# dafyomi

lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE NEVER PAYS FOR CAPITAL SINS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We already know this from 'Do not take ransom' 
          (it applies to murder, in which exile atones for Shogeg)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rami bar Chama):</font></b> One might have thought this 
          applies only to one who killed through an upward motion, 
          since if done b'Shogeg there is no atonement (exile);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> But if one killed through a downward motion, since 
               if done b'Shogeg there is an atonement, one would 
               think he does pay ransom and not die! 'Every Cherem' 
               teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> We know this from Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah):</font></b> Just like one who hits an 
               animal pays, whether he was Shogeg or Meizid, 
               whether or not he was aiming for this animal, and 
               whether he hit with an upward or downward motion, 
               also one who strikes a man is exempt (from paying) 
               in every case.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rami bar Chama):</font></b> Rather, we need it ('V'Chol 
          Cherem...' or 'Do not take ransom') to teach about one 
          who blinds a person's eye and kills him with a different 
          blow at the same time. He does not pay money in addition 
          to being executed;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'If there is no fatality' only teaches about when he 
               blinded and killed him in one blow.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> Also this is known from another 
          teaching of Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah):</font></b> '(One pays) an eye for an 
               eye', not an eye and a life for an eye'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> One night have thought that fines 
          are Chidushim (special), and even one who is executed 
          pays them. 'Any Cherem' teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> According to Rabah, who says that one who is 
          executed pays a fine, what does the verse teach?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rabah holds like the Tana who disagrees with R. 
          Chananya ben Akavya (Sof 37b. The verse teaches that 
          there is no Erech for one sentenced to die.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>A GIRL WHO WAS ONCE 'MEKUDESHES'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Yosi ha'Glili):</font></b> If a Na'arah was divorced 
          from Eirusin, she does not receive a fine;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Akiva says, she herself collects a fine (not her 
          father).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What is the reason for R. Yosi 
          ha'Glili?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> 'Who was not Mekudeshes' implies that had she 
          been Mekudeshes, there would be no fine;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva infers, if she was never Mekudeshes her 
               father receives the fine. If she was Mekudeshes, she 
               receives the fine.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, he should likewise expound 'Na'arah' and 
          'Besulah' to teach that a Bogeres or a non-virgin 
          receives the fine herself!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> There, we say that there is no fine at all. We 
               should say the same here!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Akiva expounds 'Who was not Mekudeshes' like 
          the following Beraisa:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Glili):</font></b> 'Who was not 
               Mekudeshes' - if she was divorced from Eirusin, she 
               receives no fine;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Akiva says, her father receives the fine.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> This is reasonable. Her father receives money given 
               to her for Kidushin, and the fine of one who rapes 
               or seduces her;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Just like he gets her Kidushin money even if 
                    she was previously divorced from Eirusin, also 
                    the fine!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If so, what do we learn from 'Who was not 
               Mekudeshes'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It is extra for a Gezeirah Shavah. These 
               words are said regarding a rapist and regarding a 
               seducer to equate them:
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Just like a rapist pays 50 units of currency, 
                    also a seducer;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Just like the currency a seducer pays is 
                    Shekalim, also a rapist.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why does R. Akiva say that 'Who was not 
          Mekudeshes' is extra for a Gezeirah Shavah, and 'Besulah' 
          excludes a non-virgin?
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE TRADITION REQUIRED TO EXPOUND A 'GEZEIRAH SHAVAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah quotes Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili who rules that a Na'arah who accepted Kidushin (and thereby became an Arusah), but was divorced before the marriage was consummated with Nisu'in, does not receive a Kenas if she is raped or seduced. Rebbi Akiva disagrees and rules that she does receive a Kenas, and the Kenas is given directly to her (and not to her father).
</p><p>
The Gemara quotes a Beraisa in which Rebbi Akiva rules that the Kenas is given to her father. (The Gemara later explains that Rebbi Akiva's students disagreed about his position on the matter.) In the Beraisa, Rebbi Akiva states that it is logical that the Kenas is given to her father. Just as the father of a girl (who was divorced after Erusin) receives the money of Kidushin given for the betrothal of his daughter, so, too, he should receive the money of the Kenas in the event that she is raped or seduced. Rebbi Akiva asks that if it is logical that the Kenas for rape or seduction of a girl who was divorced as an Arusah is given to her father, why does the verse describe a girl who is eligible for the Kenas as 'Asher Lo Orasah' -- 'who was not betrothed (with Erusin)' (Devarim 22:28)? Rebbi Akiva explains that this verse is used for a different teaching; it teaches a Gezeirah Shavah from the Parshah of rape (Ones) to the Parshah of seduction (Mefateh), in which the verse similarly states 'Asher Lo Orasah' (Shemos 22:15). In the Parshah of rape the Torah teaches that one must pay fifty 'Kesef,' and in the Parshah of seduction the Torah teaches that the fine must be in the currency of Shekalim. The Gezeirah Shavah teaches that the laws of rape apply to seduction and vice versa. Accordingly, the Gezeirah Shavah teaches that both rape and seduction bear a fine of fifty Shekalim (of Kesef). 
</p><p>
The Gemara questions the way Rebbi Akiva expounds the verses. Why does Rebbi Akiva understand the words 'Asher Lo Orasah' as a Gezeirah Shavah which compares the laws of Ones with the laws of Mefateh, and the word 'Besulah' as excluding a Be'ulah from the law of Kenas? He should learn instead that the word 'Besulah' serves as the Gezeirah Shavah between Ones and Mefateh (since this word appears in both Parshiyos), and the words 'Asher Lo Orasah' exclude from the law of Kenas a Na'arah who was betrothed (with Erusin) and then was divorced (as is the view of Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili).
</p><p>
The Gemara's question is difficult to understand. The Gemara in Pesachim (66a) clearly states that one may expound a Gezeirah Shavah only if he received it as a tradition (Kabalah) from his Rebbi. One may not derive laws from a Gezeirah Shavah which he formulates himself. Why does the Gemara suggest that Rebbi Akiva should derive the Gezeirah Shavah from 'Besulah' instead of 'Asher Lo Orasah,' if the tradition he received from his Rebbi derives the Gezeirah Shavah only from 'Asher Lo Orasah'? 
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RITVA</b> answers that the principle that one may not expound a Gezeirah Shavah without a tradition to do so applies only when there is no tradition whatsoever to learn a Gezeirah Shavah for a particular law. It happens often, however, that there exists a tradition that a Gezeirah Shavah exists for this particular law but there is no tradition for exactly which words the Gezeirah Shavah comprises. For this reason, the Gemara often seeks to prove that the words used for a Gezeirah Shavah are 'Mufneh' ('open' and not used to teach any other law, and thus available to be used for the inference of a Gezeirah Shavah between the two topics). Isolating the 'Mufneh' words facilitates identification of the words which are intended to teach a Gezeirah Shavah.
</p><p>
According to the Ritva, why does the Gemara here ask that Rebbi Akiva should derive the Gezeirah Shavah from 'Besulah' and not from 'Asher Lo Orasah'? The answer is that since there was a tradition that a Gezeirah Shavah teaches the law that the Kenas of Ones and Mefateh is fifty Shekalim, any words that are found to be 'Mufneh' may be the words which comprise the Gezeirah Shavah. Since the words 'Besulah' in the Parshah of Ones and in the Parshah of Mefateh are 'Mufneh,' it certainly is possible that 'Besulah' is the source of the Gezeirah Shavah. This is also the explanation of the <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> (DH Eima; see <b>YA'AVETZ</b>) and is implied by <b>TOSFOS</b>.
<br> 
<br>(b) The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> answers that it is possible that the Gemara assumes that there was also a tradition to use the word 'Besulah' as a Gezeirah Shavah. (The Shitah Mekubetzes notes that the <b>RASHBA</b> and <b>RAN</b> in Bava Metzia (87b) disagree with the Ritva and state that the <i>words</i> used in a Gezeirah Shavah were generally a tradition, but the <i>law</i> derived from the Gezeirah Shavah was not necessarily known.) (D. Bloom)
<br> 
<br><br>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Perhaps 'Besulah' is extra for a Gezeirah Shavah, 
               and 'Who was not Mekudeshes' excludes a girl who was 
               divorced from Eirusin!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is better to say that one who was divorced 
          from Eirusin receives a fine, since she is a Na'arah 
          Besulah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Just the opposite! It is better to say that 
          'Besulah' is extra for the Gezeirah Shavah (and a 
          non-virgin receives a fine), since she was not 
          Mekudeshes!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The previous way is better. Since there was no 
          physical change, she still receives a fine.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How does R. Yosi ha'Glili know that both fines 
          are 50, and both are Shekalim?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> 'Kesef YiSHKoL k'Mohar ha'Besulos' - this (fine 
          of a seducer) should be like Mohar of virgins (50, like 
          it says regarding a rapist), and Mohar of virgins should 
          be like this (Shekalim).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Akiva in the Beraisa disagrees with R. Akiva 
          in the Mishnah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Tana'im of the Mishnah and Beraisa argue 
          about what is R. Akiva's opinion.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN THERE IS NO FINE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  We understand R. Akiva in the Mishnah. 'Who was not 
          Mekudeshes' is extra for a Gezeirah Shavah, but it is not 
          uprooted from its simple meaning.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Akiva in the Beraisa totally uproots these 
          words from their simple meaning (he says that having been 
          Mekudeshes does not affect the fine)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> This teaches that if 
          she was Mekudeshes when she was seduced, there is no 
          fine.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This is obvious, for one who seduces her is 
          stoned!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that a fine is a Chidush, 
          and even one who is killed pays it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rabah says that that is really true. How can he 
          answer the objection?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He holds like R. Akiva in the Mishnah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> The fine goes to her father;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  Some say that it goes to her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why should it go to her?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Chisda):</font></b> The case is, she was Mekudeshes and 
          was divorced. The first Tana is like R. Akiva of the 
          Beraisa. The latter is like R. Akiva of the Mishnah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> If she died (before the rapist was brought to 
          trial) there is no fine - 'He will give to the father of 
          the Na'arah', not to the father of the deceased.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  This law was obvious to Abaye, but Rava was unsure about 
          it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> Does a girl receive the law of a Bogeres 
          after death?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If (a fine was owed to her and) she becomes a 
               Bogeres, the fine passes to her child;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If she doesn't, her father receives the fine.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) DO HEIRS INHERIT THE OBLIGATION OF A 'KENAS'?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rava discusses a case in which a man raped or seduced a Na'arah (between twelve years old and twelve and a half years old), and the Na'arah died before the age of twelve and a half and before she went to Beis Din to collect the fine. The Gemara in a number of places teaches that the state of Bagrus (when she becomes a Bogeres, at the age of twelve and a half) affects the obligation of Kenas in various ways (see Mishnah, 41b). Does the state of Bagrus have Halachic ramifications only when she is alive, or even when she died and <i>would</i> have reached that age had she lived?
</p><p>
The Gemara explains that if becoming a Bogeres is relevant even when she is dead, then once the time arrives at which she would have become a Bogeres had she been alive her son should inherit the Kenas owed to her. If the status of Bogeres does not apply when she is dead, her <i>father</i> should inherit the Kenas. <b>RASHI</b> (DH Yesh), in his explanation of the first possibility, writes that just as a girl who goes to Beis Din to claim her Kenas only after she reaches the age of twelve and a half keeps the Kenas for herself and it is not given to her father (Mishnah, 41b), so, too, a girl who dies before the age of twelve and a half keeps the Kenas for herself (that is, her heirs inherit it) once the time arrives at which she would have reached the age of Bagrus had she lived.
</p><p>
Rava's question appears to contradict the Gemara later (42b). The Gemara there states that a person cannot bequeath a Kenas to his children. Rava's question, however, is based on the premise that a woman bequeaths a Kenas to her son!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Yesh) answers that the Gemara indeed could ask this question on Rava, but instead it asks a better question.
</p><p>
(b) Alternatively, Tosfos answers in the name of the <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> that Rava's question does not apply to Kenas because, as the Gemara later says, a Kenas is not inherited by one's heirs. Rather, Rava's question applies to the payments of Boshes (embarrassment) and Pegam (physical blemish) which the man caused. These payments <i>are</i> inherited by one's heirs since they are considered Mamon (value-based payments) and not Kenas (fixed amount, regardless of value).
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RITVA</b> gives a different answer in the name of the <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b>. The rule that a person cannot bequeath a Kenas to his children applies only to a Kenas which a man receives by way of his daughter. This is derived from the verse which discusses the law that one's heirs inherit his Eved Kena'ani (Vayikra 25:46). The Gemara (43a) derives from there that although one's sons inherit his Eved Kena'ani, his sons do <i>not</i> 'inherit' his <i>daughter</i>, which refers to the rights which he has to the money he receives due to fines owed to his daughter. In contrast, a Kenas which a person is entitled to receive in his own right <i>can</i> be bequeathed to his sons, even before Beis Din issues a ruling about the Kenas (that is, even before it becomes a monetary (Mamon) obligation which certainly is bequeathed to one's heirs). Accordingly, a woman's son should inherit the Kenas owed to her, since the Kenas was owed directly to her.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> offers a different explanation of the Sugya. He explains that Rava's question refers to a case in which the father brought the offender to Beis Din before his daughter died. His question applies according to the opinion of Rebbi Shimon (see Mishnah, 41b) who maintains that since the father did not collect the money in his lifetime, the power of the father automatically expires and the Kenas becomes an obligation of Mamon (because the Beis Din already ruled that it must be given), which -- when the woman dies -- she can bequeath to her son. (D. Bloom)
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A FINE AFTER DEATH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> She cannot become pregnant (and give birth 
          before becoming a Bogeres)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Bivi - Beraisa):</font></b> Three women use a wad to 
               prevent pregnancy: a minor, a pregnant woman, and a 
               nursing woman. (Rashi - they <i>may</i> use a 
               contraceptive wad at the time of Bi'ah. Tosfos - 
               this is forbidden! Rather, they <i>must</i> use a wad 
               <i>after</i> Bi'ah to remove the semen.)
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  A minor does so, lest she get pregnant and die;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> A pregnant woman does so lest the fetus get 
                    mashed (Rashi - if a second fetus is conceived; 
                    Tosfos - this is impossible. Rather, we are 
                    concerned lest there are already two fetuses 
                    inside, and semen will enter between them);
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>A nursing woman does so lest pregnancy force 
                    her to wean her baby, and it will die.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Meir says, a girl between 11 and 12 years uses a 
               tuft. If she is younger or older, she has Bi'ah 
               normally.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, at any age she has normal Bi'ah. 
               Shamayim will have mercy on her - 'Hash-m guards the 
               simple.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps she became pregnant and gave birth 
          while she was a Na'arah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> She cannot give birth in six months!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Shmuel):</font></b> Only six months separate a Na'arah from a 
               Bogeres.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps the interim is never less than 
               six, but sometimes it is more.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Shmuel said 'only'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Retraction:</font></b> Rather, Rava asked about a girl who died 
          without children.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If she becomes a Bogeres after death, the father 
               loses the fine;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If she doesn't become a Bogeres, her father receives 
               the fine.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Mar bar Rav Ashi):</font></b> Is death considered like 
          becoming a Bogeres (i.e. does it make her leave her 
          father's jurisdiction)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The question is unresolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> If he raped or seduced her and then she 
          became Mekudeshes, what is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> It does not say 'the father of the 
          Na'arah who (even now) is not Mekudeshes'! (Certainly, 
          the father still collects the fine.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava - Beraisa):</font></b> If he had Bi'ah with her and 
          then she had Nisu'in, she receives the fine.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why is this? It does not say 'the father 
               of the Na'arah who is not Nesu'ah'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This is no comparison. Nisu'in removes her from 
          her father's jurisdiction, just like becoming a Bogeres;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If she was raped or seduced and then became a 
               Bogeres, she receives the fine. The same applies to 
               if she had Nisu'in;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Kidushin does not take her from the jurisdiction of 
               the father!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The father and husband of a Na'arah 
                    Me'orasah (Arusah) jointly annul her vows.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A RAPIST AND A SEDUCER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A seducer pays three payments: embarrassment, 
          blemish and a fine.	A rapist pays these and also for 
          pain;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  A rapist pays a fine immediately. A seducer pays when he 
          divorces her;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  A rapist must keep her for a wife. A seducer may divorce 
          her;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  When is a rapist forced to marry her? This is even if she 
          is lame, blind or leprous;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  If he found immorality in her, or if she may not marry a 
          Yisrael, he may not stay married to her. 'She will be his 
          wife' - she must be fitting for him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> For which pain does he pay?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Shmuel's father):</font></b> He threw her to the ground.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Zeira):</font></b> According to this, if he threw her 
          onto silk he is exempt?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps this is true!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rejection (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Yehudah) A rapist 
               does not pay for pain, because she was destined to 
               suffer the pain in any case, when she marries. (Her 
               husband will not throw her on the ground! Rather, he 
               refers to pain of the first Bi'ah.)
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) CONTRACEPTION</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Beraisa teaches that three types of women use a Moch during relations (see Insights to Kesuvos 37:1) -- a minor, a pregnant woman, and a nursing mother, because pregnancy poses a danger to their health.
</p><p>
Is the use of a Moch permitted only in these cases due to the danger involved, or is it permitted even when no danger is involved?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Meshamshos) writes merely that 'these women are permitted to use a Moch, and they are not considered as though they are destroying Zera.' According to the <b>RITVA's</b> text of Rashi's comments, Rashi adds, 'We permit this to them because of the danger to her and to her child.' The Ritva understands that Rashi means that although the use of a Moch is generally forbidden because of the prohibition against Hashchasas Zera, in this case it is permitted due to the danger posed to the woman by pregnancy.
</p><p>
(<b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> (Teshuvos 1:71, DH ul'Zeh) infers from Rashi's words, 'and they are not considered as though they are destroying Zera,' that an adult is generally prohibited from using a Moch because it destroys the man's Zera. Rebbi Akiva Eiger asserts that Rashi disagrees with <b>RABEINU TAM</b> (quoted by <b>TOSFOS</b> to Yevamos 12b, DH Shalosh, and Tosfos to Sanhedrin 59b, DH v'Ha, as cited here by the <b>GILYON HA'SHAS</b>), who maintains that a woman is not included in the prohibition against Hashchasas Zera since she is not included in the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah.)
</p><p>
1. The Ritva questions Rashi's explanation. The Gemara states that a girl under the age of eleven may not use a Moch. Rashi (DH Pachos) explains that she may not use a Moch because she is too young to become pregnant, and thus there is no allowance for her to cause Hashchasas Zera. The Ritva asks that if a young girl cannot become pregnant, why is she prohibited from using a Moch? The Zera will be destroyed whether or not she uses a Moch, since in any event she will not become pregnant.
</p><p>
The <b>BEIS MEIR</b> (EH 23) answers this question. He explains that although a girl under the age of eleven cannot become pregnant, having relations while wearing a Moch is considered equivalent to having relations in an unnatural manner (the manner of Er and Onan; see Bereishis 38:7-10, Yevamos 34b) and is considered Hashchasas Zera.
</p><p>
2. The Ritva asks further that according to Rashi, the Rabanan who disagree with Rebbi Meir (as quoted later in the Beraisa) maintain that these three women may <i>not</i> use a Moch. Why, though, do they require that a woman put herself in danger by not protecting herself simply because of the reasoning of 'Shomer Pesa'im Hash-m' -- 'Hash-m protects the fools' (Tehilim 116:6)?
</p><p>
The answer to this question may be inferred from the words of the <b>KOVETZ SHI'URIM</b> (#136). The Kovetz Shi'urim writes that the principle of 'Shomer Pesa'im Hash-m' means that a person may conduct himself normally and not worry that he will be harmed, if acting in a way which would avoid harm would be an unusual way to act. The Kovetz Shi'urim proves this from the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (30b) which states that one is permitted to eat a fig or grape at night and he is not required to examine it (as he must do during the day) to ensure that it contains no snake poison. Why is the Gemara lenient with regard to examining a fruit for poison, when one must do everything in his power to prevent danger to life? Why does the Gemara not require him to wait until daytime to eat the fruit? It must be that a person who conducts himself in a normal manner is protected by Hash-m whenever there is no normal, alternative form of conduct at that time.
</p><p>
This explanation answers the Ritva's question on Rashi. The Gemara in Avodah Zarah applies the principle of 'Shomer Pesa'im Hash-m' in a case of Piku'ach Nefesh when it is the normal way of conducting oneself. Similarly, a woman for whom pregnancy poses a danger may live with her husband in the normal manner and rely on Hashem's assurance of 'Shomer Pesa'im Hash-m.' 
</p><p>
The <b>TORAS CHESED</b> (44:2) writes that according to the Rabanan, the probability of mortal danger to which these women are subject is negligible. When the probability of danger is so low, they may rely on 'Shomer Pesa'im Hash-m,' and thus the use of a Moch is forbidden.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> and <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Shalosh) explain that these three types of women are <i>obligated</i> to use a Moch (according to Rebbi Meir). The Rabanan <i>permit</i> them to use a Moch but do not obligate them, because they may rely on 'Shomer Pesa'im Hash-m.' (D. Bloom, Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Chachamim:</font></b> The pain of one who is forced is greater 
               than that of one who willingly has Bi'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> He pained her by opening her 
          legs.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If so, a seducer should also pay!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #1 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> (She consented.) This is 
               like one who says 'tear my silk and be exempt.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> Why is this like 'tear <i>my</i> silk'? The 
               payment belongs to her father!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer #2 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Rather, wise women say that 
               a seduced woman suffers no pain.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> We see that they (women who willingly have 
               first Bi'ah with their husbands) do!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Abaye):</font></b> My (surrogate) mother told me that 
               it is a trifling pain, like hot water on a bald 
               head.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rava:</font></b> My wife told me that it is like a 
               bloodletter's incision.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Papa:</font></b> My wife told me that it is like hard bread 
               scratching the palate.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN THE FINE IS PAID</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A rapist pays immediately. A seducer pays when 
          he divorces her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why does it say 'when he divorces her'? He did 
          not marry her yet!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> It means 'when he does not marry her.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> Even though we learned that a seducer 
          pays (the fine) when he does not marry her, he pays for 
          embarrassment and blemish immediately;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Regarding both a rapist and a seducer, she or her 
               father can block the marriage.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Regarding a seducer it says 'Im <i>Ma'en Tima'en</i> 
          Aviha.' The repetition teaches that also she may refuse;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> What is the source regarding a rapist?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  Answer - part 1:	'To him she will be a wife' connotes 
          willingly. This teaches that she may refuse;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How do we know that her father may refuse?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> (This is logical. It is) in order that 
          a sinner should not profit (to be able to marry a girl 
          against her father's will).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> We learn from a Kal v'Chomer.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A seducer violated only the father's will, yet the 
               father may refuse. A rapist violated also her will, 
               all the more so the father may refuse!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  Rava did not learn like Abaye. Since he pays a fine, it 
          is not considered profiting if he gets to marry her;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Abaye did not learn like Rava. Since a seducer can 
               refuse to marry her, also the father may protest. A 
               rapist cannot refuse to marry her, so the same could 
               apply to the father!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Even though a rapist pays a fine immediately, 
          when he divorces her she has no claim against him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Interjection:</font></b> He is not allowed to divorce her!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, when she decides to leave him she has 
          no claim against him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Continuation of Beraisa):</font></b> If he dies, the fine he had 
          paid is in place of a Kesuvah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi bar Yehudah says, she has a Kesuvah of 100;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The first Tana holds that we enacted Kesuvah so that 
               it will not be light in a man's eyes to divorce his 
               wife. A rapist cannot divorce her, so we did not 
               enact a Kesuvah for her.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi bar Yehudah is concerned lest he pain her 
               until she will want to leave him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The rapist must marry her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava of Parzika):</font></b> We learn from a rapist to a 
          seducer and vice-versa. Why don't we learn that this 
          applies also to a seducer?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Regarding a seducer it says 'Yimhareno 
          <i>Lo</i> (he will take her for a wife <i>to him</i>)' - if he 
          wants.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) IS THE KESUVAH MID'ORAISA OR MID'RABANAN?</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Beraisa states that although a man who rapes a woman is obligated to pay the fine immediately, if he dies after he marries her but before he pays the fine she does <i>not</i> receive a Kesuvah, according to the Rabanan. The fine which his heirs must pay to her takes the place of payment of the Kesuvah. Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah disagrees and rules that she receives a Kesuvah of 100 Zuz (the amount a Be'ulah receives as her Kesuvah).
