(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 42


(a) Seeing as we have already learned in a previous Mishnah (on 39a.) the three obligations of a seducer and the four of a rapist, why did the Tana find it necessary to repeat them here?

(b) Why can the Chidush not be the fact that it is the girl's father who receives the money?

(a) If, after swearing his innocence, a man admits that he did rape or seduce the claimant's daughter, which three Chiyuvim does he incur, according to the Tana Kama?

(b) On what grounds does the Tana Kama disagree with Rebbi Shimon, who holds that he is Patur, because a person does not pay K'nas by one's own admission?

(c) Abaye asked Rabah what the Din will be if the same man admits that he did rape or seduce the claimant's daughter, but after the father claimed that, he did so, and that he had already been pronounced guilty by the Beis-Din, who had sentenced him to pay K'nas.
According to which Tana is he asking? What exactly, is the She'eilah?

(d) What did Rabah reply?

(a) What does Rebbi Shimon in the Mishnah in Shavu'os learn (regarding a man who admits that he raped a girl, or that his ox gored the claimant's slave, or regarding a master who admits that his master knocked out his eye or his tooth, after they had all sworn to the contrary) from the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'Kichesh be'Pakidon O bi'Sesumes Yad ... O Matza Aveidah ve'Kichesh Bah ... "?

(b) What Kashya does this present against Rabah?

(c) Rabah answers that the Beraisa speaks when Lo Amad ba'Din (he had *not yet been taken to Beis-Din*) and it is a straightforward case of K'nas. We ask on this however, from the Reisha of the Beraisa, which clearly speaks when he *had*.
Who is the author of the Reisha?

(d) What do they learn (to include) from "u'Ma'alah Ma'al"? How do we know that they are speaking about a case of Amad ba'Din?

Answers to questions



(a) How could Rabah have resolved the difficulty by establishing the entire Beraisa according to Rebbi Shimon?

(b) He chose not to do so however, on the grounds that that would be a forced answer.
Why would it be forced? What should the Tana then have written?

(a) So Rabah establishes the Beraisa by Amad ba'Din, the Reisha, according to the Rabbanan, the Seifa, according to Rebbi Shimon (like we thought at first), and he is Patur from a Korban Shesvu'ah, because it is not similar to the case of "ve'Kichesh" (Mamon from its inception).
Then in which regard does he consider it Mamon?

(b) What does Rebbi Shimon say if, after Beis-Din have found the man guilty, the girl did not manage to claim the money before becoming a Bogeres?

(c) But did we not just say that with regard to inheritance, the money becomes Mamon immediately following Amad ba'Din? Rav Yosef and Rabah himself were unable to answer the Kashya as long as Rabah was the Rosh Yeshivah. How long did they remain with the Kashya? Who eventually resolved it?

(a) Rav Yosef answered the Kashya by quoting the Pasuk "*ve'Nasan* ha'Ish ha'Shochev Imah la'Avi ha'Na'arah ... ".
What did he learn from there? How does this answer the Kashya?

(b) In that case, when does Rabah say that it is Mamon for his heirs to inherit it?

(c) In which other regard is it considered Mamon?

(d) According to Rav Yosef's explanation, why do we not make the same D'rashah as we made by O'nes and Mefateh, in the case of an ox that gored an Eved Kena'ani (which is also a K'nas), and where the Torah writes "Kesef Sh'loshim Shekalim *Yiten* la'Adonav"? Let us say that until the master receives the money, it remains a K'nas (even after Ha'amadah ba'Din)?

(a) Seeing as the source that renders O'nes and Mefateh unique inasmuch as it remains K'nas until the money is actually claimed, is "ve'Nasan" (as Rav Yosef just explained), why does Rebbi Shimon in the Beraisa need to quote the Pasuk "ve'Kichesh" giving it the same Din as other K'nasos with regard to Korban Sh'vu'ah? In which case is this necessary?

(b) Why should this case be different than a case when the father dies before the money has been claimed?

(c) Then why does the Tana state 'Yatz'u Eilu she'Hein K'nas', seeing as it is no longer K'nas?

(a) We learned in the Mishnah in Shevu'os 'Rebbi Shimon Poter (mi'Korban Shevu'ah), she'Eino Meshalem K'nas al-pi Atzmo'.
What can we infer from there?

(b) How will we reconcile this with Rebbi Shimon in the Beraisa, who exempts O'nes and Mefateh from a Korban She'vu'ah altogether?

(c) On what grounds do the Rabbanan refuse to concede to Rebbi Shimon's argument? After all, as long as the litigants have not been to Beis-Din, the money remains a K'nas, so why should he be Chayav a Korban Shevu'ah (seeing as he did not deny Mamon)?

(d) What is the basis of their Machlokes? Why, according to ...

  1. ... Rebbi Shimon, would a person be certain to claim K'nas, rather than Boshes and P'gam?
  2. ... the Rabbanan, would he be certain to claim Boshes and P'gam, rather than K'nas?
Answers to questions

Next daf


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