that has already killed three
times) killed a person or another ox, he has to pay.
How would one
classify payment for one's ox killing a person?
(d) Following the pattern of the previous examples, in which case will he be
(a) Why does the Tana discuss the case of someone who admits to having
seduced a girl, and not to having raped her?
(b) What does Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah Amar Rebbi Shimon say?
(c) Rav Papa asked Abaye what Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah Amar Rebbi Shimon
will rule if the girl forewent her honor in order to receive the money
(presumably he is speaking about a girl who in the meantime became a
What did Abaye reply?
(d) And what if ...
- ... her father too, expressed his willingness to forego his honor for the sake of his daughter)?
- ... even the other members of her family expressed their willingness to forego their honor, too?
(a) Rav Papa holds that the half damage which the owner of a Shor Tam (an ox
that has not yet gored three times) is Mamon.
What does Rav Huna B'rei
de'Rav Yehoshua say?
(b) What are the ramifications of their Machlokes?
(c) On what grounds does ...
(d) According to ...
- ... Rav Papa hold 'Palga Nizka Mamona'?
- ... Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua hold 'Palga Nizka K'nasa'?
- ... Rav Papa, why should the owner not then pay full damage?
- ... Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua, why should he pay anything at all?
(a) The Mishnah in Bava Kama states 'ha'Nizak ve'ha'Mazik be'Tashlumin.
According to Rav Papa, this is easily understood (seeing as the Nizak loses
half his claim).
According to Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua however, the
statement at first difficult to understand.
Why is that?
(b) How will Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua then explain it?
(c) What does the Tana of the Mishnah in Bava Kama mean when he says
'Tashlumei Nezek: Melamed she'ha'Ba'alim Metaplin ba'Neveilah'?
(d) But is that not the same as saying 'P'chas Neveilah de'Nizak'? Why do we
need two Mishnos to teach us the same thing?
(a) Had the Tana taught us the Din of P'chas Neveilah by a ...
(b) Which two distinctions between a Tam and a Mu'ad does the Mishnah in
Bava Kama list?
- ... Tam, why would we not have been able to extend it to a Mu'ad?
- ... Mu'ad, why would we not have been able to extend it to a Tam?
(c) How does this pose a Kashya on Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua?
(d) We answer 'Tana ve'Shayar' (The Tana omits something else, which
justifies omitting this distinction, too).
Which other distinction does
the Tana omit?
(a) We conclude that the distinction of 'Chatzi Kofer' is not considered an
Answers to questions
(b) Why is this retraction necessary? Why the necessity to retract from a
(a) 'Heimis Shori es P'loni O Shoro shel P'loni, Harei Zeh Meshalem al-pi
Presuming that this Beraisa is speaking about a Tam, on whom is
this a Kashya?
(b) What prompts us to presume that the Tana is talking about a Tam is the
Seifa, which states ' ... Avdo shel P'loni, Eino Meshalem al-pi Atzmo'.
What would be the problem if we were to establish the Beraisa by a Mu'ad,
according to Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua?
(c) On the other hand, how can the Beraisa, which incorporates a case of
Chiyuv Kofer, be speaking about a Tam, when a Tam does not pay (Chatzi)
(d) How do we resolve the former problem (of establishing the Beraisa by a
Mu'ad according to Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua)?
(a) Our Mishnah concludes 'Zeh ha'K'lal, Kol ha'Meshalem Yeser al Mah
she'Hizik, Eino Meshalem al-pi Atzmo'.
How does Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav
Yehoshua refute the obvious inference 'Ha Pachos mi'Mah she'Hizik, Meshalem
(b) In that case, the Tana could simply have said 'Zeh ha'K'lal, Kol
she'Eino Meshalem K'mah she'Hizik, Eino Meshalem al-pi Atzmo', which seems
to go against Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua.
How do we reconcile this
with the fact that we nevertheless rule like him? Why could the Tana not
have said that?
(c) What is 'Chatzi Nezek Tz'roros'? Under what heading of Nezikin does it
(d) Then why does it pay only half damages?
(a) What bearing will the ruling 'Palga Nizka K'nasa' have upon a case where
a dog kills a sheep or a cat kills a large chicken, and eats it in Bavel? Is
the description 'large' significant?
(b) What makes this a case of Keren Tam (considering that cats and dogs do
not have horns)?
(c) Why should the Din be any different in Bavel than in Eretz Yisrael?
(d) Would it make any difference if the Nizak grabbed something of the
Mazik's (see also Tosfos DH 've'I')?
(a) If the Mazik were to request a court-hearing in Eretz Yisrael, Beis-Din
will grant it to him.
***** Hadran Alach Eilu Na'aros *****
What if the Nizak refuses to go?
(b) What does Rebbi Nasan in a Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei
"ve'Lo Sasim Damim be'Veisecha"?
(c) What if someone fails to comply with this?
***** Na'arah she'Nispatsah *****
(a) If, after a man who raped or seduced a girl has been sentenced by
Beis-Din to pay, the girl's father dies, who receives the money?
(b) In which case will *the girl* herself receive it?
(c) What will be the Din in the equivalent cases if the girl became a
Bogeres after or before Beis-Din's sentence?
(d) According to Rebbi Shimon, the criterion is not the sentence.
(a) Whatever a girl (as long as she is a Na'arah) produces or finds, also
belongs to her father. The criterion with regard to these however, is
different than the above.
Answers to questions
In which case do they belong to the father's
heirs, in the event of his death, and in which case does the girl herself
(b) On what grounds is the criterion in this case different than that of
rape or seduction?