</p><p>
The Gemara explains the reasoning of the Rabanan. The enactment of Kesuvah was instituted in order to cause a husband to pause and ponder before he divorces his wife. It follows that a man who was required by the Torah to marry the woman he raped should have no obligation of Kesuvah, because the Torah forbids him from divorcing his wife (Devarim 22:19). Rebbi Yosi, on the other hand, maintains that the man might make his wife so miserable that <i>she</i> will invite him to divorce her (in which case he must divorce her; see <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> EH 177:3). Accordingly, the enactment of Kesuvah applies.
</p><p>
The Gemara's question, 'Why did the Rabanan establish a Kesuvah?' implies that the obligation to give a Kesuvah is mid'Rabanan. This, however, is subject to dispute.
</p><p>
(a) The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> quotes <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who asserts that the Kesuvah of a Besulah is mid'Oraisa. The Gemara here is discussing a woman who was raped and is not a Besulah, and thus the Kesuvah to which it refers is not mid'Oraisa.
</p><p>
The Shitah Mekubetzes questions the explanation of Rabeinu Tam. It is possible that a man rapes a woman in a way that leaves her a Besulah (i.e. she'Lo k'Darkah) and yet all of the Halachos of rape apply to her (e.g. the rapist must pay a fine and marry her). In such a case her Kesuvah is mid'Oraisa, but the Gemara implies that in all cases of rape the Kesuvah is only mid'Rabanan. (See also <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Taima Mai) who asks this question but gives no answer.) 
</p><p>
The Shitah Mekubetzes answers that according to the Rabanan and Rebbi Yosi, <i>no</i> girl who is raped receives a Kesuvah mid'Oraisa, regardless of whether she is still Besulah. This is because the verse states with regard to the fine of one who seduces a woman, 'Kesef Yishkol k'Mohar ha'Besulos' -- 'he must pay money like the presents of the Besulos' (Shemos 22:16), which means that the fine which a woman who is raped or seduced receives is in place of her Kesuvah mid'Oraisa. This is why the Gemara's discussion here involves only why the Rabanan enacted that a Be'ulah also receives a Kesuvah. The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> gives a similar answer and cites support from the Mechilta which implies that the verse teaches that the Kenas is in place of her Kesuvah. 
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> maintains that even the Kesuvah of a Besulah is mid'Rabanan. His view is consistent with the words of the Gemara here. The <b>ROSH</b> (1:19) quotes this opinion in the name of the <b>GE'ONIM</b> and discusses both opinions at length. (See Insights to Kesuvos 10:1.) (Y. Montrose)
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A RAPIST MUST MARRY THE GIRL</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> When is a rapist forced to marry her? (... If 
          she is forbidden to Yisraelim, he may not keep her.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Kahana):</font></b> The Mitzvas Aseh to marry her 
          should override the Lav!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Zvid of Nehardai):</font></b> An Aseh overrides a Lav 
          only in cases such as cutting off Tzara'as during 
          circumcision, since there is no other way to fulfill the 
          Aseh;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Here, if she says that she does not want to marry 
               him, there is no longer an Aseh!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>A GIRL WHO WAS DIVORCED FROM 'EIRUSIN'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Elazar):</font></b> If an orphaned girl was divorced 
          from Eirusin, one who rapes her must pay. One who seduces 
          her is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Rabah bar bar Chanah):</font></b> R. Elazar holds like his 
          Rebbi, R. Akiva, who says that there is a fine for a girl 
          divorced from Eirusin (even if her father is alive), and 
          she receives it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the source for this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Elazar did not need to teach that one who 
          seduces an orphan is exempt. (She pardoned him!) Rather, 
          he teaches that a Na'arah divorced from Eirusin is like 
          an orphan, i.e. she receives the fine herself.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Zeira):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Elazar. He is the 
          happiest of the Chachamim!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>EMBARRASSMENT AND BLEMISH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Embarrassment is evaluated according to the 
          one who embarrassed and the one who was embarrassed;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  To evaluate blemish, we appraise how much less one would 
          pay to buy her to be a slave (because she is not a 
          virgin);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  The fine is the same for all;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Anything fixed by the Torah is the same for all people.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> We should say that the 50 Sela'im 
          (Shekalim) that the Torah specified is the full 
          compensation!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Zeira):</font></b> If so, people would say that the 
          fine for a king's daughter is the same like the fine for 
          a commoner!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Abaye):</font></b> People can say this about the fine for 
          a Mu'ad animal that kills a slave! One pays 30 Shekalim 
          for a slave who can string pearls (a very lucrative 
          profession), like for a slave who only sews!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WHEN THE PRINCIPLE OF 'ASEH DOCHEH LO TA'ASEH' DOES NOT APPLY</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah (39a) states that although the Torah requires a man who rapes a woman to marry her, he is not permitted to marry her if she is forbidden to marry an ordinary Jew. The Mishnah derives this exemption from the verse, 'v'Lo Siheyeh l'Ishah' -- 'And she will be to him for a wife' (Devarim 22:29), which teaches that he is obligated to marry only a woman who can 'be to him,' i.e. permitted to him.
</p><p>
The Gemara (40a) relates that Rav Kahana asked Rav Zevid why the Mitzvas Aseh of 'v'Lo Siheyeh l'Ishah' should override the Lo Ta'aseh against marrying a woman who is forbidden to him (such as a Mamzeres; see Rashi DH v'Nidcheh). Rav Zevid answered that an Aseh overrides a Lo Ta'aseh only when the Aseh cannot be fulfilled without performing the Lo Ta'aseh. (For example, the principle of 'Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh' permits Milah to be performed even when there is a mark of Tzara'as on the place of the Milah, even though cutting off a mark of Tzara'as is prohibited by a Lo Ta'aseh (Devarim 24:8). Since there is no way to fulfill the Mitzvah of Milah without cutting off the Tzara'as, the Lo Ta'aseh is pushed aside for the fulfillment of the Aseh. In contrast, there is an option to the Mitzvah to marry a woman whom one raped. The woman may refuse to marry him, in which case the Mitzvah does not apply (39b). Therefore, when a man rapes a woman whom he is forbidden to marry, the Mitzvas Aseh which requires that he marry her does <i>not</i> override the prohibition which prohibits her to him.
</p><p>
However, this answer applies only when the woman does not want to marry the man. What is the law when she <i>wants</i> to marry him? Apparently, the Mitzvas Aseh should take effect and override the Lo Ta'aseh against marrying her!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Mi) writes that Beis Din instructs the woman to say that she does not want to marry him. Therefore, he will not be able to marry her.
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> questions Rashi's explanation. There is no mention in the Gemara that Beis Din instructs her to refuse to marry him.
</p><p>
Moreover, even if Beis Din instructs her to refuse, what assurance does Beis Din have that she will comply? Perhaps she will remain steadfast in her desire to marry him! The Ritva explains this question by saying that since the man is prohibited from marrying her, it is assumed that she does not really want to marry him, just as she does not want to do any other Aveirah. Beis Din therefore forces her to say that she does not want to marry him. The Ritva compares this law to the ruling of the Gemara in Kidushin (50a) that when a man is obligated to give his wife a Get, Beis Din may use physical force upon him until he says he wants to give the Get. The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Gerushin 2:20) explains that although a Get must be given willingly, it is assumed that the man indeed <i>wants</i> to give the Get but that his Yetzer ha'Ra attempts to prevent him from giving it. Beis Din's use of physical force weakens his Yetzer ha'Ra so that his true will becomes apparent, as the inner desire of every Jew is to perform the Mitzvos.
</p><p>
(b) The Ritva gives another explanation for the Gemara. The fact that the Mitzvas Aseh which requires the man to marry the woman whom he raped can be uprooted so easily (simply by her refusal to marry him) proves that this Mitzvah is a very light Mitzvah. Such a light Mitzvah does not have the strength to override a Lo Ta'aseh. Consequently, even if she says that she wants to marry him, the Aseh is unable to override the Lo Ta'aseh. Accordingly, when the Gemara says that if she does not want to marry him there is no Aseh, it means that the ease with which the Aseh is uprooted is an indication that it is not the type of Aseh which is capable of overriding a Lo Ta'aseh.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>KOVETZ HE'OROS</b> in Yevamos (14:3) elaborates on the explanation of the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Na'arah Besulah 3:5). The Rambam states that the reason why the Aseh does not override the Lo Ta'aseh is that it is possible that she will not want to stay with him, in which case both the Aseh and the Lo Ta'aseh can be fulfilled.
<br> 
<br>The Kovetz He'oros explains that the Rambam's intention is that if both Mitzvos can be fulfilled, the principle of 'Aseh Docheh Lo Ta'aseh' does not apply (see Yevamos 20b). How, though, is the Mitzvah considered fulfilled? The Kovetz He'oros explains that this Aseh is actually in the category of 'Mitzvos Bein Adam la'Chaveiro' -- 'between man and his fellow man.' The rapist's obligation to marry his victim, and thereby provide her a home and support, is comparable to a person who owes money to his friend; just as the friend is allowed to pardon the debt, the woman may forego her right to have the rapist marry her. If she foregoes that right, the Aseh is considered not to have been transgressed, but to have been upheld. Accordingly, the Gemara means that because she may forego the obligation, there is no reason for the Aseh to override the Lo Ta'aseh. (D. Bloom)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (R. Zeira):</font></b> If two men had Bi'ah with her, one 
          Lo k'Darkah (in the anus, so she is still a Besulah) and 
          one k'Darkah (normally), people will say that the same 50 
          Shekalim are paid for a full virgin as for a blemished 
          girl! (Therefore, he must pay also for embarrassment and 
          blemish.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Abaye):</font></b> People can say so about the fine for a 
          slave. One pays 30 Shekalim for a healthy slave, like for 
          a leprous slave!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Abaye):</font></b> 'For having afflicted her' connotes 
          that he pays also for embarrassment and blemish.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #4 (Rava):</font></b> 'The man who lied with her...' - 50 
          Shekalim is for the pleasure of lying with her. This 
          implies that he pays also embarrassment and blemish.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps she receives these payments!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> 'Bi'N'ureha Beis Aviha' - all revenue of a 
          Na'arah goes to her father.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> If so, why did Rav learn from elsewhere that 
          her father gets her earnings?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav):</font></b> 'If a man will sell his daughter to be a 
               slave' - just like the earnings of a slave belong to 
               her master, so the earnings of a daughter belong to 
               her father.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rather, we must say that 'Bi'N'ureha Beis Aviha' 
               teaches only about vows.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion #1:</font></b> Perhaps we can learn embarrassment 
               and blemish from vows!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> We do not learn monetary laws from 
               Isurim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion #2:</font></b> Perhaps we can learn from the fine!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> We do not learn Mamon (payments according 
               to the damage) from fines.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> It is logical that these payments go to the 
          father, since he could have received much Kidushin money 
          for her from a disgusting person or leper (who has 
          difficulty finding one who will marry him. The father 
          cannot receive so much for a non-virgin, so he should 
          receive the compensation.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> We evaluate blemish as if she was a slave 
          being sold.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How do we evaluate this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Shmuel's father):</font></b> We evaluate the difference 
          between what one would pay for a virgin slave from a 
          non-virgin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> One buys a slave for work. Why does he 
               care whether or not she is a virgin?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> He wants to marry her to his slave.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What difference does it make to the owner?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> He likes the slave, and wants to give him a 
               virgin.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>A FINE FOR MINORS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Whenever a man can sell his daughter to be to 
          be a slave, i.e. before she is a Na'arah, there is no 
          fine for her. Whenever there is a fine for her, i.e. 
          while she is a Na'arah, he cannot sell her;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  A Bogeres cannot be sold and has no fine.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Rav Yehudah):</font></b> The Mishnah is like R. Meir. 
          Chachamim say that there is a fine for a girl who can be 
          sold.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> From the day a girl is born 
               until she becomes a Na'arah, she may be sold, but 
               has no fine. When she brings two hairs (and becomes 
               a Na'arah), she has a fine but cannot be sold;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say that a girl has a fine from three 
               years until Bagrus.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Does she have a fine but she cannot be 
               sold?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> No, she has a fine even though she can be 
               sold (before Na'arus).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> R. Meir learns from 'To him she will be a 
          wife' - the verse discusses one who could marry herself 
          off (if she had no father, i.e. a Na'arah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 - Rav Papa brei d'Rav Chanan - (Reish Lakish):</font></b> 
          The Chachamim learn that when the Torah says 'Na'arah', 
          this includes a minor.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Simi bar Ashi):</font></b> Reish Lakish said this about Motzi 
          Shem Ra (a Chasan who claims that he found that his Kalah 
          was not a virgin):
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Reish Lakish):</font></b> One who is Motzi Shem Ra about a 
               minor is exempt - 'He will give to the father of the 
               <i>Na'arah</i> (spelled full, with a <i>Hei</i>)' - the Torah 
               discusses a full (proper) Na'arah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Rav Ada bar Ahavah):</font></b> Even without the Hei, 
               we would know that a minor is not included!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  'The Na'arah... will be stoned' - we do not 
                    punish a minor!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Here we know that the verse discusses a full 
               Na'arah. We infer that whenever Na'arah is spelled 
               deficiently, it includes even a minor.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) A FINE FOR RAPE WITH 'BI'AH SHE'LO K'DARKAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah (40a) describes the method for estimating the sum of money which a rapist and seducer (Ones and Mefateh) must pay for the obligation of Boshes (causing embarrassment). The Gemara asks why the Torah's command to pay fifty Shekalim (Devarim 22:29) does not cover all of his obligations, including Boshes. Rebbi Zeira explains (in his second answer on 40b) that it does not make sense to say that if one man has relations k'Darkah, and another has relations she'Lo k'Darkah, that both men should pay the same fine.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Ela) explains Rebbi Zeira's answer as follows. If one man has relations with a Besulah, and another man has relations with a Besulah who had previously had relations she'Lo k'Darkah, it is not logical that the payment of Boshes is the same for both acts. Obviously, the girl who was already blemished because of Bi'ah she'Lo k'Darkah suffers less Boshes. Accordingly, it is not logical to say that the payment of Boshes is included in the fixed fine which the Torah levies on a rapist. Rather, the Boshes must be calculated separately, in accordance with the status of the girl (in the same manner in which Boshes is normally assessed). 
</p><p>
The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> infers from Rashi that one does not pay a fine for rape with Bi'ah she'Lo k'Darkah. He writes that Rashi could have explained Rebbi Zeira's answer in a different manner. Rashi could have explained that Rebbi Zeira refers to one man who has relations twice with the same girl. The first act is she'Lo k'Darkah, for which he becomes obligated to pay the standard fine for rape. Afterwards, he has relations k'Darkah and thus becomes obligated again to pay the standard fine, despite the fact that she was already blemished as a result of the earlier Bi'ah she'Lo k'Darkah. If the standard fine includes payment for Boshes, it is not logical that the fine should be the same for both acts since the girl was already blemished when the second act occurred. The fact that Rashi does not explain the Gemara in this manner indicates that he maintains that a man does not pay a fine at all for rape with Bi'ah she'Lo k'Darkah.
</p><p>
A similar opinion is expressed by the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Na'arah Besulah 1:8). The Rambam writes that an Ones or Mefateh is not obligated to pay the fine unless he rapes or seduces the girl with Bi'ah k'Darkah.
</p><p>
However, this opinion seems to conflict with the Gemara in Kidushin and Yevamos which implies that one must pay a fine even for Bi'ah she'Lo k'Darkah. The Gemara in Kidushin (9b) quotes a Beraisa in which the Tana Kama rules that when ten men have relations with a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah and she remains a Besulah, each man is Chayav Sekilah. The only way in which she could remain a Besulah after ten acts of relations is that they all had relations she'Lo k'Darkah. The Gemara there (10a) states that even Rebbi -- who disagrees with the Tana Kama and maintains that only the first man is Chayav Sekilah -- agrees that in such a case every man must pay a fine. This clearly proves that one must pay a fine for Bi'ah she'Lo k'Darkah.
</p><p>
The Gemara in Yevamos (59a) derives from the verse, 'v'Lo Siheyeh l'Ishah' -- 'And she will be to him for a wife (Devarim 22:29), that a Kohen Gadol who rapes an Arusah who was widowed may not marry her because she is forbidden to him (she cannot 'be to him for a wife'). The Gemara explains that the act of rape in that case could not have been done k'Darkah, because if it would have been done k'Darkah she would no longer be a Besulah and no verse would have been necessary to exclude a widow (from Erusin), as the Torah obligates a Kohen Gadol to marry only a Besulah. Therefore, the verse which excludes a widow must refer to an act of rape she'Lo k'Darkah, and it teaches that in this specific case the rapist (the Kohen Gadol) may not marry his victim (because she is a widow). This clearly indicates that the other laws of rape, including the fine, apply in a case of Bi'ah she'Lo k'Darkah.
</p><p>
How do Rashi and the Rambam reconcile the Gemara in Kidushin and Yevamos with their view that one is exempt from a fine for rape with Bi'ah she'Lo k'Darkah? (<b>TOSFOS</b> (40a, DH Yomru) cites support from the Gemara in those places for his position that one <i>is</i> obligated to pay a fine for Bi'ah she'Lo k'Darkah.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> answers that Rashi and the Rambam understand that the Gemara in Kidushin (9b) does not refer to Bi'ah she'Lo k'Darkah. When it says 'if ten men have Bi'ah with a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah and she remains a Besulah,' it means that the Bi'ah was done k'Darkah but did not cause the loss of her Besulim (only 'He'arah' was done). Indeed, this is how the Yerushalmi (Kesuvos 3:6) understands the case. The Shitah Mekubetzes avoids the question from the Gemara in Yevamos (59a) by stating that the Gemara understands that the Bi'ah in the case of the Kohen Gadol and the widow indeed was Bi'ah k'Darkah. The Gemara merely presents the possibility that the verse refers to Bi'ah she'Lo k'Darkah in order to ask a question on Rebbi Elazar and Rebbi Shimon (see Gemara there at length). 
</p><p>
(b) The <b>CHIDUSHEI CHASAM SOFER</b> (40a) answers that whether or not a fine applies to rape with Bi'ah she'Lo k'Darkah depends on the interpretation of the verse, 'Kesef Yishkol k'Mohar ha'Besulos' -- 'he must pay money like the presents of the Besulos' (Shemos 22:16). The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> (39b; see Insights there) explains that the verse teaches that the fine which a girl receives when she is raped takes the place of her Kesuvah of 200 Zuz. This is the reason why the Rabanan rule that a girl who was raped does not need a Kesuvah; the fine she receives is in place of the Kesuvah. It follows that according to the Rabanan, there should be no fine for Bi'ah she'Lo k'Darkah, since the fine is in place of the lost Besulim for which she would have received a Kesuvah of 200 Zuz. If she is still able to collect the 200 Zuz (because she is still a Besulah), there is no reason for the rapist to pay her the fine.
</p><p>
However, Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili (38b) maintains that the verse merely states how much the fine is for one who rapes a Besulah. It does not mean that the fine replaces the payment of the Kesuvah. The Chasam Sofer therefore states that the Gemara in Kidushin and Yevamos follows the opinion of Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili, who maintains that one <i>is</i> obligated to pay a fine for rape with Bi'ah she'Lo k'Darkah. (D. Bloom, Y. Montrose)
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE WHO ADMITS TO SEDUCING</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a man says 'I seduced Ploni's daughter', he 
          pays for embarrassment and blemish due to his own 
          admission, but not the fine;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If one says 'I stole an animal' he pays the principal, 
          but not double or (if he sold or slaughtered it) four or 
          five times its value;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If one says that his ox gored Ploni, or Ploni's ox, he 
          pays due to his admission;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  If he says that it gored Ploni's slave, he does not pay 
          due to his admission;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  The rule is, anyone who pays more than he damaged does 
          not pay due to his admission.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) - Question:</font></b> Why didn't the Mishnah teach about a 
          man who admits to raping a girl?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The case of seducing teaches more:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One who says that he raped her does not discredit 
               her. One might have thought that when he says that 
               he seduced her, and discredits her, he does not pay 
               due to his admission (lest people believe him). The 
               Mishnah teaches that this is not so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  Our Mishnah is unlike the following Tana:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Shimon bar Yehudah):</font></b> A seducer does 
               not pay embarrassment and blemish due to his own 
               admission. We do not allow him to discredit the 
               girl.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Papa):</font></b> (According to R. Shimon) if she 
          wants him to pay, what is the law?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> Perhaps the father disapproves (so he 
          does not).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Papa):</font></b> If the father approves, what is the 
          law?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> Perhaps the family disapproves.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Papa):</font></b> What if the family approves?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> Certainly, there is someone in the family 
          overseas that would disapprove.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>IS HALF-DAMAGE FOR GORING A FINE?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Papa):</font></b> Half damage is considered like Mamon (not a 
          fine), since animals are prone to do damage unless 
          guarded;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One should pay full damage for failure to guard his 
               animal. The Torah had mercy on him and makes him pay 
               only half, since the animal was not yet established 
               to gore.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> Half damage is considered 
          a fine, since animals, even unguarded, are not prone to 
          do damage;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One should not pay at all. The Torah levies a fine 
               of half-damage to encourage people to guard their 
               animals.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah (Bava Kama 14b)):</font></b> Both the victim and the 
          damager pay.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We understand this according to the opinion 
          that half-damage is Mamon (the victim should receive full 
          payment, but gets only half);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> According to the opinion that half-damage is a fine, 
               the victim receives what he does not deserve. Can we 
               say that he pays?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He suffers the decrease in the value of the 
          carcass (after the damage).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This was already taught in another Mishnah 
          (9b)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> This Mishnah says 'TaSHLuMei (completions 
               of) Nezek' to teach that the victim deals with the 
               carcass (he sells it; payment for damage is based on 
               the amount one must add to the carcass' value at the 
               time of damage to reach the initial value. If the 
               carcass later goes down in value, the victim suffers 
               the loss.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One Mishnah teaches that this applies to a Tam 
          (an animal that has no Chazakah to gore). The other 
          Mishnah teaches that this applies to a Mu'ad. Both must 
          be taught:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had it taught only regarding a Tam, we would say 
               that the Torah was lenient on the damager because 
               his animal was not established to gore;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Had it taught only regarding a Mu'ad, we would say 
               that the Torah was lenient on the damager because he 
               pays full damage.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> The differences between a Tam and Mu'ad are 
          that a Tam pays half-damage from the damaging animal, and 
          a Mu'ad pays full damage, even above the value of the 
          damager.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It does not say that a Mu'ad pays based on the 
               owner's admission, but a Tam does not (i.e. even a 
               Tam pays, for half-damage is Mamon)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> A Tam does not pay. The Tana did not list all 
          differences.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What else did he omit (he would not omit just 
          one thing)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He also omitted Kofer (a Tam does not pay even 
          half-ransom for killing a Yisrael).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> (Rav Huna can say that) this is not an omission. The 
               Tana is R. Yosi ha'Glili, who says that a Tam pays 
               half-ransom!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) DOES THE MISHNAH FOLLOW THE VIEW THAT KOFER' IS 'MAMON'?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that when a person says that his ox killed a person (and therefore he is obligated to pay Kofer (see <b>RASHI</b> DH Heimis) or that his ox killed another person's ox, he is obligated to pay as a result of his own admission. However, if he says that his ox killed someone's slave, he is not obligated to pay the thirty-Sela fine which the Torah (Shemos 21:32) requires one to pay for the death of a slave.
</p><p>


The Mishnah concludes that the general rule is that a person cannot obligate himself through his own admission to pay a penalty which is more than the actual value of the damage ('Modeh b'Kenas Patur'). <b>RASHI</b> (DH Eino) explains that the thirty Sela one must pay for causing the death of a slave is defined as a Kenas because even if the slave was worth only one Dinar in the marketplace the Torah still requires that he pay thirty Sela. In contrast, the Mishnah states that one who admits that his ox killed a person must pay Kofer because the Mishnah maintains 'Kufra Mamona' -- 'Kofer is a monetary payment' (par damage), for which one is obligated to pay based on his own admission.
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> asks that Rashi's statement that Kofer is Mamon is difficult to understand in light of the Gemara in Bava Kama which discusses the obligation of Kofer. The Gemara there (40a) cites the dispute concerning whether the payment of Kofer is primarily a monetary obligation ('Mamon') or a form of atonement ('Kaparah') independent of payment for damages. The Gemara there says that almost everyone maintains that the nature of the payment of Kofer is a Kaparah, which implies that the Halachah should follow that view. Rashi's understanding of the Mishnah here, however, implies that the Halachah of the Mishnah is based on the opinion that Kofer is Mamon. How can Rashi's explanation be reconciled with the Gemara in Bava Kama?
</p><p>
Moreover, Rebbi Akiva Eiger asks that the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Nizkei Mamon 10:4) rules that Kofer is a Kaparah, but he also rules that one who admits that he is obligated to pay Kofer must pay (2:8), as the Mishnah here says. These two rulings are contradictory, according to Rashi's understanding of the Mishnah. Rebbi Akiva Eiger leaves these questions unresolved.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHASH</b> suggests that Rashi understands that one's admission about his obligation to pay Kofer requires that he pay Kofer whether it is Mamon or Kaparah. Rashi states that the Mishnah follows the opinion that Kofer is Mamon only because the Mishnah implies that a person would pay Kofer based on his own admission, and he <i>certainly</i> would pay if there are witnesses. Rashi understands that the reasoning of those who maintain that Kofer is Kaparah is not necessarily that Kofer is a Kenas (penalty), but that the person has a need to attain atonement. With regard to atonement, the Gemara in Kerisus (11b) teaches that even when two witnesses say that a person accidentally ate forbidden Chelev, if the person says he is certain that he did not eat Chelev he is believed. The Gemara explains that a person is believed to say that he requires atonement more than one hundred witnesses who say that he does not.
</p><p>
The Rashash applies this principle to the Mishnah here. The Mishnah's implication that one must pay based on his own admission and <i>certainly</i> when there are witnesses does not accurately represent the opinion of 'Kufra Kaparah,' because that opinion would say that the person's admission is <i>more important</i> than the testimony of witnesses in this case. Accordingly, Rashi understands that the <i>tone</i> of the Mishnah follows the opinion of 'Kufra Mamona,' but that the Mishnah agrees that the Halachah follows the opinion of 'Kufra Kaparah.' (Although the Rashash does not address the contradiction in the words of the Rambam, it is possible that this explanation resolves that question as well.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>HAFLA'AH</b> answers that when Rashi says that the Mishnah maintains that Kofer is Mamon, his intention is to answer the question of <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Zeh). As mentioned above, the Mishnah concludes with the general rule that whenever a person admits to owing an amount which is more than the actual damage that was done, he is not obligated to pay through his own admission. Tosfos asks that the Gemara in Bava Kama (40a) records an opinion that Kofer is evaluated based on 'Demei Mazik' -- 'the value of the damager,' the owner of the ox. In a case in which the value of the owner is more than the value of the person killed, the rule that one does not pay based on his own admission should apply. Why, then, does the Mishnah rule that in all cases of Kofer one pays based on his own admission?
</p><p>
To answer this question, Rashi explains that the Mishnah must maintain that Kofer is Mamon. The Gemara in Bava Kama suggests at one stage that the opinion that Kofer is assessed based on 'Demei Mazik' must maintain that Kofer is Kaparah, while the opinion that Kofer is assessed based on 'Demei Nizak' (the value of the victim) must maintain that Kofer is Mamon (since one pays the value of that which was damaged). Although the Gemara at one stage rejects that assertion, Rashi understands from the Gemara elsewhere that it is a correct assertion.
</p><p>
Rashi's explanation of the Mishnah here is now clear. Since 'Demei Mazik' is more than the value of the damage and thus the person should <i>not</i> be obligated to pay based on his own admission, it must be that the Mishnah maintains that Kofer is assessed based on 'Demei Nizak.' Consequently, it follows that the Mishnah maintains that Kofer is Mamon. However, the fact that the Mishnah maintains that Kofer is Mamon does not mean that the Halachah that one must pay based on his own admission is not true according to the opinion that Kofer is Kaparah. (D. Bloom, Y. Montrose)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If he says that his ox gored Ploni or Ploni's 
          ox, he pays due to his own admission.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> The Mishnah discusses a Tam. (This shows 
               that half-damage is Mamon!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, it discusses a Mu'ad.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If you hold that a Tam does not pay due to his 
          admission, why does the Seifa say that if it gored a 
          slave, he does not pay due to his admission? It should 
          distinguish within the case of goring a Yisrael or an 
          animal, and teach that a Tam does not pay due to his 
          admission!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Tana teaches only laws of a Mu'ad.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>HALF-DAMAGE IS A FINE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The rule is, all who pay more than they 
          damaged do not pay on their own admission.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> One who pays less than he damaged does pay due 
          to his admission!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, one who pays <i>like</i> he damaged pays due to 
          his admission.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If one who pays less than he damaged does not 
          pay due to his own admission, it should say that one who 
          does not pay <i>like</i> he damaged does not pay due to his 
          own admission. This includes one who pays more and one 
          who pays less!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  This refutes the opinion that half-damage is a fine. The 
          Halachah is, it is a fine.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How can the Halachah follow an opinion that was 
          refuted?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It was refuted because the Mishnah did not say 
          'One who does not pay <i>like</i> he damaged...' (but this is 
          not a refutation);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We could not teach this, for it is not always true! 
               A tradition from Sinai teaches that half-damage of 
               pebbles (if an animal set an object in motion, and 
               the object damaged) is Mamon.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  Since the Halachah is that half-damage is a fine, if a 
          dog killed and ate sheep, or a cat ate large chickens, 
          this is unusual (any unusual damage pays half, like 
          goring), so we do not force one to pay for it in Bavel 
          (we do not collect fines in Chutz la'Aretz).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Cats normally eat small chickens, and in Bavel we 
               make one pay for this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  If the victim seized compensation for the damage, we do 
          not take it from him. If he wants to take the damager to 
          trial in Eretz Yisrael, we force the damager to agree to 
          a time.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the damager does not go, we excommunicate him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  In any case, we excommunicate him if he keeps the 
          damaging animal around;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Nasan):</font></b> A person should not raise an 
               evil dog or stand up a rickety ladder in his house - 
               'Do not put blood in your house'.
<br>
<br><b>PEREK NA'ARAH</b>
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHO RECEIVES THE PAYMENTS?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Na'arah was seduced, the payments for her 
          embarrassment and blemish and her fine go to her father. 
          The same applies to the payment for pain if she was 
          raped;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If the trial was before the father died, the payments 
          belong to the father. If he died afterwards, his sons 
          inherit them;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If the father died before the trial, she receives the 
          payments;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  If the trial was before she became a Bogeres, the 
          payments belong to the father. If he died afterwards, his 
          sons inherit them;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  If she became a Bogeres before the trial, she receives 
          the payments;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon says, if she did not collect before the father 
          died, she receives the payments.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  (Her father receives) her earnings and Metzi'os (Hefker 
          objects that she finds), even if she did not collect them 
          yet. If her father dies, they belong to the brothers.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) WHICH PAYMENTS DOES THE WOMAN RECEIVE?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that when the father of a woman who was an Anusah (raped) or Mefutah (seduced) dies after the case was presented to Beis Din ('Ha'amadah b'Din'), her brothers inherit the money paid by the rapist. When, however, her father dies before Ha'amadah b'Din, 'they belong to her.'
</p><p>
The Mishnah until now discussed the payments of Kenas, Boshes, Pegam, and Tza'ar. When the Mishnah says, 'Harei <i>Hen</i> Shel Atzmah' -- '<i>they</i> belong to her,' it implies that all of the payments go to her. This is also the implication of the end of the Mishnah in which Rebbi Shimon says that even when her father dies after Ha'amadah b'Din, she receives the money but she does not receive 'Ma'aseh Yadehah' (her wages) or 'Metzi'asah' (found items) which she earned or found before her father died, even though they were not collected until after her father died. This implies that she <i>does</i> receive everything besides 'Ma'aseh Yadehah' and 'Metzi'asah' -- that is, Boshes, Pegam, and Tza'ar.
</p><p>
Why should she receive the payments of Boshes, Pegam, and Tza'ar? That she receives the Kenas is understandable; there is no concrete obligation to pay the Kenas until after Ha'amadah b'Din (since, if the rapist confesses to his crime prior to Ha'amadah b'Din, he would be exempt from paying the Kenas), and therefore it does not belong to the father yet and he cannot bequeath it to his sons. The other payments, however -- Boshes, Pegam, and Tza'ar -- are ordinary payments for damages (from which a person is not exempt if he confesses) which normally are given to the woman's father (43b). Why should the father not be able to bequeath these payments to his children even if he dies before Ha'amadah b'Din?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> The Rishonim offer a number of approaches to this Mishnah.
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RE'AH</b> writes that when the Mishnah says, 'Harei Hen Shel Atzmah,' it does not refer to Boshes and Pegam at all, but only to the <i>Kenas</i> of an <i>Anusah</i>. In the case of a Mefutah, the woman does not receive the payment of Kenas because she participated in the act willingly (as the Gemara says on 32a and 42a). The Mefutah also does not receive the payments of Boshes and Pegam because those payments are ordinary monetary obligations which the brothers inherit from the father.
</p><p>
When the end of the Mishnah says that the woman's 'Ma'aseh Yadehah' and 'Metzi'asah' go to her brothers, it does not intend to exclude the payments for Boshes and Pegam. These also go to her brothers. This seems to be the opinion of <b>RASHI</b> as well (42a, DH Meis ha'Av, although it is possible that he follows the view expressed in (b) below).
</p><p>
(The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> (42a) points out that the suggestion that the Mishnah discusses only an Anusah and not a Mefutah is problematic, because the Gemara clearly implies that Rebbi Shimon -- who says that when the father dies after Ha'amadah b'Din the money goes to the daughter and not her brothers -- refers to the money paid to a Mefutah.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>RITVA</b> explain, like the Re'ah, that the Mishnah refers only to the payment of Kenas, but they maintain that refers to the Kenas of both an Anusah and a Mefutah. Why should a Mefutah receive her Kenas if she participated in the act willingly and thus relinquished her claim to any monetary obligations that come about through the seduction? The answer, as the <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> writes, is that at the time of the seduction, her father was still alive, and thus her father was supposed to receive the money of the Kenas. Accordingly, his daughter was unable to relinquish the claim to that payment at the time of the offense because it was not hers to relinquish. It is only after the father dies that the Torah entitles her to receive the Kenas, but at that point there is no longer any evident act on her part that shows that she relinquishes the claim. Therefore, she receives the money of the Kenas.
</p><p>
The Re'ah, on the other hand, apparently maintains that once the Mefutah agrees to the act, she foregoes not only any indemnification that she is entitled to immediately, but she also foregoes through her present act any indemnification that she could receive later for this act.
</p><p>
The source for this opinion may be the Yerushalmi (cited by Tosfos 29a, see below) which discusses the Mishnah which mentions that one who rapes his own daughter is exempt from Kenas because of 'Kam Lei bid'Rabah Minei.' The Yerushalmi explains that the Mishnah must refer to when the father dies before Ha'amadah b'Din, and the Mishnah teaches that his <i>sons</i> do not have to pay their sister the Kenas for their father's rape. Since the Gemara in Sanhedrin (74a) says that the Mishnah discusses a case of Mefutah, it appears that a Mefutah cannot forego the money if her father is alive at the time of the seduction but dies before Ha'amadah b'Din. (Although the Yerushalmi maintains that a woman may never forego the Kenas even when her father is already dead at the time of the seduction (see below), the Bavli must agree with the Yerushalmi that she cannot forego the Kenas when the seduction was done while the father was alive; see Tosfos ibid.)
</p><p>
Another reason why the Mefutah should receive the Kenas and is not considered to have relinquished her claim may be the reason expressed by the Yerushalmi (cited by Tosfos 29a, DH v'Al Eshes Achiv, and Rishonim to 36b and 38a). The Yerushalmi states that a woman cannot forego her Kenas under any circumstances. The logic of the Yerushalmi seems similar to the logic of the Ramban. Even if the Kenas goes to her, it is not considered hers until Ha'amadah b'Din, and since she did nothing to forgo it after Ha'amadah b'Din, she receives the Kenas. (Tosfos points out that the Bavli on 32a does not agree with this Halachah. However, this might depend on the Girsa'os cited by the Rishonim in the Gemara there. See Chart #6, footnote 2.)
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> (see 38b, DH Yesh Beger; 40b, DH v'Eima; 41b, DH Na'arah) explains that the obligation to pay Boshes and Pegam is compared to the obligation to pay Kenas through a Hekesh. Therefore, even though the payments for damages normally are considered to be monetary entitlements which the heirs inherit from their father even before Ha'amadah b'Din, nevertheless the Torah says that the payments of Boshes and Pegam must be given to whomever the Kenas is given. Therefore, since she receives the Kenas, she also receives the Boshes and Pegam. 
</p><p>
Tosfos (38b) explains that Boshes and Pegam are not entirely comparable to Kenas, and in cases where Kenas is not paid at all (such as where the rapist confesses), Boshes and Pegam still must be paid. The Hekesh teaches only that when Kenas is paid, the Boshes and Pegam are paid to the same person to whom the Kenas is paid.
</p><p>
The <b>RE'AH</b> cites Tosfos as saying that the Boshes and Pegam of a Mefutah are not paid to her because she relinquished her claim to them. Therefore, when the Mishnah says that everything is paid to her, it refers to the Kenas, Boshes, and Pegam of an <i>Anusah</i>. The Re'ah adds that Tosfos says that the Kenas of a Mefutah <i>is</i> given to her because she cannot forego it, as the Yerushalmi states (cited in (b) above).
</p><p>
(d) The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> gives a similar explanation. He suggests that Boshes and Pegam are also given to the daughter because they are compared to Kenas. He adds, however, that even in the case of a <i>Mefutah</i>, Boshes and Pegam are compared to Kenas and are given to the daughter. Although a Mefutah who is a Yesomah foregoes her right to all of the payments, in the case of the Mishnah -- where the Mefutah is not a Yesomah (her father is alive at the time of the seduction), she cannot forego her rights to the payments. (This approach is identical to that of the Ramban, mentioned in (b) above, except that the Tosfos ha'Rosh compares the payments of Boshes and Pegam to that of Kenas and rules that they are <i>all</i> given to the daughter when her father dies before Ha'amadah b'Din, like Tosfos cited in (c) above.)
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHO RECEIVES THE PAYMENTS? (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> We already learned this!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> A seducer pays three things and a rapist 
               pays four. A seducer pays embarrassment, blemish and 
               fine, and a rapist also pays for pain.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Our Mishnah teaches that the payments go to 
          the father.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> This is obvious, since a seducer pays;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the payments were to her, why would he pay? She 
               consented!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Our Mishnah teaches the argument of R. Shimon 
          and Chachamim when the father dies after the trial.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>AN 'ASHAM' FOR A FALSE OATH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  (Mishnah) Reuven claimed against Shimon 'You raped (or 
          seduced) my daughter!'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shimon:</font></b> I didn't!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Reuven:</font></b> I impose an oath on you!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shimon:</font></b> Amen (I accept the oath).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Later, Shimon admitted that he swore falsely. He is 
          liable (to pay the principal and a Chomesh (an added 
          fifth) and to offer an Asham Gezeilos, the Korban for a 
          false oath to deny a debt);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon exempts, since one does not pay a fine due to 
          his admission.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Chachamim:</font></b> Even so, he pays embarrassment and 
               blemish due to his admission.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> Would R. Shimon obligate (a Chomesh and 
          an Asham) in the following case?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Reuven:</font></b> You raped (or seduced) my daughter. I took 
               you to trial, and you were obligated to pay!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shimon:</font></b> That is all false!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Reuven:</font></b> I impose an oath on you!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shimon:</font></b> Amen.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Since there already was a trial, the payment is like 
               regular Mamon (so he is liable);
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Or, do we still consider it like a fine (so he 
                    pays only the principal)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rabah):</font></b> It is like Mamon.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye - Beraisa - R. Shimon):</font></b> Reuven claimed 
          'You raped (or seduced) my daughter', or 'your ox killed 
          my slave';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shimon:</font></b> That is false!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> A slave (to his master):</font></b> You knocked out my tooth or 
               blinded my eye!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> His master:</font></b> I didn't!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Shimon or the master swore falsely and later 
               admitted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps he is liable (to bring an 
               Asham)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> 'He denied a deposit, loan or theft... 
               (which are Mamon)' - this excludes these cases, 
               which are fines.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) DOES ONE BRING A 'KORBAN SHEVU'AH' FOR DENYING AN OBLIGATION OF 'KEFEL'?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa states that if one man accuses another man of having committed a transgression that obligates him to pay a Kenas, and the accused denies it with an oath and then admits that he swore falsely, he is <i>not</i> obligated to bring a Korban Shevu'ah. Rebbi Shimon derives this from the word, 'v'Chichesh' (Vayikra 5:21).
</p><p>
The Gemara discusses whether Rebbi Shimon exempts the person from a Korban Shevu'ah only when there was no Ha'amadah b'Din -- that is, Beis Din did not yet rule that he must pay the Kenas -- or even if there already was a Ha'amadah b'Din. The Gemara concludes that Rebbi Shimon must be discussing an obligation of Kenas after Ha'amadah b'Din. 
</p><p>
The Gemara proves this from the beginning of that Beraisa, which cites a dissenting opinion that if a person accuses someone of owing him a payment of Kefel and other types of Kenas, and the accused denies it with an oath and then admits that he swore falsely, he <i>is</i> obligated to bring a Korban Shevu'ah. The Gemara explains that the Beraisa must be referring to a case in which there already <i>was</i> Ha'amadah b'Din, because 'if there was no Ha'amadah b'Din, there is no Kefel.' What is the meaning of this cryptic statement? 
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> gives two explanations for why one is unable to claim from another person a Kenas of Kefel when there was no Ha'amadah b'Din. In his first explanation, Rashi writes that when there was no Ha'amadah b'Din, it was never established that the other person stole his object in the first place, such that he should now be able to demand a payment of Kefel. The only way he can be sure that the other person stole his object is if there was Ha'amadah b'Din.
</p><p>
In his second explanation, Rashi writes that the thief has the ability to admit that he stole and thereby to exempt himself from the Kenas (since one who admits that he did something that obligates him to pay a Kenas is exempt from paying the Kenas). Thus, there is no claim of Kefel against him prior to Ha'amadah b'Din, since he is able to exempt himself by admitting to it.
</p><p>
Rashi's words are difficult to understand for the following reasons, as the <b>RITVA</b> asks (see also <b>MAHARAM SHIF</b>). 
</p><p>
(a) In his first explanation, what does Rashi mean when he says that a person cannot know that someone stole from him unless there is Ha'amadah b'Din? In the case of <i>any</i> accusation, how does the person know that the other person owes him something? Obviously, the person simply claims that he knows even though he cannot prove it. The same is true in a case of Kefel. Why is it not possible to accuse another person of owing Kefel before Ha'amadah b'Din?
</p><p>
(b) In his second explanation, Rashi writes that since the thief might admit to his deed and exempt himself from the Kenas, it is not possible for the Kenas to obligate him to bring a Korban Shevu'ah unless there was Ha'amadah b'Din. However, this reasoning should apply to any other type of Kenas as well. Why does the Gemara need to cite the beginning of the Beraisa as proof that Rebbi Shimon's ruling refers to a case in which there was Ha'amadah b'Din? The Gemara should prove this point from Rebbi Shimon's own words! Rebbi Shimon needs a verse to exempt a person from a Korban Shevu'ah where the person is accused of owing a Kenas. Why does he need a verse if it is before Ha'amadah b'Din? Before Ha'amadah b'Din, the accusation is meaningless because the accused can simply admit to owing the Kenas and thereby exempt himself!
</p><p>
(See <b>MAHARAM SHIF</b> and <b>HAFLA'AH</b> who attempt to find other explanations for the proof from Kefel, other than the explanations given by Rashi.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) Rashi's comment -- that before Ha'amadah b'Din there is no way to know that the accused stole the object -- is based on the Gemara in Bava Kama which describes the difference between a thief (Ganav) and a robber (Gazlan). A Ganav must pay Kefel (double) because of the severity of the implication of his action -- he committed his crime in a hidden way so that no one would see him. Since he demonstrated that he fears man more than he fears Hash-m, he must pay Kefel. A Gazlan, on the other hand, comes armed and robs overtly; he gives no more deference to man than he gives to Hash-m, and thus he does not pay Kefel.
</p><p>
In a normal case of Geneivah, in which the theft was perpetrated in secret, it is assumed that the owner did not see the thief. If the owner did not see the thief steal his item, how can he accuse him of theft? For all other claims and accusations, the victim's allegation is based on the claim that he witnessed the offense, but in the case of Geneivah he cannot claim to have witnessed the offense! This is what Rashi means when he says that it is not possible for the owner to know who the thief is before Ha'amadah b'Din.
</p><p>
(Rashi is not completely satisfied with this explanation because the owner could still claim that he was peeking from behind a door when the Ganav sneaked in and stole his item. Although the Ganav attempted to hide his actions, the owner still may claim to have seen him.)
</p><p>
(b) With regard to Rashi's second explanation, the <b>RITVA</b> cites <b>TOSFOS</b> who suggests that the proof indeed is not necessarily from Kefel, and that the Gemara actually proves its point from all of the Kenasos. One cannot be obligated to bring a Korban Shevu'ah for the denial of a Kenas because even if he would have admitted to the accusation he would not have had to pay. This is the logic which Rebbi Shimon expresses in the earlier Beraisa (42a).
</p><p>
Why, then, does the Gemara not prove from Rebbi Shimon's own statement that Rebbi Shimon is discussing Kenas <i>after</i> Ha'amadah b'Din? He must be discussing Kenas after Ha'amadah b'Din because otherwise he would not have to cite the verse 'v'Chichesh' to exempt the person from Kenas, as there are strong enough logical grounds to exempt him from Kenas (as the Gemara says with regard to the view of the Rabanan in the end of the Beraisa).
</p><p>
1. Tosfos (as cited by the Ritva) answers that the proof from Rebbi Shimon's own statement would not be conclusive because 'v'Chichesh' might be merely an 'Asmachta,' and the real reason for Rebbi Shimon's ruling might indeed be the logic that the perpetrator would not pay if he admitted to his action. The proof from the Rabanan, who rule that one <i>does</i> bring a Korban Shevu'ah for denying a Kenas with an oath, is conclusive.
</p><p>
2. The Ritva himself adds that according to Rebbi Shimon, perhaps 'v'Chichesh' is necessary to teach that when a man accuses another man of raping his daughter, his primary intent is to claim the money of the Kenas, not the payments of Boshes and Pegam (in contrast to the opinion of the Rabanan). Alternatively, 'v'Chichesh' is necessary to exempt denial of a Kenas from a Korban Shevu'ah when the Kenas is of the type that is not <i>added</i> to the compensation for damages, but is <i>in place of</i> the compensation for damages (such as the Kenas owed when one knocks out the tooth or eye of his servant, or the Kenas of 'Sheloshim Shel Eved' when one's ox kills another person's servant). Since, in those cases, the Kenas takes the place of payments for damages, one might have thought that the person is obligated to bring a Korban Shevu'ah for denying the Kenas with an oath.
</p><p>
3. However, this does not appear to be Rashi's opinion. Rashi explains that one cannot be obligated to bring a Korban Shevu'ah for denial of Kefel because 'perhaps the accused will admit to the offense and thereby exempt himself.' It is noteworthy that Rashi does not say that he will be exempt 'even if' he confesses to the claim (which is the way Rashi explains the logic of Rebbi Shimon on 42a, DH she'Eino Meshalem, and 42b, DH she'Eino Meshalem). Rather, Rashi says that 'perhaps' he will confess, meaning that even if he denies the claim at present there is reason to exempt him from a Korban because of the <i>possibility</i> that he will exempt himself from the payment of the Kenas at some point before the Ha'amadah b'Din. Rashi's words here follow the opinion in Bava Kama (75a) that 'Modeh b'Kenas v'Achar Kach Ba'u Edim, Patur' -- when a person confesses to an act that is punishable with a Kenas, and then witnesses come and testify that he committed that act, he nevertheless remains exempt. Rashi is saying that a person cannot become obligated to bring a Korban Shevu'ah for denying and then admitting to a Kenas, since there is no certainty whether he will confess before witnesses come, in which case he will have no obligation altogether <i>even after the witnesses come</i>. That is why Rashi says that 'perhaps' he will confess; the only reason why he should not be obligated to bring a Korban Shevu'ah is the possibility that he will confess. If, however, he does not confess, it would be appropriate to obligate him to bring a Korban Shevu'ah.
</p><p>
Why can the same inference not be made from Rebbi Shimon's words, that one is exempt only because of 'v'Chichesh'? The answer is that the argument that the accused cannot be obligated to bring a Korban Shevu'ah since he can exempt himself by confessing is valid only according to the opinion that maintains that 'Modeh b'Kenas v'Achar Kach Ba'u Edim, Patur' -- when a person confesses to an act that is punishable with a Kenas, and then witnesses come and testify that he committed that act, he nevertheless remains exempt. Rebbi Shimon, however, rules that one is <i>Chayav</i> when witnesses come later and testify against the person.
</p><p>
Rashi perhaps derives this from the question the Ritva asks: how can the Gemara suggest that Rebbi Shimon learns from the verse 'v'Chichesh' that the accused is exempt from a Korban Shevu'ah when -- in the Beraisa -- he gives a logical reason and not a verse and says that the person is exempt because of the rule that a person does not pay a Kenas when he confesses to it? Why does Rebbi Shimon need a verse ('v'Chichesh') to teach that one is exempt? Rashi answers that Rebbi Shimon himself does not rely on the logic that 'Eino Meshalem Kenas Al Pi Atzmo' to exempt a person from a Korban Shevu'ah, because that logic is not such a strong argument. While it is true that he would not have to pay the Kenas if he confessed to it, nevertheless since he would have to pay the Kenas if witnesses come later, perhaps his denial should be treated like the denial of any monetary obligation. Although no Kenas-obligation exists before the Ha'amadah b'Din, nevertheless <i>after</i> the Ha'amadah b'Din a Kenas-obligation exists <i>retroactively from the time of the misdeed</i> (as the <b>CHIDUSHEI HA'RASHBA</b> in Bava Kama (74b) proves). Therefore, Rebbi Shimon needs an additional source to exempt the person from a Korban Shevu'ah in the case of a Kenas, and that is why he must learn this Halachah from the word 'v'Chichesh.' 
</p><p>
(According to this approach, Rebbi Shimon himself is not convinced that the logical argument of 'Eino Meshalem Kenas Al Pi Atzmo' should exempt a person from a Korban Shevu'ah. Nevertheless, he attempts to convince the Rabanan to agree with his ruling by using that argument. This type of polemic is common in the Mishnah and Beraisa, as <b>TOSFOS</b> writes in Zevachim 77b, DH Odu Li, and elsewhere.)
</p><p>
Accordingly, it is clear why the Gemara cannot prove from Rebbi Shimon's own words in the Beraisa (in which Rebbi Shimon says that one is exempt from a Korban Shevu'ah in the case of a Kenas because of 'v'Chichesh') that Rebbi Shimon is discussing Kenas after Ha'amadah b'Din. Perhaps he is discussing Kenas <i>before</i> Ha'amadah b'Din, and yet 'v'Chichesh' is necessary to exempt the person from a Korban Shevu'ah in the case of a Kenas. The Gemara instead proves from the <i>beginning</i> of the Beraisa that the Beraisa is discussing Kenas <i>after</i> Ha'amadah b'Din, in which case the Rabanan rule that one is obligated to bring a Korban Shevu'ah for the denial of a Kenas-obligation. The Gemara asks, how can the Rabanan say that one is <i>obligated</i> to bring a Korban Shevu'ah for Kenas when -- according to the Halachic opinion among the Amora'im -- the Rabanan maintain that 'Modeh b'Kenas v'Achar Kach Ba'u Edim, Patur'? This question -- that he should not be obligated to bring a Korban Shevu'ah because there is no certain obligation of Kenas at present due to the possibility that he will confess and exempt himself from the Kenas -- presents an indisputable argument to exempt him from a Korban Shevu'ah. The words of the Rabanan in the beginning of the Beraisa, who obligate him to bring Korban Shevu'ah for the denial of a Kenas, provide conclusive proof that the Beraisa is discussing the Korban Shevu'ah for a Kenas <i>after</i> Ha'amadah b'Din. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> The case was already brought to trial.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rabah):</font></b> No, it was not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Since in the Reisha the case already went to 
          trial, surely the same applies to the Seifa!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Reisha) Question:</font></b> We know (that one adds a Chomesh 
               and brings an Asham for a false oath) about matters 
               for which one pays (only) the principal. What is the 
               source for a thief who pays double, four or five 
               times the value, a rapist or seducer, and Motzi Shem 
               Ra?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> We learn from the repetition 'u'Mo'alah 
               Ma'al'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the case?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If there was not yet a trial, there is no 
                    obligation to pay double!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, the case went to trial.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Also in the Seifa, the case went to trial
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rabah):</font></b> The entire Beraisa is R. Shimon. The 
          Reisha is after trial and the Seifa is before trial.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  Rabah:	This is a poor answer. If so, 'R. Shimon says' 
          should appear at the beginning or end of the Beraisa (and 
          not in the middle)! I will give you a better answer!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rabah):</font></b> The entire Beraisa is after trial. The 
          Reisha is Chachamim and the Seifa is R. Shimon. I agree 
          that R. Shimon exempts from an Asham due to 'He denied a 
          deposit...'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> I said that it is Mamon to teach that the father 
               bequeaths it to his sons.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Mishnah - R. Shimon):</font></b> If she did not collect 
          until the father died, she keeps the payments!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If it is like money to bequeath to the sons, her 
               brothers should get the money!
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE QUESTION IS FINALLY ANSWERED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rava:</font></b> Rabah and Rav Yosef could not answer this for 22 
          years. It was only answered when (Rabah died and) Rav 
          Yosef became head of the Yeshivah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> The fine of a rapist is different, 
          since the Torah said '<i>v'Nasan</i> (he will give) to the 
          father' - it is not considered the father's until it is 
          given.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rabah said that <i>other</i> fines are Mamon to teach 
               that the sons inherit them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #1:</font></b> In the Parashah of a slave killed by an 
          animal it says '<i>Yiten</i> (he will give).' Does the master 
          merit it only after it is paid?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We only learn from the word '<i>v'Nasan'</i>, not from 
          '<i>Yiten'</i>.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #2:</font></b> The Beraisa says that we learn from 'He 
          denied...' It should say that we learn from 'v'Nasan'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> 'He denied...' teaches about (the 
          exemption from an Asham) when after the trial she became 
          a Bogeres and died. Her father inherits the fine <i>from 
          her</i>. (Therefore, we cannot learn this from 'v'Nasan 
          l'Aviha'.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> ... This excludes these cases, which 
          are fines.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If it discusses after the trial, they are Mamon!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> It means, this 
          excludes these cases which were originally fines.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> R. Shimon exempts (from the Asham) 
          since he does not pay due to his admission.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This applies only before the trial. After the trial 
               he pays due to his admission, so he should bring an 
               Asham!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Shimon addresses the Chachamim according to 
          their reasoning:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Shimon:</font></b> I hold that even after the trial, the 
               Torah exempts from 'He denied...' You should agree 
               with me that before the trial the claim is only a 
               fine, and one who admits to a fine is exempt (so no 
               Asham is brought)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say that the father demands payment for 
               embarrassment and blemish (Mamon).
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHAT DOES THE FATHER CLAIM?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What do they argue about?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> R. Shimon holds that a person claims a 
          fixed payment rather than a payment that must be 
          assessed;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say that a person claims something that 
               must be paid in all cases, and not a fine from which 
               the defendant is exempt when he admits.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>A DAUGHTER'S EARNINGS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Avina):</font></b> Who receives her earnings of a girl 
          who is fed by her brothers (after the father died)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Perhaps the brothers are in place of the father. 
               Just like her earnings went to her father, they go 
               to the brothers;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps this is different. The father chose to 
               feed her, but a stipulation of her mother's Kesuvah 
               obligates the brothers to feed her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Sheshes - Mishnah):</font></b> A widow is fed from the 
          orphans' estate. They receive her earnings.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #1:</font></b> A widow is different. A man is concerned for 
          the prosperity of his daughter, but not of his widow!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> A man is not more concerned for his 
               daughter than for his widow!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Aba):</font></b> If a man died leaving a widow and a 
                    daughter, this is like a daughter and sons when 
                    the estate is too small (to feed everyone until 
                    the girls mature);
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> There, the daughter is fed and the sons beg for 
                    food. Also here, the widow is fed and the 
                    daughter begs!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> A man is more concerned for the disgrace of 
               his widow than his daughter, but he is more 
               concerned for the prosperity of his daughter than of 
               his widow.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #2 (Rav Yosef - Mishnah):</font></b> The sons receive the 
          earnings and Metzi'os of a daughter, even if the father 
          died before collecting them.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is because she earned or found them in the 
               father's life. After his death, she keeps them!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> The case is, she is being fed by the 
               brothers.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No, it is when she is not being fed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, the Halachah is obvious!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Even the opinion that allows one to force his slave 
               to work for him without feeding him says so only 
               about a Kena'ani slave!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Regarding a Yisrael slave it says 'with you (he eats 
               like you).' All the more so, one may not receive a 
               daughter's earnings without feeding her!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rabah bar Ula):</font></b> The Mishnah teaches about her 
          earnings above what the cost of her food (after her 
          father dies, if she is not being fed she keeps them).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> Surely, a Chacham like Rav Yosef should 
          have anticipated this answer!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (and Rejection of Answer (g) - Rava):</font></b> Rather, he 
          found a difficulty in the Mishnah itself;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It says that the sons receive her earnings and 
               Metzi'os, even if the father died before collecting 
               them. One does not <i>collect </i>Metzi'os!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rather, the Mishnah equates her earnings to her 
               Metzi'os. Metzi'os she found in the father's 
               lifetime go to him; what she finds after his death 
               is hers. The same applies to her earnings.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> A daughter who is fed by the brothers keeps her 
          earnings.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Kahana):</font></b> We learn from 'You will bequeath them to 
          your sons' - you bequeath Kena'ani slaves to your sons, 
          but rights to your daughter's revenue do not go to your 
          sons.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rabah):</font></b> Perhaps the verse discusses only 
          payments for seduction, fines and payments of injuries!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Rav Chanina - Beraisa):</font></b> The verse discusses 
          payments for seduction, fines and payments of injuries.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> She should receive payments for injuries, since 
          they are due to her pain!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yosi bar Chanina):</font></b> The case is, someone 
          bruised her face. (The father receives the payment, for 
          it decreases the money people will pay for her.)
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WHO RECEIVES THE MONEY OF THE KESUVAH OF A KETANAH OR NA'ARAH</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Rabanan and Rebbi Yehudah argue in the Mishnah with regard to who receives the money of the Kesuvah of a Na'arah or a Ketanah who was married and whose husband died or divorced her. The Rabanan maintain that the girl receives the money because once she gets married she is no longer in the Reshus of her father. Rebbi Yehudah maintains that her father receives it. 
</p><p>
The Gemara explains that according to Rebbi Yehudah, the father is entitled to the Kesuvah since it is written before the Nisu'in. Although the girl later was married with Nisu'in, the father retains the Kesuvah. For the same reason, when the girl became a Bogeres before the Nisu'in and before the time the Kesuvah was written, even Rebbi Yehudah agrees that she receives the Kesuvah since, at the time of its writing, she had already left her father's Reshus.
</p><p>
The Gemara then starts an entirely new discussion about the Kesuvah of an Arusah. The Gemara asks from what point in time may the woman collect her Kesuvah from Nechasim Meshubadim (property her husband had sold to buyers) -- from the time of the Erusin or only from after the Nisu'in?
</p><p>
What does this question have to do with the Sugya? It is unrelated to the topic of the Mishnah which discusses the father's entitlement to the Kesuvah of a Ketanah or Na'arah. This question -- from what time does the woman collect the Kesuvah -- seems to apply to <i>any</i> woman and is unrelated to the rights of the father to his daughter's Kesuvah.
</p><p>
Moreover, what is the reason for why a woman should, or should not, be able to collect her Kesuvah from the time of the Erusin? If the Kesuvah was written at the time of the Erusin, or if the Rabanan instituted that there be a Kesuvah at the time of Erusin (see Rashi later on the Mishnah, and see Kesuvos 54b), then it is obvious that she should be able to collect from the time of Erusin. If, on the other hand, the Rabanan did not institute that there be a Kesuvah at the time of Erusin, then it is obvious that she should not be able to collect from the Erusin. What is the logical basis for each side of the doubt?
</p><p>
The Rishonim offer a number of different approaches to the Sugya.
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that the Gemara is discussing whether a woman may collect her Kesuvah from the husband's fields that were sold after the time of the Erusin but before the Nisu'in. (The Gemara follows the opinion that the Rabanan instituted that an Arusah collects a Kesuvah even in a case where no actual Kesuvah was written at the Erusin.) Perhaps she may collect her Kesuvah even from Nechasim Meshubadim, from fields that were sold during the time of Erusin, because the Rabanan instituted (through a 'Tenai Beis Din') that she is entitled to a Kesuvah even when it is not put into writing. On the other hand, perhaps she is not permitted to collect from such fields during Erusin, because the Kesuvah was not yet written down and it retains the status of an oral obligation, a 'Milveh Al Peh,' which may not be collected from Nechasim Meshubadim. Is the 'Tenai Beis Din' that every Arusah is entitled to collect a Kesuvah considered a contract to that effect (a 'Milveh b'Shtar') or not? That is the Gemara's question.
</p><p>
In summary, according to Rashi the question applies to the Kesuvah of any woman, whether she is an Arusah or a Nesu'ah. The question involves only Nechasim Meshubadim; from the time of her Erusin she certainly may collect from fields that were not sold ('Nechasim Bnei Chorin').
</p><p>
The relevance of this question to the rest of the Sugya is that the Gemara previously discussed when a father is entitled to the Kesuvah of his daughter according to Rebbi Yehudah (whether he is entitled to it from when the Kesuvah was written or from the time of her Erusin). The Gemara now digresses to discuss a similar topic -- when does a normal woman's rights to collect Nechasim Meshubadim begin, from the Erusin or from the Nisu'in? (The two questions are not really parallel, because the father certainly has the rights to the Kesuvah of his daughter while she is an Arusah if she does <i>not</i> get married with Nisu'in. Only if she gets married does Rebbi Yehudah say that he loses the right to the Kesuvah from before the Nisu'in, from before it was written. With regard to collecting the Kesuvah from Nechasim Meshubadim, however, the question is relevant even if she was still an Arusah at the time of her husband's death or her divorce.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> and the other Rishonim reject Rashi's approach, because according to his approach the question of when may a woman collect from Nechasim Meshubadim (when does the Shi'abud of the Kesuvah begin) is only marginally related to the discussion of the Gemara and does not really belong here.
</p><p>
The <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> cited by Tosfos (DH u'Migba) explains that the question of the Gemara is directly related to Rebbi Yehudah's opinion in the Mishnah. The Gemara is asking why does Rebbi Yehudah maintain that the father loses his rights to the unwritten Kesuvah when his daughter becomes a Bogeres before she gets married (with Nisu'in) and before the Kesuvah is written? Is it because by writing the Kesuvah the daughter foregoes her Shi'abud (the lien on the husband's property) of the pre-written Kesuvah (which took effect from the time of the Erusin), or is it because the Rabanan simply did not give the father the right to the Kesuvah if it is written after the daughter becomes a Bogeres?
</p><p>
One might ask, how can the daughter forego a Kesuvah -- which her father was entitled to collect -- by writing a new Kesuvah of her own? She has no right to forego the entitlement of her father! <b>TOSFOS</b> and the <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> explain that although she cannot forego her father's right to collect the Kesuvah, nevertheless the <i>Rabanan instituted</i> that when the daughter writes a Kesuvah and thereby foregoes the previous Kesuvah, her father may not collect it. That is, the Rabanan gave the Kesuvah to the father only on condition that the daughter does not forego the Kesuvah by writing a new one to take the place of the earlier one.
</p><p>
The Gemara's question concerning when the Kesuvah is collected involves a girl who became a Bogeres before the Nisu'in, and the Gemara follows the view of Rebbi Yehudah that the father loses the right to collect the Kesuvah when it is written after his daughter becomes a Bogeres. The Gemara is asking which of the abovementioned two arguments is correct: if the father loses the Kesuvah because the daughter foregoes the first Kesuvah by writing a new one, then the daughter herself cannot collect from the Nechasim Meshubadim that were sold during the Erusin since she relinquished that lien (when she wrote the new Kesuvah which would be paid to herself). If she does not forego the Kesuvah, but the Rabanan simply do not give the Kesuvah to the father since it was written after she became a Bogeres, then she could collect from Nechasim Meshubadim from the time of the Erusin (since the original Kesuvah is still in effect; it is just being paid to a different person than originally intended).
</p><p>



In summary, according to the Ri, the Gemara's question applies only to a girl who became a Bogeres before the Nisu'in, and the question arises only after she became married (with Nisu'in), and it is only according to the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah who may hold that she is writing a new Kesuvah to replace the old one so that she should receive the Kesuvah instead of her father. The question is whether her Shi'abud (to collect from Nechasim Meshubadim) starts from the Erusin or from the Nisu'in.
</p><p>
Tosfos himself questions this approach and asserts that it is somewhat forced to explain the entire Sugya only according to the view of Rebbi Yehudah.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> and other Rishonim explain, like Tosfos, that the question is whether Rebbi Yehudah gives the Kesuvah of a Bogeres to the daughter because she foregoes the previous Kesuvah or because the Rabanan instituted that the father does not collect if the Kesuvah was written when his daughter was a Bogeres. However, they explain that the Gemara's question of whether the woman may collect Nechasim Meshubadim from the time of the Erusin applies to the opinion of the Rabanan just as it applies to the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah. Even though the Rabanan argue with Rebbi Yehudah and say that the father never gets the Kesuvah of his daughter when she is a Nesu'ah, nevertheless they might agree with Rebbi Yehudah that when the Kesuvah of the Nesu'ah is written the woman foregoes the Shi'abud of her previous Kesuvah. If Rebbi Yehudah says that by writing a Kesuvah at the time of Nisu'in she foregoes the previous Kesuvah, then the Rabanan will agree that by writing a Kesuvah at the Nisu'in she foregoes the previous Kesuvah.
</p><p>
In summary, according to these Rishonim as well the question of the Gemara is whether a woman, after Nisu'in, may collect from the husband's property that was Meshubad from the time of Erusin. However, the question applies to every woman and not just to a woman who became a Bogeres before the Nisu'in, and it applies to the opinion of the Rabanan as well as to the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah.
</p><p>
The Rosh's explanation, however, is problematic. According to Rebbi Yehudah, it is easy to understand why the daughter might forego the original Kesuvah at the time of the Nisu'in -- because she does not want her father to collect the Kesuvah (with his rights to the original Kesuvah); she wants to have a new Kesuvah that only <i>she</i> will collect. According to the Rabanan, however, who maintain that she always receives the original Kesuvah, why should every woman forego the Shi'abud of the Kesuvah from the time of Erusin? What interest could she possibly have in losing the Shi'abud for that period of time?
</p><p>
1. Perhaps the Rosh learns that the woman wants to show her love for her husband and therefore she does him a favor and forgives the Shi'abud from the Erusin. This is a forced answer, however, and it is apparently because of this question that Tosfos rejects this approach.
</p><p>
2. Rashi also seems to reject this approach because of this question. In fact, this explains an apparent contradiction in Rashi. 
</p><p>
When Rashi explains the Gemara's question, he writes that she should not collect from Nechasim Meshubadim from the time of Erusin because the Kesuvah is not yet written down and is a 'Milveh Al Peh.' However, when the Gemara rules like Rav Asi that she collects only from the time of Nisu'in, Rashi does not explain that it is because the earlier Kesuvah was not written, but rather that it is because she was <i>Mochel the Shi'abuda</i> from the Kesuvah of the Erusin at the time of the writing of the new Kesuvah at the Nisu'in (similar to the reasoning of the Tosfos ha'Rosh)! Why does Rashi not give this explanation in his comments to the original question of the Gemara? (<b>RITVA</b>)
</p><p>
The answer might be that Rashi cannot explain the Gemara's original question by saying that perhaps the woman foregoes the earlier Kesuvah when she puts the Kesuvah into writing at the time of Nisu'in, because that question would not be related to the Halachah of the Mishnah according to the Rabanan. There is no justification for inferring that according to the <i>Rabanan</i> she foregoes the Kesuvah of the Erusin when she writes a Kesuvah at the time of the Nisu'in. That is why Rashi explains that the Gemara does not consider the possibility that perhaps the woman foregoes the first Kesuvah. 
</p><p>
In the Gemara's conclusion, however, when Rav Asi says that she does not have a Shi'abud from the time of the Erusin, Rashi does not want to explain that the reason is that it is not written down, because Rav Asi is the Halachic opinion (44a), and we find elsewhere that the Gemara <i>does</i> consider a 'Tenai Beis Din' (such as the unwritten Kesuvah at time of Erusin) as though it were written in a Shtar and it therefore may be collected from Nechasim Meshubadim. It must be that Rav Asi maintains that she cannot collect from the time of Erusin for a different reason: that by writing the Kesuvah at the time of Nisu'in she foregoes the Shi'abud of the first Kesuvah. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>
3. The <b>RITVA</b> explains similarly to the Tosfos ha'Rosh, but he avoids the question of why she foregoes the original Kesuvah according to the Rabanan. He also adds that the question may apply not only to collecting from Nechasim Meshubadim but even to collecting from Nechasim Bnei Chorin. He explains that the Halachah of Rebbi Yehudah applies even if a Kesuvah was <i>written</i> at the time of Erusin: even when the Kesuvah was written at the time of Erusin, if she becomes a Bogeres before the Nisu'in the father loses the right to collect the Kesuvah. This is either because the woman foregoes the Kesuvah of Erusin at the time she writes a new Kesuvah for the Nisu'in, or because the Rabanan instituted that the father receives the Kesuvah only when his daughter was a Na'arah at the time of the Nisu'in. Depending on which of the two explanations for Rebbi Yehudah's ruling is correct, the woman either may or may not collect her Kesuvah with the original Kesuvah document that she wrote at the time of the Erusin.
</p><p>
According to the Ritva's explanation, the Gemara's question now applies to a situation in which a Kesuvah was written at the time of Erusin but another Kesuvah was written at the time of Nisu'in. The question applies according to both Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabanan: does the Kesuvah of Nisu'in indicate a Mechilah of the first Kesuvah or not? If she was Mochel the first Kesuvah, then she cannot collect even from Nechasim Bnei Chorin with the first Kesuvah unless she brings the second Kesuvah as proof to her entitlement, because the first Kesuvah was written only to last until the Nisu'in, after which point it is no longer valid. According to the Ritva, she does not actually forego the Kesuvah from the Erusin, but rather l'Chatchilah the Kesuvah was written only to be valid temporarily, until the Nisu'in. The main purpose of a Kesuvah is to prevent the husband from divorcing his wife impulsively after the Nisu'in. The Kesuvah of Erusin, however, serves only a secondary purpose (that she should have a source of support if he dies or divorces her) and is not meant to be a permanent Kesuvah. 
</p><p>
In summary, according to the Ritva the Gemara's question applies to any woman after she gets married, even if she had a <i>written</i> Kesuvah from the time of her Erusin. The Gemara is asking whether she may collect with the old Kesuvah <i>even</i> Nechasim Bnei Chorin, or whether she may only use the new Kesuvah which was written at the time of Nisu'in.
</p><p>
(d) <b>TOSFOS</b> cites <b>RABEINU SHIMSHON MI'SHANTZ</b> who explains that the Gemara's question follows the view of the Rabanan who say that when a girl gets married (with Nisu'in), the father loses the right to collect her Kesuvah. The question of the Gemara applies specifically to a Na'arah or Ketanah who gets married, and the question is whether she may collect her Kesuvah from the time of the Erusin after she gets married (with Nisu'in), because the Shi'abud of the Kesuvah started at that time (Erusin), or whether -- since there is a change in the Kesuvah when she becomes married (with Nisu'in) in that the Kesuvah goes from being her father's entitlement to being her own -- it is as if a new Kesuvah was written at the time of Nisu'in, and she may collect only from the property that was Meshubad from that time onwards.
</p><p>
In summary, according to this opinion the question of the Gemara applies only to a Na'arah or Ketanah whose father made her an Arusah and she later became married with Nisu'in, and the question is only according to the view of the Rabanan of the Mishnah.
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Zeira citing Rav):</font></b> A daughter who is fed by the 
          brothers keeps her earnings - 'You will bequeath them to 
          your sons', but not rights to your daughter's revenue.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Avimi bar Papa:</font></b> Shekod (Shmuel) said this.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> But Rav said this!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Correction:</font></b> Rather, also Shekod said this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mar bar Ameimar):</font></b> Chachamim of Nehardai say that the 
          Halachah follows Rav Sheshes.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Ashi):</font></b> The Halachah follows Rav.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b></b>  The Halachah follows Rav.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN THE FATHER RECEIVES THE 'KESUVAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a girl became Mekudeshes, divorced, 
          Mekudeshes, then widowed (before Bagrus), her father 
          collects her Kesuvah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If she had Nisu'in, was divorced, had Nisu'in, and was 
          widowed, she collects her Kesuvah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, he receives the first Kesuvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Chachamim:</font></b> Once she does Nisu'in, he has no jurisdiction 
          over her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Inference:</font></b> The Tana discusses when she was 
          divorced and widowed, but not when she been widowed 
          twice, (for this is severe,) for then she could not 
          remarry!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Mishnah is like Rebbi, who says that after she 
               is widowed twice (she may not remarry, for) the 
               Chazakah is that her husbands will die.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</font></b> The first Kesuvah goes to the 
          father.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is his reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rabah and Rav Yosef):</font></b> The father acquired the 
          Kesuvah from the time of Kidushin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rava - Beraisa):</font></b> R. Yehudah admits that if she 
          was Mekudeshes, became a Bogeres and had Nisu'in, her 
          father has no jurisdiction over her.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We do not say that the father acquired the Kesuvah 
               from the time of Kidushin!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, Rabah and Rav Yosef taught that he 
          receives it because it was written when she was in his 
          jurisdiction.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>FROM WHEN IS THE 'KESUVAH' COLLECTED?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> From when does she collect? (I.e. if her 
          husband sold property, from when did her lien begin, 
          which allows her to collect from land sold afterwards?)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Huna):</font></b> She collects 100 or 200 (the basic 
          Kesuvah for a non-virgin or virgin) from the time of 
          Kidushin. She collects Tosefes (any addition to this) 
          from the time of Nisu'in.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Asi):</font></b> She collects the entire amount from 
          the Nisu'in.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rav Huna contradicts himself!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Huna):</font></b> If a (divorced or widowed) woman is 
               holding two Kesuvos, one for 200 and one (with a 
               later date) for 300, she may collect 200 from the 
               earlier date or 300 from the later date.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> According to Rav Huna's answer above, she should 
               collect 200 from the earlier date and 100 from the 
               later date!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Counter-question:</font></b> Why doesn't she collect 500, i.e. 
               200 from the earlier date and 300 from the later 
               date?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> You must say that since he did not write 'I 
               am adding 300 to your 200', he intends that she may 
               collect 200 from the earlier date, or 300 from the 
               later date.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Likewise, since he did not write that he is 
          adding 100 to the first 200, she pardoned the lien from 
          the earlier date. (When a man adds Tosefes Kesuvah, he 
          writes 'I added to what Chachamim enacted'; she does not 
          pardon anything.)
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>TWO DOCUMENTS FOR THE SAME TRANSACTION</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> She may collect whichever Kesuvah she wants.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> He argues with Rav Nachman.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Nachman):</font></b> If there are two documents (of sale 
               or gift for the same property to the same recipient) 
               with different dates, the latter invalidates the 
               former.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> They need not argue!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Papa):</font></b> Rav Nachman admits that if the second 
               document adds on a date tree, it was written for the 
               addition and does not invalidate the first document.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Also in Rav Huna's case, the second Kesuvah adds to 
               the first!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Clearly, if the first document was a sale and the second 
          is a gift, the second does not invalidate the first. It 
          was written to protect the buyer from the law of Bar 
          Metzra. (When land is sold, the neighbors have first 
          rights to buy it. This does not apply to gifts.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  All the more so, if the first was a gift, and the second 
          was a sale, it does not invalidate the first. The second 
          was written to guarantee the receiver compensation if the 
          property will be taken by creditors.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  When both are sale documents or both are gifts, the 
          latter invalidates the former.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rafram):</font></b> The recipient requested another 
          document because he agrees that the first one is invalid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Acha):</font></b> The recipient pardoned the earlier 
          lien.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  There are three practical differences between these 
          reasons:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> According to Answer #1, the recipient invalidates 
               the witnesses (or signatures) on his first document 
               (he cannot rely on them for other documents);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> According to Answer #1, the recipient must pay for 
               produce he ate from the land between the dates on 
               the two documents;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> According to Answer #1, the seller must pay the 
               property taxes for the period between the documents.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How do we rule (about question 4:a, Daf 43B)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> R. Eliezer bar R. Shimon says that 
          100 or 200 is collected from the Kidushin. Tosefes is 
          collected from the Nisu'in;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say that all is collected from the 
               Nisu'in.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  The Halachah follows Chachamim.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>TO WHICH CONVERTS DO THE LAWS OF 'MOTZI SHEM RA' APPLY?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a woman converted with her daughter and the 
          daughter was Mezanah (while she was a Na'arah Me'orasah), 
          she is strangled. She is not killed at her father's 
          doorway, and there is no fine of 100 Shekalim if her 
          husband is (falsely) Motzi Shem Ra against her;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If her mother converted between conception and birth, she 
          is stoned (for such Znus), but not at her father's 
          doorway, and there is no fine of 100;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If her mother converted before conception, she is like a 
          Bas Yisrael in all respects.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Even if a girl has a father but her father has no 
          doorway, or his house has a doorway but she has no 
          father, her punishment is stoning;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Mitzvah is to stone her at the father's door. If 
               this cannot be done, she is still stoned.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE KENAS OF A YESOMAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> Rebbi Yosi bar Chanina says that a man who is Motzi Shem Ra about a girl who is a Yesomah (whose father died) is exempt from paying the Kenas because the verse says, 'And he shall give it to the father of the girl' (Devarim 22:19). This verse teaches that only when the girl has a father is the man obligated to pay the Kenas. The Gemara challenges this assertion from a Beraisa in which Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili says that the verse, 'Im Ma'en Yema'en...' -- 'If her father refuses to give her to him, he shall weigh out silver...'  (Shemos 22:16), teaches that a Yesomah <i>does</i> receive a Kenas (in the case of a Mefutah).
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that the repetitive phrase 'Ma'en Yema'en' teaches that either the girl's father may refuse the marriage to the Mefateh, or that the girl herself may refuse the marriage if her father is not alive. If she refuses the marriage, the Mefateh must pay a Kenas to her. Although the verse of the Kenas of an Anusah states that the Kenas is paid to the father of the girl ('la'Avi ha'Na'arah'; Devarim 22:29), and the Kenas of a Mefutah is derived through a Gezeirah Shavah from the Kenas of an Anusah, nevertheless the Kenas is paid even when there is no father. Likewise, in the case of Motzi Shem Ra, when there is no father the Kenas is paid to the girl.
</p><p>
Rashi then asks that perhaps there is a difference between the Kenas of a Mefutah and the Kenas of Motzi Shem Ra. In the case of a Mefutah, a special verse ('Ma'en Yema'en') teaches that the Kenas is paid to the Yesomah. In the case of Motzi Shem Ra, however, there is no extra wording in any verse to teach that the Kenas is paid to the girl. Rashi answers that in the case of a Mefutah, there is also no extra wording in the verse. The verse of 'Ma'en Yema'en' is not extra and is not teaching that the girl receives the Kenas. Rather, the Tana simply understands that the words 'la'Avi ha'Na'arah' ('the <i>father</i> of the girl') teaches only that when the father is alive, he receives the Kenas, and it does not teach that a Kenas is given <i>only</i> when the father is alive.
</p><p>
Rashi's words are difficult to understand for several reasons. 
</p><p>
If the Tana's intention is merely to teach that a Yesomah also receives a Kenas, why does he need to cite the verse of 'Ma'en Yema'en' and say that the <i>verse teaches</i> that a Yesomah also receives a Kenas? If, as Rashi says, the verse does <i>not</i> teach that a Yesomah receives a Kenas (but rather, the verse merely does not indicate that she does <i>not</i> receive it), then the Tana should say simply that a Yesomah receives the Kenas without quoting the verse! (<b>RABEINU KRESKAS</b>)
</p><p>
Moreover, if Rashi understands that the words 'Ma'en Yema'en' do not teach that a Yesomah receives a Kenas, then why does Rashi say in the beginning of his comments that the word 'Ma'en' refers to the father and 'Yema'en' refers to the daughter when there is no father? According to Rashi's conclusion, this is <i>not</i> what the verse means at all; the verse is not teaching that a Yesomah is paid a Kenas. Why, then, does Rashi begin his explanation by saying that the verse <i>does</i> refer to a Yesomah?
</p><p>
Finally, how can Rashi suggest that the words 'Ma'en Yema'en' do <i>not</i> teach that a Yesomah receives a Kenas? The Gemara earlier (39b, as Rashi cites here at the beginning of his comments) uses this verse to teach that either the father or the girl herself may veto the marriage to the Mefateh. If her father is alive, how can the girl veto the marriage? When she is a Ketanah or Na'arah, the father may marry her off against her will, and thus if the father wants her to marry the Mefateh she should have no veto power! The only time she may veto the marriage is after her father has died. Hence, the verse must be teaching that after the father dies she still receives the Kenas!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RABEINU KRESKAS</b> explains that the verse of 'Im Ma'en Yema'en' which teaches that the girl herself may refuse the marriage indeed might refer to a girl whose father is alive. The verse is teaching that if the girl refuses to marry, the Mefateh must pay the Kenas even though the father could then force her to marry him in any case. The Mefateh would have to pay the Kenas (since the girl refused to marry him) <i>even though</i> he marries the girl (if her father did not refuse the marriage and agrees to let him marry her). <b>TOSFOS</b> (39b, DH Ein Li) offers a similar explanation.
</p><p>
In what way does the verse include any reference to a Yesomah? Rabeinu Kreskas explains that had the verse not taught that the girl also may refuse the marriage, a Yesomah would have been excluded (from receiving the Kenas) for an entirely <i>different</i> reason even if the words 'la'Avi ha'Na'arah' do not exclude a Yesomah. She would have been excluded because had her father been alive, perhaps he would have agreed to the marriage and the Mefateh would not have to pay the Kenas. The fact that she refused the marriage would make no difference, since one would think that it is entirely dependent on the father's agreement to the marriage. Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili says that now that the verse teaches that <i>she</i> may also refuse the marriage (and claim the Kenas of Mefutah on those grounds), this reason to exempt the Mefateh of a Yesomah from paying the Kenas does not apply. Consequently, the Yesomah receives a Kenas (assuming she was a Ketanah who cannot be Mochel).
</p><p>
This answers all of the questions on Rashi. Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili indeed learns that a Yesomah is entitled to a Kenas from the verse, 'Ma'en Yema'en,' and he <i>does</i> learn from the extra word that the girl herself may refuse the marriage and obligate the Mefateh to pay a Kenas, but he does <i>not</i> learn from that word specifically that there is a Kenas after the father dies. Perhaps she could refuse to marry the Mefateh, and thereby obligate him to pay the Kenas, only when her father is alive. The fact that she may refuse when her father is not alive is assumed on logical grounds, since the words 'la'Avi ha'Na'arah' do not exclude a Yesomah.
</p><p>
(b) Perhaps another, simple answer may be suggested to explain Rashi's intention here. Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili certainly learns from 'Ma'en Yema'en' that the daughter may refuse the marriage if she is no longer in her father's Reshus. However, this does not necessarily mean that when she is a Yesomah at the time of the seduction that she receives the Kenas; it might mean that she receives the Kenas only when she is a Na'arah at the time of the seduction, and <i>afterwards</i> either her father died or she became a Bogeres (as <b>TOSFOS</b> explains (39b, DH Ein Li) in his second answer, citing Rashi's words here for support). When Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili says that a Yesomah <i>at the time of the seduction</i> receives the Kenas, he does not derive this from the verse of 'Ma'en Yema'en,' and thus his ruling must be based on logical grounds (i.e. that the words 'la'Avi ha'Na'arah' do not exclude a Yesomah).
</p><p>
This answers all of the questions. The verse indeed uses extra wording to teach that a Yesomah may refuse the marriage, but it does not teach specifically that a Yesomah <i>at the time of the seduction</i> receives the Kenas. That detail is derived through logic, and it applies to Motzi Shem Ra as well.
</p><p>
The Gemara rejects the proof and says that when Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili mentions a 'Yesomah,' he indeed refers to a girl whose father was alive at the time of the seduction but who died afterward.
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Reish Lakish):</font></b> 'And she will die' teaches that 
          she is stoned even if her mother converted between 
          conception and birth.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, one who is Motzi Shem Ra on her should 
          be lashed and pay!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> 'And she will die' applies to execution, not to a 
          fine.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps this is only if the conversion was 
          before conception!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> Such a girl is a regular Bas Yisrael. The 
          verse is not needed in such a case.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps the verse includes even if the 
          conversion was after birth!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> 'B'Yisrael' excludes this.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MOTZI SHEM RA' ON AN ORPHAN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yosi bar Chanina):</font></b> One who is Motzi Shem Ra on an 
          orphan is exempt. 'He will give to the father of the 
          Na'arah' excludes an orphan.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Yosi bar Avin - Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Glili):</font></b> 
          The repetition 'Im Ma'en Yima'en' teaches that also an 
          orphan receives a fine!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yosi bar Avin):</font></b> That is when she was orphaned 
          between the seduction and the trial.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> One who is Motzi Shem Ra on an orphan is 
          punished:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Ami - Beraisa):</font></b> 'A virgin of Yisrael' excludes a 
               virgin convert.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> We understand this if Motzi Shem Ra on an 
               orphan is normally punished. The verse exempts Motzi 
               Shem Ra on a convert.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  But if one is always exempt for an orphan, why 
                    must a verse exempt for a convert? (According 
                    to Halachah, she has no father!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Reish Lakish):</font></b> Motzi Shem Ra on a minor is exempt - 'He 
          will give to the father of the Na'arah.' Na'arah is 
          written full (with a Hei), to teach that we discuss a 
          full (adult) Na'arah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rav Acha bar Aba):</font></b> Even without the Hei, we 
          would know that a minor is not included!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'The Na'arah... will be stoned' - we do not punish a 
               minor!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rather, here the Torah discusses a full Na'arah. 
               When Na'arah is written without a Hei, it includes 
               even a minor.
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE PUNISHMENT FOR ADULTERY</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shila - Beraisa):</font></b> There are three distinctions in the 
          punishment of a girl that commits adultery:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If after Nisu'in witnesses testify that she was 
               Mezanah during Eirusin, she is stoned at her 
               father's door;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  This publicizes that he raised an evil girl.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If before Nisu'in witnesses testify that she had 
               adultery during Eirusin, she is stoned at the gate 
               of the city.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> If she sinned during Na'arus and became a Bogeres 
               before the trial, she is strangled.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> When she undergoes a physical change, her 
          sentence changes.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Contradiction (Beraisa):</font></b> If a Na'arah Me'orasah was 
          Mezanah and after Bagrus her husband (made Nisu'in and) 
          was Motzi Shem Ra on her, he is not lashed and does not 
          pay 100 Shekalim. She and the Edim Zomemim (who testified 
          falsely against her) are stoned.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> We cannot kill her <i>and</i> the Edim Zomemim 
               (if they lied, she is innocent)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Correction:</font></b> Rather, she <i>or</i> the Edim Zomemim are 
               stoned.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rava):</font></b> One cannot ask a contradiction from 
          Motzi Shem Ra. Motzi Shem Ra is a Chidush;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Normally, if she had Nisu'in before the trial, her 
               sentence changes to strangulation. Regarding Motzi 
               Shem Ra, she is stoned.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua):</font></b> Perhaps the 
          Torah says so only when she did not change physically, 
          but when her body changed, also her sentence changed!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> Tana'im argue about 
          whether or not her sentence changes:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If a man was Chayav Chatas for a sin and 
               was then appointed (to be Nasi or Kohen Gadol), he 
               brings the Chatas of a commoner;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon says, if he found out about his sin before 
               he was appointed, he brings a Korban. If not, he is 
               exempt.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) CHANGING A PERSON'S PUNISHMENT DUE TO A CHANGE IN THE PERSON</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Shila states that there are three different stages in the culpability of a Na'arah who was Mezanah: 1. If witnesses come after the wedding (Nisu'in) and testify that the Na'arah was Mezanah before the wedding (during Erusin), she is punished with Sekilah at the gate of her father's house. 2. If witnesses testify before the wedding, while she still is an Arusah, she is punished with Sekilah at the gate of the city. 3. If, after she was Mezaneh, she became a Bogeres, she is punished with Chenek and not with Sekilah. The reason for this is that had she sinned now as a Bogeres she would have been punished with Chenek, and therefore she is punished with Chenek now even though she sinned when she was a Na'arah.
</p><p>
The Gemara questions this from a Beraisa which says that if a husband is Motzi Shem Ra about his wife and says that she was Mezanah when she was a Na'arah Me'urasah, her punishment does <i>not</i> change even though she is now a Bogeres, and she still is punished with Sekilah.
</p><p>
Rava answers that the second Beraisa discusses a case of Motzi Shem Ra in which the husband accuses his wife of being unfaithful brings testimony to court to that effect. In such a case the Torah teaches the novel law that she is punished with Sekilah even though now she is married (and a married woman who is Mezanah normally is punished with Chenek and not Sekilah). Just as she can be liable for Sekilah even if she marries after her sin, she can be liable for Sekilah even if she becomes a Bogeres after her sin. The Beraisa of Shila, however, refers to a woman who was not accused by her husband of being unfaithful, but witnesses testified in court on their own accord to her guilt. In that case the Torah does not teach the novel law that she retains the original punishment even after her situation changes. In such a case, if she becomes either married or a Bogeres, her punishment will change. This seems to be the intent of Rava. 
</p><p>
How can Rava suggest that in Shila's case the girl's punishment will change according to her status at the time of the testimony? Shila says (in the first of his three cases) that when witnesses testify after her marriage that she was unfaithful during Erusin, she retains the original punishment of Sekilah (when, normally, a woman after Nisu'in is punished with Chenek for such a sin)! If Shila is not discussing Motzi Shem Ra but an ordinary case of adultery, then the punishment should change according to the present status of the woman, according to Rava! (<b>TOSFOS</b>, DH Amar Rava)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that the <i>first</i> case of Shila's three cases indeed involves testimony in a case of Motzi Shem Ra (where the husband brings the case to court). That is why the original punishment remains even though now she is married. Rava's statement that Shila is not discussing Motzi Shem Ra refers only to Shila's second and third cases -- the case of testimony during Erusin, and the case of testimony after she became a Bogeres. Those cases refer to a woman who was <i>not</i> accused of infidelity by her husband but was incriminated by witnesses who came on their own accord. In the second case, she obviously was not accused by her husband, because she is only an Arusah and the husband cannot know that she is a Be'ulah. The third case is a continuation of the second case.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBAM</b> (cited by Tosfos) and the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Isurei Bi'ah 3:9) explain Rava's answer differently. Rava does not mean that Motzi Shem Ra is unusual because she retains the punishment of Sekilah even after her status changes from an Arusah to a Nesu'ah. There is nothing unusual about that at all. A <i>Halachic</i> status-change is not enough to effect a change of her punishment (from Sekilah to Chenek). The only change that could affect her punishment is a <i>physical</i> change, such as the transition from Na'arus to Bagrus. That is why Rava agrees that in Shila's first case, the woman would be punished with Sekilah even though the testimony came after she was married. 
</p><p>
What, then, is the Chidush of Motzi Shem Ra according to this approach? In what way is Motzi Shem Ra an unusual case? The answer is that Motzi Shem Ra is punished with Sekilah even if she was unfaithful to her husband <i>after</i> the wedding (Nisu'in). Normally, a woman is punished with Chenek for being Mezanah after the Nisu'in. If, however, a woman was Mezanah after the Nisu'in <i>before the first Be'ilah</i> with her husband, then -- in the case of Motzi Shem Ra, where she is accused by her husband of being unfaithful and she is found guilty -- she is punished with Sekilah. Since Motzi Shem Ra is so unusual in this regard, Rava suggests that it should also be unusual with regard to a physical change effecting a change in the punishment: if she becomes a Bogeres after the Z'nus, her punishment will not change and she will be punished with Sekilah.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> R. Shimon says that when he finds out affects 
          the Korban. This does not show that he follows <i>only</i> the 
          time he found out, and not the time of the sin!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he did, he should now bring the Chatas of a Kohen 
               Gadol (or Nasi), i.e. a bull (or a goat)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support:</font></b> R. Yochanan said to correct the text of Shila's 
          Beraisa to say that she is stoned (even if she is now a 
          Bogeres. No Tana says that the Korban or death depends 
          only on the new status.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Torah says that a <i>Na'arah</i> Me'orasah is 
          stoned, not a Bogeres!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Ila'a):</font></b> 'Ha'Na'arah' teaches that she was a 
          Na'arah (when she sinned).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Chananya):</font></b> If so, a man should be lashed and 
          pay a fine (for Motzi Shem Ra on a Bogeres if he says 
          that she sinned when she was a Na'arah)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Ila'a:</font></b> Heaven forbid such reasoning!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Chananya:</font></b> No, Heaven forbid your reasoning!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is R. Ila'a's reasoning?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yitzchak bar Avin):</font></b> Her adultery condemns her; 
          she was a Na'arah when she sinned. His speech obligates 
          him; she was a Bogeres when he sinned.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHERE WE STONE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If a Na'arah Me'orasah was Mezanah, she is 
          stoned at her father's door. If there is none, she is 
          stoned at the gate of the city;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If the majority of the city is Nochrim, she is stoned at 
          the gate of Beis Din.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Similarly, one who serves idolatry is stoned at the gate 
          of the city he sinned in;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  If the city is mostly Nochrim, he is stoned at the gate 
          of Beis Din.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the source of this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> 'Your gates' refers to the gate where he 
          served idolatry.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps it is the gate where he is 
               judged!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Above it says 'Your gates', referring to 
               where he sinned. Also here, 'Your gates' refers to 
               where he sinned.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Also, 'Your gates' excludes the gates of Nochrim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We already expounded this word!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Torah could have said 'gate'. Rather, it says 
          'Your gates', so we can learn two laws.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This teaches about idolatry. What is the source 
          for a Na'arah Me'orasah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Avahu):</font></b> We learn 'door' from 'door' (regarding 
          the Mishkan), and 'door' from 'gate', and 'gate' from 
          'Your gates' (regarding idolatry. Rashi - this is a mere 
          Asmachta mid'Rabanan.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>IS 'MOTZI SHEM RA' DEPENDENT ON 'BI'AH'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa #1):</font></b> A Motzi Shem Ra is lashed and pays 100 
          Shekalim;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, he is lashed in every case. He pays 100 
          only if he had Bi'ah with his wife.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1:</font></b> They argue just like R. Eliezer ben Yakov and 
          Chachamim do (on Daf 46a).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The first Tana says that whether or not he had 
               Bi'ah, he is lashed and pays, like Chachamim. R. 
               Yehudah says that he is always lashed, but he pays 
               only if he had Bi'ah, like R. Eliezer ben Yakov.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2:</font></b> Both Tana'im hold like R. Eliezer ben Yakov.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The first Tana says that he is lashed and pays only 
               if he had Bi'ah. R. Yehudah says that he is lashed 
               in any case, but only pays if he had Bi'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Yehudah does not hold that he is always 
          lashed!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa #2 - R. Yehudah):</font></b> He is Lokeh (lashed) only 
               if he had Bi'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> If he did not have 
          Bi'ah he is lashed only mid'Rabanan.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE SIN OF 'MOTZI SHEM RA'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites a Beraisa in which Rebbi Yehudah says that a man who falsely accuses his wife of being unfaithful during Erusin (Motzi Shem Ra) is punished with <i>Malkus</i> even if he is Motzi Shem Ra before his first Be'ilah with her. However, he is punished with the <i>Kenas</i> of 100 Shekel only when he is Motzi Shem Ra <i>after</i> the first Be'ilah. Rashi explains that Rebbi Yehudah follows the view of Rebbi Eliezer ben Yakov who says that the verse which describes the obligation to pay a Kenas refers to Hotza'as Shem Ra after the first Be'ilah. Why, then, is the man punished with Malkus for being Motzi Shem Ra <i>before</i> the Be'ilah?
</p><p>
Rashi explains that Rebbi Yehudah is consistent with his own view that 'Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh Lokin Alav' -- one is punished with Malkus even for committing a Lav that involves no action. The verse that teaches the Lav for Motzi Shem Ra is 'Lo Selech Rachil' (Vayikra 19:16). It applies whether the Hotza'as Shem Ra was committed before or after the Be'ilah. Therefore, the Malkus does not depend upon the Be'ilah.
</p><p>
The Gemara later cites another Beraisa in which Rebbi Yehudah contradicts himself and says that one who is Motzi Shem Ra receives Malkus only if he is Motzi Shem Ra after the Be'ilah. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak answers that the original assumption of the Gemara is incorrect. Rebbi Yehudah must hold that since the Torah discusses a man who is Motzi Shem Ra after Be'ilah, even Malkus is administered, mid'Oraisa, only for Motzi Shem Ra <i>after</i> Be'ilah. The Malkus which Rebbi Yehudah says that he receives for Motzi Shem Ra <i>before</i> the Be'ilah is only Malkus d'Rabanan.
</p><p>
According to Rav Nachman, why should Rebbi Yehudah exempt him from Malkus d'Oraisa for Motzi Shem Ra before the Be'ilah? Rashi is correct that Rebbi Yehudah maintains that one receives Malkus for a 'Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh,' and thus he should receive Malkus for being Motzi Shem Ra (and transgressing 'Lo Selech Rachil') even without doing a Ma'aseh of Be'ilah. What is Rav Nachman's logic?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The verse of 'Lo Selech Rachil' prohibits not only being Motzi Shem Ra about one's wife, but any Lashon ha'Ra. According to Rebbi Yehudah, would every speaker of Lashon ha'Ra be punished with Malkus? 
</p><p>
It seems that Rebbi Yehudah agrees that any other transgression of the sin of Lashon ha'Ra is <i>not</i> punishable with Malkus. When the Torah states that one receives Malkus only in a specific case of Rechilus ('v'Yisru'; Devarim 22:18), it teaches that under other circumstances one does <i>not</i> receive Malkus for transgressing 'Lo Selech Rachil' (see Tosfos DH Rebbi Yehudah). Accordingly, it is clear that even when a man is Motzi Shem Ra about his wife who is a Bogeres, Rebbi Yehudah would not obligate him for Malkus because of the Lav of 'Lo Selech Rachil' because the Torah limits the application of the punishment for the Lav to a specific case. The logic of Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak -- who says that if the man was Motzi Shem Ra before the Be'ilah the Torah excludes him from the punishment of Malkus -- can be explained in the same manner.
</p><p>
Now, however, the question on Rashi is reversed. Why does Rashi explain in his original explanation that Rebbi Yehudah maintains that one receives Malkus for 'Lo Selech Rachil' even he is Motzi Shem Ra before Be'ilah? The verse discusses Motzi Shem Ra <i>after</i> Be'ilah and excludes every other case! It does not seem logical to suggest that Rashi understands that Rebbi Yehudah gives Malkus to every person who speaks Lashon ha'Ra.
</p><p>
The answer is that Rashi learns that the Torah excludes Malkus only in a case which is <i>not as severe</i> as the case described in the verse. If the woman is an Arusah as opposed to a Nesu'ah, or when she is a Na'arah as opposed to a Bogeres, there is <i>more</i> disgrace to her and to her father's family since she is still partially in her father's domain. Similarly, there is more disgrace if she was a Besulah and not a Be'ulah. If any of these conditions are missing (she is a Nesu'ah, or a Bogeres, or a Be'ulah), the verse teaches that the man who is Motzi Shem Ra about her will <i>not</i> get Malkus.
</p><p>
In contrast, whether the Hotza'as Shem Ra occurs before the Be'ilah or after the Be'ilah makes no difference in the degree of disgrace to the woman; it is the same disgrace to the woman regardless of when he is Motzi Shem Ra. The only difference between the two acts of Motzi Shem Ra is in the brazenness of the man: if, after the Be'ilah, he claims that he found her to be a Be'ulah when she really was a Besulah, he is acting more brazenly and there is more reason for him to pay the 100 Shekel penalty. The Malkus of 'Lo Selech Rachil,' however, is not a punishment for his brazenness but for causing disgrace to the woman. (That is, the sin of Rechilus is clearly a sin 'Bein Adam la'Chaveiro.') Therefore, both actions can be classified as 'Motzi Shem Ra' with regard to Malkus, and thus the verse does not exclude Motzi Shem Ra before the Be'ilah from Malkus.
</p><p>
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak argues and says that Motzi Shem Ra before the Be'ilah is not called Motzi Shem Ra and is not the act which the Torah describes. Even though a man who is Motzi Shem Ra before the Be'ilah (as opposed to after the Be'ilah) apparently does not diminish the disgrace to the woman, the Torah limits Malkus to the specific case where one is also punished with a Kenas -- that is, where he is Motzi Shem Ra after the Be'ilah. (Perhaps we may suggest that Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak learns that Malkus is given also for his brazenness and not just for the Rechilus. The verse of 'Lo Selech Rachil' does not give the <i>reason</i> for why Malkus is administered for Motzi Shem Ra, but rather it is merely teaches that there <i>is</i> a Lav (and Malkus) in the case of Motzi Shem Ra.) (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE PUNISHMENT OF 'MOTZI SHEM RA'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Papa):</font></b> In Beraisa #2 R. Yehudah says that 
          he is Lokeh, i.e. suffers monetarily, only if he had 
          Bi'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Would the Tana call paying money 'Lokeh'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Yes!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If one says 'I pledge half my Erech to 
               Hekdesh', he pays half his Erech;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yosi bar Yehudah says, he is Lokeh and pays his 
               full Erech.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why is he lashed?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> He is stricken by having to pay 
               his full Erech;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  This is a decree due to one who pledges the 
                    Erech of half of himself.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Since he cannot live without half of himself, 
                    he must pay his full Erech.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> 'He will be punished' - monetarily; 'They will 
          afflict him' - with lashes.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We understand that the punishment is monetary, 
          like the verse continues 'Me'ah Kesef';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> How do we know that 'affliction' is lashes?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Avahu):</font></b> We learn 'They will afflict' from 
          'They will afflict' (regarding Ben Sorer u'Moreh), which 
          we learn through 'Ben-Ben' from 'Im Bin Hakos ha'Rasha'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the Lav against Motzi Shem Ra?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Elazar):</font></b> 'Lo Selech Rachil (do not go 
          around like a talebearer.)'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (R. Nasan):</font></b> 'Guard yourself from every evil 
          matter'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar did not learn like R. Nasan, for he uses that 
          verse like R. Pinchas ben Ya'ir:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Pinchas ben Ya'ir):</font></b> 'Guard yourself from every 
               evil matter' - do not have thoughts (of women) by 
               day, which lead to Tum'ah (nocturnal emissions) at 
               night.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  R. Nasan did not learn like R. Elazar, for he uses 'Lo 
          Selech Rachil' to teach that Beis Din should not be Rach 
          (soft) to one litigant and harsh to the other.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE HUSBAND MUST BRING THE WITNESSES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If witnesses testified for him without his 
          request, he is not lashed and does not pay. She and the 
          Edim Zomemim are stoned.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> We cannot say that she and the witnesses 
               are stoned!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Correction:</font></b> She or the Edim Zomemim are stoned.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> Had he requested the witnesses to testify for 
          him, he would be punished even if he did not hire them. 
          This is unlike R. Yehudah:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> He is not liable unless he 
               hired witnesses.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is R. Yehudah's reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Avahu):</font></b> It says 'Sam (putting)' regarding 
          Motzi Shem Ra, just like regarding usury;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Just like there it refers to money, also here.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Questions (R. Yirmiyah):</font></b> What is the law if he hired them 
          for land, for less than a Perutah, or both witnesses for 
          one Perutah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Questions (Rav Ashi):</font></b> What is the law if he divorces and 
          remarries her and is Motzi Shem Ra on the first marriage? 
          What is the law if a Yavam is Motzi Shem Ra on his 
          brother's marriage?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer	(to the last question - Beraisa - R. Yonah):</font></b> 'I 
          gave my daughter to this man' - to this man, not to a 
          Yavam.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>IS 'MOTZI SHEM RA' DEPENDENT ON 'BI'AH'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the argument of R. Elazar ben Yakov and 
          Chachamim?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> Motzi Shem Ra is when a man says, I 
          found that your daughter is not a virgin. If witnesses 
          say that she was Mezanah while married to him, her 
          Kesuvah is 100.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> If she had adultery, why does she have a 
               Kesuvah? She is stoned!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Correction:</font></b> If witnesses say that she had adultery, 
               she is stoned. If they say that she was Mezanah 
               before Kidushin, her Kesuvah is 100.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If his accusation was false, he is lashed and pays 100 
          Sela'im, whether or not he had Bi'ah with her;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar ben Yakov says, this (lashes and a fine) is 
          only if he had Bi'ah with her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> According to R. Elazar ben Yakov we understand 
          '<i>U'Va</i> Eleha (this connotes Bi'ah)' and 'I drew close to 
          her';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> How do Chachamim explain these verses?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> 'He came' with accusations; 'I drew close' with 
          words.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> According to R. Elazar ben Yakov we understand 
          'I did not find Besulim in your daughter';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> How do Chachamim explain this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> 'I did not find witnesses who uphold the 
          virginity of your daughter (through Hazamah of the 
          witnesses who say that she was Mezanah).'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> According to R. Elazar ben Yakov we understand 
          'U'Forsu (they will spread) the sheet (on which they had 
          Bi'ah, to check for Dam Besulim)';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> How do Chachamim explain this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Avahu):</font></b> 'They will clarify (the accusations) 
          he put on her.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Tana'im argue about how to explain 'U'Forsu' like 
               these two opinions.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> 'They will spread the sheet' - the 
               witnesses for each side come, and they make the 
               matter as clear as a new sheet;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar ben Yakov says, the verse literally refers 
               to the sheet.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yitzchak bar Rav Yakov):</font></b> Even though the Torah never 
          distinguishes between Bi'ah k'Darkah and Lo k'Darkah 
          regarding lashes or punishments, it distinguishes 
          regarding Motzi Shem Ra. He is punished only if he had 
          Bi'ah (even) Lo k'Darkah, and claims that she was Mezanah 
          k'Darkah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Yitzchak is not like either Tana!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim obligate even if he didn't have Bi'ah with 
               her!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar ben Yakov requires that also he had Bi'ah 
               with her k'Darkah (to be able to claim that there 
               were no Besulim)!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) A COMPLEX GEZEIRAH SHAVAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara derives the punishment (Malkus) for Motzi Shem Ra from a protracted Gezeirah Shavah. The Gezeirah Shavah begins with a word in the verse which discusses Motzi Shem Ra (Devarim 22:18), links it to a word in the Parshah of Ben Sorer u'Moreh (Devarim 21:18), and then links that word to a word in the Parshah of Malkus (Devarim 25:2).
</p><p>
The Gemara earlier (45b) records a similarly protracted Gezeirah Shavah, which teaches that a Na'arah Me'urasah must be executed by the gate to her city. That Gezeirah Shavah begins with a word in the verse which discusses Motzi Shem Ra (Devarim 22:21), links it to a word in the Parshah about the Mishkan (Bamidbar 4:25), and then links that word to a word in the Parshah of Avodah Zarah (Devarim 17:5). <b>RASHI</b> there explains that the Gezeirah Shavah is only an Asmachta (and is not d'Oraisa).
</p><p>
Rashi apparently maintains that such a multiple Gezeirah Shavah is not a true form of Gezeirah Shavah and therefore is only mid'Rabanan. The <b>RASHASH</b> there (45b) explains that a source for Rashi's words may be found in Eruvin (51a), where the Gemara derives from a similar protracted Gezeirah Shavah the source for the Isur of Techumin of 2000 Amos on Shabbos, and yet the Isur of Techumin is only mid'Rabanan.
</p><p>
How, then, does Rashi understand the complex Gezeirah Shavah here from which the Gemara learns that the punishment for Motzi Shem Ra is Malkus? The Malkus of Motzi Shem Ra certainly is mid'Oraisa and not mid'Rabanan, as is clear from the Gemara earlier (end of 45b). If a protracted Gezeirah Shavah is only mid'Rabanan, there is no source for Malkus mid'Oraisa for Motzi Shem Ra! (<b>RASHASH</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>RASHASH</b> answers that there is a significant difference between these two multiple Gezeirah Shavahs. In the Gezeirah Shavah that teaches that a Na'arah Me'urasah is punished by the gate to her city, the word 'Pesach' in the verse of Motzi Shem Ra (Devarim 22:21) is linked to the word 'Pesach' in the verse about the Mishkan (Bamidbar 4:25), where 'Pesach' is written next to the word 'Sha'ar.' The word 'Sha'ar' is then linked to the word 'She'arecha' in the Parshah of Avodah Zarah (Devarim 17:5), which teaches the Halachah of executing a person next to the gate of the city. The law that a Na'arah Me'urasah who was Mezanah is executed next to the gate of the city cannot be derived without first making an association of words -- 'Pesach' and 'Sha'ar' -- in the Parshah of the Mishkan. In such a case, the Gezeirah Shavah is only mid'Rabanan.
</p><p>
In contrast, in the Gezeirah Shavah that teaches that the punishment for Motzi Shem Ra is Malkus, the Halachah of Malkus is learned <i>directly</i> from Ben Sorer u'Moreh, which also has Malkus. That is, the word 'v'Yisru' in the verse of Motzi Shem Ra (Devarim 22:18) is linked to the word 'v'Yisru' in the Parshah of Ben Sorer u'Moreh (Devarim 21:18). The source that a Ben Sorer u'Moreh has Malkus is an independent Gezeirah Shavah of 'Ben Ben' from the Parshah of Malkus (Devarim 25:2). Hence, Malkus for Motzi Shem Ra is learned directly from Ben Sorer u'Moreh, without the need to associate words first. It is a valid Gezeirah Shavah mid'Oraisa to learn one thing that was itself derived from another thing (as the Gemara says in Zevachim 49b). 
</p><p>
Rashi may allude to this in his unusually lengthy explanation of this Gezeirah Shavah. This explanation is even more evident in the words of Rashi in Sanhedrin (71b, DH Lamadnu).
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction (Rav Kahana):</font></b> He is punished only if he had 
          Bi'ah k'Darkah with her and claims that she was Mezanah 
          k'Darkah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>PRIVILEGES A FATHER HAS IN HIS DAUGHTER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A father has the right to be Mekadesh his 
          daughter (and keep the money) through money, a document, 
          or Bi'ah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  He receives her Metzi'os and her earnings;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  He can annul her vows;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  He can receive a Get (document of divorce) from her 
          husband (during Eirusin);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  He does <i>not</i> eat the Peiros (produce) of her property in 
          her lifetime;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  If she does Nisu'in, her husband has a privilege above 
          what a father has; he eats the Peiros of her property in 
          her lifetime.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Her husband is obligated to feed, redeem and bury her;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, even the poorest Yisrael must get two 
          flutists and a woman to arouse the wailing.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> What is the source that he receives 
          the Kidushin money?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> 'She will leave free; there is no 
          money' - the master (of a Yisraelis slave who goes free 
          when she becomes a Na'arah) does not receive money, but 
          another 'master' receives money, i.e. her father (when 
          she becomes Mekudeshes and leaves him).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps she receives the money!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The father is Mekadesh her - 'I gave my daughter 
          to this man.' Surely she does not keep the money!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps this applies only to a minor, who has 
          no Yad (power of acquisition) to receive Kidushin. A 
          Na'arah has a Yad to receive Kidushin, perhaps she can 
          Mekadesh herself and keep the money!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> 'Bi'N'ureha Beis Aviha' teaches that all 
          revenue of a Na'arah goes to her father.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Rav Huna learned that her earnings go to her 
          father from 'When a man will sell his daughter to be a 
          slave' - just like a slave's earnings go to her master, a 
          girl's earnings go to her father;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why couldn't he learn from 'Bi'N'ureha 
               Beis Aviha'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> We must say that 'Bi'N'ureha Beis Aviha' 
               teaches only about vows.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> We should say that her father gets her 
               Kidushin money, just like he can annul her vows!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> We do not learn monetary laws from 
               non-monetary laws.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> He receives the fine of one who rapes or 
               seduces her. We should learn from this!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> We do not learn about Mamon from fines.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> He receives the payments (of Mamon) for 
               embarrassment and blemish. We should learn from 
               them!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Those are different, since they affect 
               him. (They decreased the amount of Kidushin money he 
               can receive for her.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> When a slave leaves her master, no money goes 
          to the master she leaves - the implication is that in a 
          similar case (Kidushin), money goes to the master she 
          leaves - her father.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> These are not comparable! A slave entirely 
          leaves her master, but an Arusah doesn't leave her father 
          until Nisu'in!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> She (partially) leaves his jurisdiction regarding 
          vows;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> The father and husband of a Na'arah 
               Me'orasah jointly annul her vows.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The father can be Mekadesh her via a document 
          or Bi'ah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'She will be (Mekudeshes) to another man' equates 
               all methods of Kidushin.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) THE SOURCE THAT A FATHER MAY MARRY OFF HIS DAUGHTER WHO IS A NA'ARAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara searches for the source that a father may accept and keep the money of Kidushin for his daughter when she is a Na'arah. The Gemara points out that the Torah gives the father the right to keep the payments of Boshes and Pegam when his daughter is raped. The Gemara suggests that perhaps that law is the source that the father also keeps the money of Kidushin.
</p><p>
The Gemara rejects this suggestion and asserts that there is a logical reason for why the father receives the money of Boshes and Pegam. Since 'it pertains to him,' he has legal entitlement to those payments, whereas Kidushin does not pertain to him. <b>RASHI</b> explains, based on the Gemara earlier (40b), that the reason why Boshes and Pegam are given to the father is that it was in his power to torment his daughter with Boshes and Pegam by marrying her off to a Menuval (a loathsome, repulsive person) or Mukeh Shechin (leper) and receive the money of Kidushin for doing so. Therefore, he is rightfully entitled to the money paid for her Boshes and Pegam.
</p><p>
Rashi's words are perplexing. The Gemara does not yet know that a man may marry off his Na'arah daughter and receive the money of Kidushin -- the Gemara is still seeking a source for that law! How can the Gemara say that he receives the payments of Boshes and Pegam because he could marry her off when we do not yet know that he may marry her off? (<b>TOSFOS</b>, Kidushin 3b)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Kidushin (3b, DH v'Chi Teima) answers that the Gemara means that the father receives the money of Boshes and Pegam since he may marry her off while she is a <i>Ketanah</i>. Since he could marry her off to a Menuval or Mukeh Shechin and she would <i>continue to suffer</i> Boshes and Pegam when she becomes a Na'arah, he is entitled to receive the payments of Boshes and Pegam even when she is a Na'arah (even if he could not marry her off at that stage). There <i>is</i> a source that the father may marry off his daughter when she is a <i>Ketanah</i>, as the Gemara earlier teaches.
</p><p>
Tosfos rejects this approach, however, because if the father is entitled to receive the payments of Boshes and Pegam when his daughter is a Na'arah since he could have married her off while she was a Ketanah, then he should also receive those payments even after she becomes a Bogeres! After all, he could have married her off when she was a Ketanah to a Menuval or Mukeh Shechin and she would still suffer from it as a Bogeres.
</p><p>
The <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> (Kesuvos 40b) has another objection to this approach. Even if her father marries her off to a Menuval or Mukeh Shechin, after the Nisu'in the husband can be forced to divorce her, as the Mishnah says later in Kesuvos (77a). (The Hagahos Ya'avetz here makes this point as well.)
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> earlier (40b, DH d'Iy Ba'i) gives a variation of this answer. Normally, a Ketanah is capable of receiving and keeping payments for physical damages done to her, as the Gemara says in Bava Kama (87b). However, payments for Boshes and Pegam are still given to her father and not to her. The Gemara attempts to learn from that law that the Kidushin of a <i>Na'arah</i> should also be given to the father even though the Na'arah has a 'Yad' and is able to accept her own Kidushin.
</p><p>
The Gemara rejects this suggestion by saying that the payments of Boshes and Pegam of a Ketanah rightfully belong to her father (even though she is capable of receiving payment for physical damages), since he could have married her off while she was a Ketanah and received money for causing her to suffer Boshes and Pegam. There <i>is</i> a source that a father may marry off his daughter when she is a Ketanah, and therefore the Gemara's logic is sound. The Gemara is not saying that he could marry her off while she is a Na'arah.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> and the <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> (40b) suggest that when the Gemara says that 'it pertains to him,' the Gemara does not mean that her father could marry her off to a Menuval or Mukeh Shechin. Rather, it means that her father himself suffers from the embarrassment and affliction experienced by his daughter. Therefore, there is more reason to give the payments of Boshes and Pegam to him than to give the money of Kidushin to him.
</p><p>
This answer is lacking, however, because the Gemara (40b) does not give this as the reason for why the father is entitled to the payments of Boshes and Pegam of his daughter. The Gemara says that he receives those payments because he could marry her off to a Menuval or Mukeh Shechin, as Rashi here writes. Why, then, does the Gemara here not respond that Boshes and Pegam cannot be a source for letting the father keep the money of Kidushin because -- on the contrary -- the fact that he receives the money of Kidushin is the source for why he receives the Boshes and Pegam? 
</p><p>
Tosfos answers that the Gemara means to say that even if another source is found for why the Boshes and Pegam is given to the father, we still would not be able to learn from Boshes and Pegam that the father receives the money of Kidushin.
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Kidushin (3b, and as cited by the Rishonim here) suggests that the Gemara understands that a Na'arah can become Mekudeshes either by herself <i>or</i> by her father. (This is in fact the way Reish Lakish understands the opinion of the Chachamim in Kidushin 43b.) Accordingly, the Gemara knows that the father may accept Kidushin for his daughter when she is a Na'arah and keep the money of Kidushin. The Gemara is asking for a source that even when the Na'arah marries herself off, the father still receives the money of Kidushin. The Gemara says that the source cannot be from Boshes and Pegam, because those payments are given to the father due to his ability to marry her off to a Menuval or Mukeh Shechin. (The Gemara in Kidushin 44a, however, concludes like Rebbi Yochanan who says that only the father may marry off his Na'arah daughter, and not the Na'arah herself.)
</p><p>
(This approach of Tosfos answers another question posed by Rashi (DH Ketanah). Rashi asks why the Gemara does not derive from 'Es Biti Nasati' (Devarim 22:16) that the father may marry off his daughter when she is a Na'arah. According to Tosfos, although we learn from there that he may marry her off, the Gemara is asking why <i>he</i> receives the money of Kidushin when <i>she</i> marries herself off.)
</p><p>
(d) None of the above approaches conforms with the way Rashi (DH d'Shayach Bah) explains this Gemara. Perhaps Rashi has a different approach altogether. 
</p><p>
Rashi may understand that the Gemara knows all along that a father may marry off his daughter who is a Na'arah, and that the Na'arah herself may not marry herself off. That Halachah may be derived from the Halachah of Hafaras Nedarim, since both are laws of Isur (as Tosfos himself asks as a question, DH Mamona). Thus, when the Gemara asks that we should learn that the father may marry her off and keep the money of Kidushin from the fact that he receives the money of Boshes and Pegam, it already knows that the father may marry off his Na'arah daughter but did not yet know that the money of the Kidushin goes to the father.
</p><p>
This answers another question. If we do not yet know that the father has the right to marry her off, then how can the Gemara derive that right from Boshes and Pegam? The law of Boshes and Pegam does not state that her father may marry her off, but only to whom the payments are given. It must be that the Gemara knows all along that the father may marry her off. The only question is when he does marry her off, who receives the money of the Kidushin, the father or the daughter?
</p><p>
Why does the Gemara not prove that the father receives the money of Kidushin from the Kal v'Chomer that it mentions earlier? If he is the one who marries her off, certainly he should receive the money. The answer is that the Gemara there means that if the father <i>receives the money</i> of Kidushin in order to marry her off, certainly he <i>keeps that money</i> and does not have to give it to his daughter after he effects the Kidushin by receiving the money. The verse of 'Es Biti Nasati' implies that he may accept the money of Kidushin in order to make the Kinyan of Kidushin (and not just that he may agree to the Kidushin) when his daughter is a Ketanah, and if he may accept the money he certainly gets to keep it. In the case of a Na'arah, though, we know only that he may marry her off to someone, but we do not know who accepts the money. May the father accept the money (and keep it) or does the daughter accept the money? 
</p><p>
The Gemara attempts to prove from Boshes and Pegam that the father should be the one to accept and keep the money, since it is similar to any other profit that his daughter makes (which he is entitled to keep). The Gemara rejects this proof on the basis that the reason the father may keep the money of Boshes and Pegam is because he may marry her off to a Menuval or Mukeh Shechin (and receive money of Kidushin for causing her to suffer Boshes and Pegam).
</p><p>
This explanation sheds light on another perplexing point in the words of Rashi. When the Gemara rejects the proof from Boshes and Pegam, Rashi explains that the father could take money for marrying her off with 'Kidushei Bi'ah' to a Menuval or Mukeh Shechin. Why does Rashi mention Kidushei Bi'ah? The father could marry her off with any type of Kidushin, including Kesef and Shtar (and afterwards the Menuval will be Bo'el her)!
</p><p>
Rashi may mean that the Gemara knows already that the father has the right to agree to or refuse the Kidushin; the question is only who <i>accepts</i> the money or Shtar of the Kidushin. Since it is possible that the daughter is the one who accepts the Kesef or Shtar, the Gemara cannot be saying that the father has the ability to give his daughter to a Menuval in exchange for being Mekadesh her with Kidushei Kesef or Shtar, because even though the father agrees to the Kidushin, if his daughter refuses to accept (and make a Kinyan on) the Kesef or Shtar the Kidushin cannot take effect. Therefore, it is not within the father's power to effect such a Kidushin against his daughter's will. However, he could tell a Menuval or Mukeh Shechin to go and be Bo'el his daughter and be Mekadesh her with Bi'ah. Even if the Mukeh Shechin does that against the will of the Na'arah, the Kidushin will be valid because it is done with the consent of the father. Consequently, the father is entitled to take the money for the Boshes and Pegam, even if he is not entitled to take the money of Kidushei Kesef. 
</p><p>
In contrast, Rashi earlier (40b) says that Boshes and Pegam go to the father since he could be Mekadesh her with Kidushei <i>Kesef, Shtar, or Bi'ah</i> to a Menuval or Mukeh Shechin. Rashi there is following the conclusion of the Gemara here, that a father <i>may</i> accept Kesef or a Shtar for his daughter's Kidushin. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>PRIVILEGES A FATHER HAS IN HIS DAUGHTER (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> He receive her Metzi'os.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  This is to avoid resentment (which could induce him to 
          cease to feed her or be Mekadesh her to a disgusting 
          person).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> We learn that a man receives his daughter's 
          earnings from 'When a man will sell his daughter to be a 
          slave'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Just like a slave's earnings belong to her master, a 
               girl's earnings belong to her father.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This applies only to a minor, whom he can sell. 
          He cannot sell a Na'arah. Perhaps she keeps her earnings!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Surely, he must receive them. If not, how did 
          the Torah authorize him to send her to Chupah, and 
          interrupt her work!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rav Achai):</font></b> Perhaps he compensates her for the 
          lost work, or he sends her to Chupah at night or on 
          Shabbos or Yom Tov (when she does not work)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> The Hekesh (equating her to a slave) is not 
          needed for a minor. Since he can sell her, obviously he 
          owns her earnings!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Hekesh teaches about a Na'arah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> He can annul her vows.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  We learn from 'Bi'N'ureha Beis Aviha'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> He can receive her Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  'She was divorced... and became Mekudeshes' equates 
          divorce and Kidushin;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Just like he receives her Kidushin, he receives her 
               Get.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> A father does not eat the Peiros of his 
          daughter's property in her lifetime;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi bar Yehudah says, he does.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  The first Tana holds that Chachamim enacted only for a 
          husband to eat the Peiros of his wife's property. If not, 
          he might not redeem her if she is captured;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This concern does not apply regarding a father (he 
               would redeem her in any case).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi bar Yehudah says that the same concern applies to 
          a father. He will resent that he did not benefit from her 
          property.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>IS A DOWRY COLLECTED IF SHE DIED BEFORE 'NISU'IN'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If a father wrote that he will send his 
          daughter into Nisu'in with fruit, clothing and Kelim and 
          she died during Eirusin, the husband does not receive 
          them;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Nasan says that he does.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> These Tana'im argue like R. Elazar ben 
          Azaryah and Chachamim:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If she was widowed or divorced, whether 
               from Eirusin or Nisu'in, she collects the entire 
               Kesuvah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar ben Azaryah says, if it was from Nisu'in 
               she collects the full Kesuvah. If it was from 
               Eirusin she collects only the basic Kesuvah (100 or 
               200).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Anything above this was written only on 
                    condition that he make Nisu'in.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) DOES THE TORAH PERMIT WORK ON SHABBOS?</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara searches for a source that a man keeps the income ('Ma'aseh Yadayim') of his daughter when she is a Na'arah. The Gemara attempts to bring proof from the fact that a father may make a Chupah for her (to marry her off after she is already betrothed). If the father is not entitled to her earnings, he should not be able to marry her off because she could say that she is busy working to make money and he has no right to cause her to lose her income. By making her enter the Chupah he is preventing her from working that day (Rashi). It must be that her earnings belong to her father and thus he is entitled to cause her to stop earning money for a day.
</p><p>
The Gemara responds that this is no proof because perhaps her father is permitted to marry her off only if he pays her for a day's work. Alternatively, perhaps he may marry her off only during the night, when she would otherwise not be working and thus he is not causing her to lose any earnings. Finally, the Gemara says that perhaps he may only make the Chupah for her on Shabbos or Yom Tov, when she does not work and thus he is not causing her to lose any earnings.
</p><p>
<b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> (in Gilyon ha'Shas) questions the last answer of the Gemara. If the father marries off his daughter on Shabbos or Yom Tov, why will his daughter not lose earnings? The Torah prohibits only 39 Melachos and their Toldos on Shabbos, while many Melachos are permitted, through which one may earn money (for example, guarding a field for a set salary). Hence, if the Torah says that he may marry off his daughter on Shabbos, it is still saying that he may stop her from earning money since the Torah does not prohibit earning an income on Shabbos (through a permissible act)! The reason why one is prohibited in practice from taking wages for performing tasks that are not prohibited on Shabbos is the Isur of 'Sechar Shabbos' (taking wages on Shabbos). That prohibition, however, is only mid'Rabanan, as it is part of the decree against conducting business on Shabbos ('Mekach u'Memkar' -- see Beitzah 37a), as <b>RASHI</b> writes later in Kesuvos (64a, DH ki'Sechar Shabbos).
</p><p>
(According to Rashi's first explanation in Beitzah 37a, Mekach u'Memkar is Asur based on a verse in Yeshayah. It could be that Yeshayah merely put into writing an Isur that was already prohibited mid'Oraisa by a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai, as we find in many places (e.g. Ta'anis 17b). Accordingly, the Gemara here is easily understood. However, according to Rashi's second explanation in Beitzah 37a, and according to Rashi in Beitzah 27b, DH Ein Poskin, the Isur of Mekach u'Memkar is entirely mid'Rabanan. On the basis of that view Rebbi Akiva Eiger asks his question.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHASH</b> points out that when the Gemara says that the father may make the Chupah for his daughter at night, it does not mean that it is prohibited for a woman to work at night, but rather it means that it is unusual and uncommon for a woman to work at night. Similarly, since on Shabbos there are 39 Melachos and it is a 'day of rest,' it is not common for people to work then, even if some forms of work are technically permitted. Therefore, the Gemara suggests that the father may marry off his daughter on Shabbos since she is <i>probably</i> not working then. 
</p><p>
However, this answer is not satisfactory for a number of reasons. Why should it have been uncommon for people to do permitted Melachah on Shabbos, before the Isur d'Rabanan was instituted? Moreover, why does the Torah assume that it will be so uncommon such that the father will marry off his daughter then?
</p><p>
Also, the Gemara gives three different answers for how the father could marry her off without causing her to lose money. The fact that the Gemara gives three separate answers (separated by the words 'Iy Nami' and not simply by 'O'' ('or')) indicates that each answer has a weak point and thus alternate answers are necessary. The weak point of the first answer (that he pays her for the lost work) is that it is not so obvious that there exists such a right to cause her to lose work and pay her for it. Perhaps she is entitled to say that she wants to work and to earn her own money, and she does not have to agree to take his money and be married off against her will.
</p><p>
The weak point of the second answer is that although people do not usually work at night, when the father comes to marry her off perhaps the daughter will say that she has decided to work at night, at the time of the Chupah, and thus her father has no right to cause her to lose money. (The next morning, she will again say that she changed her mind and wants to work by day from now on.) Hence, this answer is also not conclusive.
</p><p>
Since the first two answers have weak points, the Gemara offers a third answer -- that the father may marry her off on Shabbos or Yom Tov, when she cannot work even if she wants to work. If she is permitted to earn money on Shabbos but the accepted custom is not to, this answer adds nothing to the earlier answers. The purpose of giving a third answer is to solve the problem with the second answer (namely, that she could claim that she wants to work now, at the time of the Chupah, even though it is not the normal manner to work at this time). Thus, Rebbi Akiva Eiger's question remains.
</p><p>
(b) Perhaps a simple answer may be suggested based on the words of the <b>RAMBAN</b> (Vayikra 23:24). The Ramban explains (based on the Mechilta, Parshas Bo #9) that when the Torah uses the word 'Shabason' to refer to Shabbos and Yom Tov, it teaches that a person should not spend the entire day working even if the work is of the type which is normally permitted on Shabbos (i.e. activities that do not transgress the 39 Melachos). The Ramban says that this prohibition is not just an Asmachta, but it is an Isur d'Oraisa intended to prevent people from wasting their whole day on Shabbos by doing Melachah that the Torah permits and not resting on Shabbos. The Ramban's explanation is cited and praised by the <b>RITVA</b> (Rosh Hashanah 32b, end of DH Shofar) and <b>MAGID MISHNEH</b> (Hilchos Shabbos 21:1). (See also <b>TESHUVOS CHASAM SOFER</b>, CM #195.)
</p><p>
According to this approach, working on Shabbos and Yom Tov -- even with Melachos that are permitted -- is certainly Asur mid'Oraisa. That is why the Gemara says that a father may marry off his daughter on Shabbos and Yom Tov and thereby avoid causing her any loss of earnings. (The <b>SHO'EL U'MESHIV</b> 5:91 suggests a similar answer.)
</p><p>
When Rashi (Kesuvos 64a, Beitzah 27b and 37a) says that the Isur of Mekach u'Memkar is only mid'Rabanan, he is referring to a person who performs an isolated act of buying or selling, or one who earns money on Shabbos without transgressing one of the 39 Melachos and without any physical exertion. Such an act is prohibited even if one does not involve himself in it all day, because of the Isur d'Rabanan of Mekach u'Memkar (as the Teshuvos Chasam Sofer explains). Occupying oneself in work all day on Shabbos is Asur mid'Oraisa, as the <b>RAMBAN</b> explains.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Chachamim of the Beraisa say that he does not 
               receive the dowry, like R. Elazar ben Azaryah. R. 
               Nasan says that he receives it, like Chachamim of 
               the Mishnah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, even R. Nasan holds like R. Elazar ben 
          Azaryah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar ben Azaryah said only that the husband 
               pays Tosefes only if he did Nisu'in, but he could 
               agree that her father gives even if they never have 
               Nisu'in;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The father gives because the families become united, 
               and this happens through Kidushin.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE OBLIGATION TO FEED ONE'S WIFE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Chachamim enacted that a man feed his wife, to 
          compensate for receiving her earnings;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  He must bury her, in exchange for inheriting her;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Therefore, he eats the Peiros of her property.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> The Beraisa did not mention Peiros!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Beraisa is abbreviated. It means as follows:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim enacted that a man feed his wife, to 
               compensate for receiving her earnings. He redeems 
               her, in exchange for the Peiros of her property. He 
               buries her, in exchange for inheriting her;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Therefore, he eats the Peiros of her property.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why does it say 'therefore'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> One might have thought that he should not eat the 
          fruit, rather it should be stored;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is not good, for when it does not suffice to 
               redeem her he might refrain from paying the 
               difference.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why don't we say oppositely (that he feeds her 
          in exchange for her Peiros, and redeems her in exchange 
          for her earnings)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> Chachamim enacted what is common in 
          exchange for what is common (food for earnings), and what 
          is rare in exchange for what is rare (redemption for 
          Peiros).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> The following Tana holds that the Torah obligates 
          a man to feed his wife:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> 'She'erah' is food, like it says 
               'Va'Asher Ochlu She'er Ami (they ate the flesh of my 
               people)';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> 'Kesusah' is understood simply (clothing);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> 'Onasah' is the frequency of Bi'ah that the Torah 
               commands, like it says, 'If Ta'aneh (you will 
               refrain from Bi'ah with) my daughters';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar says, 'She'erah' is Bi'ah at the proper 
               frequency, like it says 'A man will not have Bi'ah 
               with his She'er (relatives)';.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> 'Kesusah' is understood simply;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> 'Onasah' is food, like it says, 'Va'Ya'ancha (He 
               afflicted you and made you hungry)'.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) HALACHAH: REFUNDING A NEDUNYA</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Beraisa states that if a man writes a large dowry (Nedunya) to give to his daughter's groom, and then his daughter dies, the Nedunya is not given to the Chasan but is returned to the father (according to the Tana Kama). The reason for this is that a man grants a Nedunya to his son-in-law only on the condition that he will marry his daughter and his daughter will be able to use it, but not if his daughter dies right away.
</p><p>
Obviously, if the Kalah dies after a number of years, this Halachah does not apply. Until what point in the marriage does this Halachah apply?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that the Beraisa refers to a situation in which the Kalah died during the Erusin, before the Nisu'in. When the Gemara says later that the Kalah died after 'Chitun,' it means that she died after Erusin.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Kasav) cites <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who explains that this Halachah applies even when the Kalah dies after the Nisu'in but before the Nedunya was actually delivered to the Chasan. Since the Nedunya was not delivered, the Kalah was never able to enjoy it before she died, and therefore the father does not want the Chasan to have it. According to Rabeinu Tam, the word 'Chitun' means simply that she died after the Chasunah, the wedding.
</p><p>
Tosfos questions Rabeinu Tam's explanation from a statement in the Toras Kohanim (Bechukosai, Parshah 2:3). The Toras Kohanim quotes the curse, 'v'Tam la'Rik Kochachem' -- 'Your strength will be used up in vain' (Vayikra 26:20), and explains that this curse means that a man will marry off his daughter with a very large Nedunya, and his daughter will die even before the end of the Sheva Berachos. The man ends up losing both his daughter and his money. According to Rabeinu Tam, if she dies during Sheva Berachos, the father should not lose his money because the Nedunya has presumably not yet been delivered!
</p><p>
Tosfos answers that the Toras Kohanim refers to when the father already gave over the money to the Chasan, and then his daughter died. The father indeed loses both his daughter and his money.
</p><p>
(c) According to the above approach, if the wedding already took place and the Nedunya was already delivered to the Chasan, the Chasan certainly may keep it after the death of the Kalah. <b>TOSFOS</b> adds, however, that Rabeinu Tam instituted a new enactment that even if the Nedunya was delivered but the daughter dies within the first year, the Nedunya is to be returned to the father. (Tosfos writes that Rabeinu Tam rescinded that enactment towards the end of his life.)
</p><p>
(<b>RAV DOV BIDERMAN</b>, in his commentary to the Toras Kohanim, writes that it was revealed to him in a dream that this is why Rabeinu Yakov ben Meir, the grandson of Rashi, was destined to be known as 'Rabeinu Tam.' After he instituted the enactment that the Nedunya returns to the father if the daughter dies within the first year, the curse of 'v'Tam la'Rik Kochachem' no longer applied, according to the Toras Kohanim's interpretation of that curse. If the Kalah died during Sheva Berachos, the money would go back to the father and he would not lose his money! Since Rabeinu Yakov's enactment voided the curse of 'v'<i>Tam</i> la'Rik Kochachem,' he was called 'Rabeinu Tam.')
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>REMA</b> (EH 53:4) cites both Rashi's and Rabeinu Tam's explanations of the Gemara ((a) and (b) above). He writes that in practice it is a Safek whether the Halachah follows Rashi or Rabeinu Tam. Therefore, if the daughter dies after the Chasunah and the father did not yet deliver the money, the father keeps the money out of doubt (based on the principle, 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro Alav ha'Ra'ayah').
</p><p>
The Rema also mentions that certain communities still enforce the enactment of Rabeinu Tam, that if the Kalah dies within the first year of marriage the money should be returned to the father. The Rema adds that the accepted practice in such communities is that if the Kalah dies during the <i>second</i> year, <i>half</i> of the money should be returned (if it is still in its original form, 'b'Ein').
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE OBLIGATION TO FEED ONE'S WIFE (cont.)</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar ben Yakov says, 'She'erah Kesusah' - give to 
          her clothing according to her age;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Do not give to a girl clothing fitting for an older 
               woman, nor clothing fitting for a girl to an older 
               woman;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  'Kesusah v'Onasah' - give clothing fitting for the 
          season;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Do not give new clothing in summer, nor worn 
               clothing in winter.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yosef - Beraisa):</font></b> 'She'erah' - he should have Bi'ah 
          without clothing, unlike the Persians who have Bi'ah 
          clothed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  This supports Rav Huna, who said that if a man agrees to 
          have Bi'ah only clothed, he must divorce his wife and pay 
          a Kesuvah (if she desires).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Yehudah):</font></b> Even the poorest Yisrael must 
          have two flutists and a woman to arouse wailing at his 
          wife's funeral.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> The first Tana does not require this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the case?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If it is her family's custom to have this, the first 
               Tana should agree!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If it is not her family's custom to have this, why 
               does R. Yehudah require it?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is his family's custom, but not her family's;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> All agree that she rises with him (when his family's 
               customs are greater) but does not descend (when his 
               customs are lower). The first Tana holds that this 
               applies only in her lifetime, but not after her 
               death;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah holds that she rises with him even after 
               her death.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Yehudah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>FOR WHAT DO SPEND MONEY OF ONE WHO WENT AWAY?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> If a man went insane, Beis Din takes from 
          his property to feed his wife and children, and for 
          something else (this will be explained).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Ravina):</font></b> Why is this different than the 
          following?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If a man went overseas and his wife 
               demands food, Beis Din takes from his property to 
               feed her, but not to feed his children or for 
               something else.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> We distinguish between one who left 
          intentionally and one who left unintentionally.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is 'something else'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Chisda):</font></b> It is cosmetics (for his wife).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Yosef):</font></b> It is Tzedakah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Rav Chisda, who says that we do not give to her 
          cosmetics, certainly agrees that we do not give Tzedakah 
          from his property;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Yosef, who says that we do not give Tzedakah 
               from his property, would say that we give to her 
               cosmetics. Her husband does not want her to become 
               repulsive.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chiya bar Avin):</font></b> If a man went overseas and his wife 
          died, Beis Din takes from his estate to bury her, 
          according to his honor.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Do we bury her according to his honor, but not 
          according to hers?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, we bury even according to his honor.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This teaches that she ascends with him and does not 
               descend, even after she dies.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Masnah):</font></b> If one said 'if my wife dies (after me), do 
          not bury her', we heed his words.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Do his words cause his property to fall to his 
          heirs? Even had he said nothing, this would happen (and 
          surely, they need not bury her)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, if he says 'do not bury me from my 
          property (Rashi - rather, from Tzedakah)', we ignore his 
          words;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He cannot benefit his children by imposing on the 
               congregation.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>ENTERING THE HUSBAND'S 'RESHUS'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A girl is always in her father's Reshus 
          (jurisdiction), until she enters her husband's Reshus for 
          Nisu'in;
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) ENTERING A 'CHATZER' ON THE ROAD TO THE GROOM'S HOUSE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites a Beraisa that states that if the father went with the husband's emissaries, or if the father's emissaries went with the husband's emissaries, or if the <i>Kalah</i> owned a Chatzer on the road and she entered the Chatzer with the Chasan in order to sleep there, it is not considered a Chupah or a 'Mesirah la'Ba'al.' If, however, the father gave over his daughter to the husband's emissaries, or his emissaries gave her over to the husband's emissaries, or if the <i>Chasan</i> owned a Chatzer on the road and they entered the Chatzer for the sake of Nisu'in ('l'Shem Nisu'in'), from that time onward the husband inherits her Nedunya if she dies because it is considered a 'Mesirah la'Ba'al' (which is considered a partial Chupah).
</p><p>
The Gemara explains that the Beraisa refers to a case in which they entered the Chatzer without specifying the purpose for which they entered. The Beraisa teaches that if the Chatzer is hers, we assume that she entered in order to sleep and not for the sake of Nisu'in. If the Chatzer is his, we assume that she entered the Chatzer for the sake of Chupah and Nisu'in.
</p><p>
It seems that the Beraisa is discussing only a Kinyan of 'Mesirah la'Ba'al' and not a complete Chupah. (This is also Rashi's intention in DH Ha Stama; see <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> EH 55:9.) This is clear for a number of reasons. First, the Beraisa implies that when the Chatzer is hers, when they enter her Chatzer <i>and</i> specify that they are entering for the sake of Nisu'in, it <i>is</i> a valid Chupah. Why should it be a valid Chupah if he walks into <i>her</i> Chatzer? If the husband is not bringing the woman into his own domain, how can it be a Chupah?
</p><p>
Second, the Beraisa says that if the Chatzer is his, then he acquires her as his wife with regard to inheriting her but <i>not</i> with regard to Terumah (that is, if he is a Kohen, she may not yet eat Terumah). If, however, it is a complete Chupah, he should acquire her for Terumah as well!
</p><p>
On the other hand, if the Chasan and Kalah enter the Chasan's own Chatzer for the sake of Nisu'in, why should it be classified as merely 'Mesirah la'Ba'al'? Why is it not a full-fledged Chupah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> explains that 'Chupah' occurs when she enters the man's domain in order to remain together with him, as man and wife, permanently. When they enter his domicile on the road, it is not an act that represents permanent family life. It is a temporary act which does not show that she is becoming his wife. The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (EH 55:9) makes a similar distinction.
</p><p>
It seems that if the Chasan and Kalah seclude themselves in a room and sleep together there, even on the road, it should certainly be a sign of permanent relationship. Rashi here (DH Ha Stama), however, writes that the Beraisa means that he walks into the lodging with her and stays with her for a moment, but not necessarily overnight. She intends to sleep there and he is just politely escorting her. It could be that the door is open as well while they are together so that it is not Yichud. That is why it works only as 'Mesirah la'Ba'al' and not as Chupah.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) WHAT IS 'CHUPAH'?</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara discusses a situation of 'Nichnesah l'Chupah v'Lo Nivalah,' where a woman entered the Chupah but is still a Besulah. (Apparently, there are witnesses who observed her from the time of Chupah onwards and testify that she is still a Besulah.) The Halachah is that Nisu'in may be effected through Bi'ah (see Rashi, DH Ha Stama, and Kidushin 10a), but there is something else called 'Chupah' which is a form of Nisu'in which does not involve Bi'ah. What exactly is this 'Chupah' and how is it done?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RAN</b> (1a of the pages of the Rif) notes the opinion of some Rishonim that Chupah means Yichud, where the man and woman seclude themselves together. The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Ishus 10:1), who seems to be of this opinion, takes it even further and writes that the Chasan 'must bring her into his house, seclude himself with her, and separate her for himself.' The Rambam (10:2 and 10:6) adds that Chupah serves to acquire her to him only when, at the time of Chupah, the woman is Re'uyah l'Bi'ah (fit for the husband to have relations with her), and not if she is prohibited to her husband (such as a woman who is a Nidah at the time of Chupah).
</p><p>
1. The Ran points out that the source for this opinion might be the Gemara in Kesuvos (2a) which discusses the case of a woman who is forced to delay the Chupah because she became a Nidah. Why does the fact that she is a Nidah prevent her from the ceremony of Chupah? According to the Rambam, it is clear why Chupah cannot be made with a Nidah: since Chupah comprises Yichud, it is prohibited for the Chasan to seclude himself with the Nidah (4a), and, furthermore, she is not Re'uyah l'Bi'ah, and thus Chupah will not work even if he does seclude himself with her.
</p><p>
2. A further source for this definition of Chupah may be the Gemara later (56a) which discusses whether a Chupah serves as a Kinyan if it is not Ra'uy l'Bi'ah (such as when the Kalah is a Nidah). The Gemara leaves the question unanswered ('Teiku'). The Rambam, therefore, should be justified in ruling stringently, that the Chupah is not effective if it is not Ra'uy l'Bi'ah.
</p><p>
3. Another source may be the Mishnah in Nidah (44b) which says that only when a girl is three years old does her Nisu'in to a Kohen permit her to eat Terumah. As Rashi in Sanhedrin (55b) explains, when she is under the age of three Nisu'in to a Kohen cannot enable her to eat Terumah because she cannot have a Chupah nor perform Bi'ah to make a complete Nisu'in with the Kohen, as she is not yet Re'uyah l'Bi'ah.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAN</b>, however, presents strong proofs against this opinion.
</p><p>
1. He proves from the Gemara here that Chupah does not necessarily comprise Yichud. The Gemara describes a case of a woman who entered the Chupah but is still a Besulah. If Chupah is Yichud in which the man and woman secluded each other, how can it be known that she is still a Besulah? The Beraisa earlier (11b) also describes a woman whose husband performed Nisu'in with her and yet there are witnesses who testify that she did not seclude herself with him or live with him. It seems clear that there exists Chupah without Yichud.
</p><p>
2. The Ran proves from the Gemara in Yevamos (57b-58a) that Chupah performed with a woman who is not Re'uyah l'Bi'ah is nevertheless a valid Chupah. The Gemara there describes a Chupah performed by a Kohen Gadol with an Almanah, or a Kohen Hedyot with a Gerushah. The Gemara there quotes an opinion (which is the Halachah) that the Chupah takes effect, even though the woman is not Re'uyah l'Bi'ah since she is prohibited to him.
</p><p>
3. Others prove from the Mishnah here both that Chupah does not involve Yichud and that Chupah may be performed with a woman who is not fit for Bi'ah (such as with a girl less than three years old). The Mishnah describes the effects of 'Mesiras ha'Av l'Sheluchei ha'Ba'al' -- the father's handing over of his daughter to the emissaries of the husband. A number of Amora'im rule that Mesirah accomplishes the same thing as Chupah, and thus the woman may even eat Terumah (if her husband is a Kohen) after the Mesirah. 
</p><p>
Mesirah is clearly not Yichud, as it involves no seclusion. If Chupah requires Yichud, how can Mesirah accomplish a full Nisu'in according to <i>any</i> Amora? It must be that Chupah involves simply bringing the woman into the man's home, and that is why some Amora'im maintain that Mesirah accomplishes the same thing as Chupah (since it is the beginning of the transfer of the bride to the groom's home). (<b>BEIS YAKOV</b>, Kesuvos 2a; see also <b>CHUPAS CHASANIM</b> of the Sha'ar ha'Melech, #9.)
</p><p>
Moreover, why does the Mishnah say that Chupah does not allow a girl less than three years old to eat Terumah, according to the Amora'im who say that Mesirah allows the Kalah to eat Terumah? The Mishnah in Nidah apparently refers to a situation in which the three year old girl is married (which means that she is living together in a home alone with her husband). How can that accomplish any less than Mesiras ha'Av (<b>RASHBA</b>, Kidushin 10b)? It must be that the Chupah of the three year old indeed <i>does</i> take effect, even though she is not Re'uyah l'Bi'ah.
</p><p>
As for the Rambam's proofs (cited above) that Chupah must be Yichud and Ra'uy l'Bi'ah, the Ran and other Rishonim refute them all. The Gemara (2a) which discusses delaying a Chupah because the woman is a Nidah means simply that the groom may insist on making a Chupah later since he wants a Chupah after which Bi'ah will be permitted immediately. It does not mean that Chupah cannot be done with a woman to whom the groom is prohibited.
</p><p>
The Gemara (56a) which discusses whether Chupah works when it is not Ra'uy l'Bi'ah is not discussing whether Chupah takes effect with regard to Nisu'in when there is no 'Chibas Bi'ah.' Rather, it is clearly discussing whether the woman gets to keep the <i>Tosefes</i> (the additional money) which her husband added to the Kesuvah if the Chupah was not fit for Bi'ah. The Nisu'in, however, takes effect (Ran, 22b of the pages of the Rif, and other Rishonim).
</p><p>
When the Mishnah says that Nisu'in of a Kohen with a girl under the age of three does not allow her to eat Terumah, it does not mean that the Chupah does not make her the Kohen's wife. Rather, it means that in the case of such a young girl, the fear of 'Simpon' applies even after her Chupah, since her husband does not fully examine her for blemishes until she reaches the age of three (<b>TOSFOS</b> to Yevamos 57b, DH Nises; see also <b>MISHNEH L'MELECH</b>, Hilchos Ishus 3:11, and Chupas Chasanim #7).
</p><p>
In defense of the view of the Rambam, who says that Chupah is Yichud, it may be suggested that the Rambam does not mean that Chupah requires a total Yichud, where the man and woman seclude themselves behind closed doors. Rather, the Rambam says that the man 'must seclude himself with her and <i>separate her for himself</i>' -- the Yichud must be just enough to show that he is taking her for himself, but it does not necessarily need to be done behind closed doors. If he brings her into his home, even if the doors are open and people can see inside, it is called a Chupah according to the Rambam. This is indeed the way the <b>BEIS ME'IR</b> (EH 55:1) interprets the Rambam's words. (See also Insights to Kesuvos 57:1.) This explains how a woman can enter the Chupah, according to the Rambam, and still have witnesses that she did not have relations. This also answers the question from the Gemara here, why the father's Mesirah to the emissaries of the husband can accomplish the same as Chupah even though it is not Yichud. Alternatively, even if Mesiras ha'Av <i>does</i> effect a Kinyan for everything, it still does not accomplish the same as Chupah, as will be discussed later (see Insights to Kesuvos 49:1).
</p><p>
With regard to the Rambam's view that the woman must be Re'uyah l'Bi'ah for the Chupah to take effect, and that Chupah does not work for a Nidah even though it does work for a Kohen Gadol who marries an Almanah, the <b>LECHEM MISHNEH</b> (Hilchos Ishus 10:2) suggests that there is a difference between a woman who is presently not Re'uyah l'Bi'ah and a woman who will <i>never</i> be Re'uyah l'Bi'ah. If he marries a woman who will never be Re'uyah l'Bi'ah (such as a Kohen Gadol who marries an Almanah), the Chupah brings them together as much as the marriage can bring them together, because he will only be able to live with her b'Isur. In contrast, when a man marries a Nidah or a girl less than three years old, although at present she is not Re'uyah l'Bi'ah the husband intends to be together with his wife later when she becomes Re'uyah l'Bi'ah. Since right now the woman is not Re'uyah l'Bi'ah, the Chupah does not bring them together to the same degree that the marriage eventually will. Therefore, the Chupah is not valid until she is fully ready for Bi'ah.
</p><p>
How do the Rambam -- and Rashi, who seems to agree with the Rambam on this point -- answer the question of the Rashba: why can a girl under three not eat Terumah after the Chupah, if even Mesirah allows a woman to eat Terumah (although it is not a preparation for Be'ilah)? If there is no cause for concern after the Mesirah that the Kalah will share the Terumah with her brothers and sisters (Rashi DH v'Rav Asi), certainly there should be no cause for such concern when the Kalah (who is under the age of three) moves into the house of her Chasan. (We cannot answer that Rav Asi permits her to eat Terumah only according to the Mishnah Rishonah (see Mishnah, 57a), since it is clear that Rav Asi is giving a Halachic ruling, and the Halachah is in accordance with the Mishnah Acharonah.)
</p><p>
Perhaps Rav Asi and those who rule that Mesirah allows the woman to eat Terumah maintain that the type of Nisu'in which does not allow a girl under three to eat Terumah is Nisu'in of Bi'ah (in the father's house, without Mesirah). If, however, the father hands her over to the husband, if she enters the husband's house l'Shem Chupah certainly she is able to eat Terumah, even though she is not Re'uyah l'Bi'ah. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If her father gave her over to her husband's Sheluchim, 
          she is in her husband's Reshus;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If the father or his Sheluchim went with her husband's 
          Sheluchim, she is in her father's Reshus;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  If her father's Sheluchim gave her to the husband's 
          Sheluchim, she is in her husband's Reshus.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Why does it say she is <i>always</i> in her 
          father's Reshus?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This shows that our Mishnah disagrees with the 
          original version of the Mishnah:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If the time that an Arus and his Arusah 
               set for Nisu'in came and they were not married, she 
               eats Terumah (if he is a Kohen) and is fed from his 
               property.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> 'Always' shows that our Mishnah argues.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>FOR WHAT IS SHE GIVEN OVER?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If her father gave her over to the husband's 
          Sheluchim, she is in her husband's Reshus.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> She is given over for all laws, except for eating 
          Terumah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Asi):</font></b> She is given over even for Terumah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (against Rav Asi - Rav Huna - Beraisa):</font></b> She is 
          always in her father's Reshus, until she enters the 
          Chupah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rav):</font></b> Do not challenge a teaching based on 
          your understanding of a Mishnah or Beraisa that can be 
          learned differently!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Asi can say that giving her over to the 
               Sheluchim <i>is</i> entering Chupah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> After she is given over, the husband becomes 
          her heir.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Reish Lakish):</font></b> Giving her over is considered like Chupah 
          regarding the Kesuvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What does this mean?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If it means that he inherits the Kesuvah if she 
               dies, this is just like Shmuel!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Ravina):</font></b> If she remarries (after becoming widowed 
          or divorced) her Kesuvah from the new husband is 100.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> She is given over for all laws of 
          marriage, even Terumah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> If the father or his Sheluchim went 
          with the husband's Sheluchim, or if she entered her 
          courtyard with her husband to lodge, if she dies, her 
          father inherits her. This is even if the husband has (the 
          Metaltelim (movable objects) designated to pay) the 
          Kesuvah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the father or his Sheluchim gave her over to the 
               husband's Sheluchim, or if she entered the husband's 
               courtyard with him for Nisu'in, if she dies, her 
               husband inherits her. This is even if her father has 
               the Kesuvah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This applies only to inheritance. She may not eat 
               Terumah until Chupah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> This refutes all the Amora'im (other than Shmuel).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Contradictory inferences can be made from the 
          Beraisa.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'If she entered her courtyard with him to lodge' 
               implies that Stam (unspecified), it is for Nisu'in!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> 'If she entered his courtyard with him for Nisu'in' 
               implies that Stam, it is to lodge!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> The Beraisa teaches the Stam cases;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We assume that entering her courtyard is to lodge. 
               Entering his is for Nisu'in.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>CAPITAL PUNISHMENT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If her father gave her to the husband's 
          Sheluchim and she was Mezanah, she is strangled.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Ami bar Chama):</font></b> 'To be Mezanah in her father's 
          house' excludes this case (from stoning).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Perhaps it excludes a girl that had Chupah 
          without Bi'ah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava citing Ami):</font></b> Another verse teaches that she 
          is not stoned after Chupah:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'Na'arah Besulah Me'orasah' excludes a Bogeres, a 
               non-virgin and a Nesu'ah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If 'Nesu'ah' truly refers to a full Nesu'ah 
                    (after Chupah and Bi'ah), 'Besulah' excludes 
                    her!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rather, 'Me'orasah' excludes Chupah without Bi'ah.
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>IS MARRIAGE REVERSIBLE?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> If she returns to her father's house (after 
          she was given to her husband's Sheluchim), perhaps she 
          reverts to be an Arusah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection (Rava - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael) Question:</font></b> 'The 
          vow of a widow or divorcee will stand' - this is obvious! 
          She is not in the Reshus of her father, nor her husband 
          (so no one can annul it)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The verse discusses one who was given to the 
               husband's Sheluchim, and was widowed or divorced on 
               the way.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Is she considered to be in her father's 
               house, or in her husband's?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> 'Her vow will stand' teaches that (her 
               father cannot annul, for) she does not return to her 
               father's house.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Papa):</font></b> A Mishnah teaches the law of the Beraisa (48b 
          5:a, that once she was given to the husband's Sheluchim 
          she is not stoned):
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> One is stoned only for a Na'arah Besulah 
               Me'orasah in her father's house.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Granted, Na'arah Besulah Me'orasah 
               excludes a Bogeres, a non-virgin and a Nesu'ah. Why 
               does it say 'in her father's house'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> This excludes one who was given to the 
               husband's Sheluchim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> Another Mishnah (Sanhedrin 
          89a) also teaches this:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If a woman entered her husband's Reshus 
               for Nisu'in, even though there was no Bi'ah, if 
               someone else has Bi'ah with her he is strangled.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> She only 'entered the husband's Reshus' (i.e. 
               without Chupah).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>A MAN'S OBLIGATION TO FEED HIS CHILDREN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Elazar ben Azaryah):</font></b> A man is not obligated 
          to feed his daughter;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A provision of the Kesuvah is that 'the sons inherit 
               and the daughters are fed.' Just like the sons 
               inherit only after the father dies, the daughters 
               are fed only after his death.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Inference:</font></b> He is not obligated to feed his 
          <i>daughter</i>, but must feed his son. Also, there is no 
          <i>obligation</i> to feed her, but there is a Mitzvah to feed 
          her!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Our Mishnah is not like any Tana in the 
          following Beraisa!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> It is a Mitzvah to feed one's 
               daughters, and all the more so one's sons, since 
               they engage in Torah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, it is a Mitzvah to feed one's sons 
               and all the more so one's daughters, to prevent 
               their disgrace;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Yochanan ben Berokah says, it is an obligation to 
               feed the daughters after the father dies. In his 
               lifetime, neither sons nor daughters are fed.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  The Mishnah is not like R. Meir or R. Yehudah. 
                    They say it is a Mitzvah (not an obligation) to 
                    feed sons!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> It is not like R. Yochanan ben Berokah. He says 
                    there is no Mitzvah to feed either!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> The Mishnah can be like R. Meir.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A man is not obligated to feed his daughter. The 
               same applies to his son. There is a Mitzvah to feed 
               his daughter, and all the more so his son.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE ROLE OF 'MESIRAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites a verse to prove that after the father hands over his daughter ('Mesiras ha'Av') to the emissaries of the husband, she leaves the Reshus of her father and he may no longer annul her Nedarim. It seems clear from the verse that mid'Oraisa, Mesirah has the status of Chupah. If so, how is that earlier (48b) we find that Shmuel and other Amora'im rule that Mesirah works only for Yerushah, inheritance (i.e. the husband inherits the woman if she dies after Mesirah), and support for this is brought from a Beraisa? We see from the Beraisa here that Mesirah works even for Hafaras Nedarim. If so, it seems that it is not only effective for Yerushah, but for all of the laws of Chupah! (<b>TOSFOS</b> 48b, DH u'Shmuel)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b> The Rishonim seem to have entirely different perspectives concerning what Mesirah l'Chupah is, as is evidenced by how they answer this question.
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH u'Shmuel and DH Teyuvta; see also DH Rav Asi) explains that Mesirah la'Ba'al actually accomplishes Nisu'in mid'Oraisa. 
</p><p>
The Amora'im who say that Mesirah works only for Yerushah do not mean that all it accomplishes is that the husband inherits the Nedunya. Rather, they are merely excluding Achilas Terumah. They are saying that it works for Yerushah (and for the other laws of marriage) but it does not work to permit the wife to eat Terumah. Even though Mesirah is a type of Chupah, there is still a fear of 'Simpon,' and the Rabanan therefore took away the woman's rights to eat Terumah until she moves in with him. 
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> (48b, DH Shmuel) takes the opposite approach. Rashi writes that Mesirah is really not a Chupah at all. Chupah involves Yichud of some sort in the house of the husband. Although the laws of Na'arah Me'urasah do not apply after the Mesirah (that is, if she is Mezanah she receives Chenek like any married woman, and not Sekilah like an Arusah), that is not because Mesirah is a form of Chupah but because there is less of a disgrace to the father after the Mesirah, and thus the punishment is less severe. 
</p><p>
Why, then, may the husband annul her Nedarim after the Mesirah if Mesirah does not create Nisu'in? The Halachah of Hafaras Nedarim depends on the consummation of the marriage!
</p><p>
The answer is that Rashi (ibid.) in fact writes that even after the Mesirah, the husband may <i>not</i> annul her Nedarim. How, though, does Rashi understand the Beraisa here that says that Mesirah removes her from the Reshus of her father with regard to Hafaras Nedarim, implying that the husband <i>may</i> annul her Nedarim?
</p><p>
The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> and others explain that according to Rashi, she is neither in the Reshus of the father nor in the Reshus of the husband. Mesirah only removes her from the father's Reshus but does not bring her into the husband's Reshus. Neither of them may annul her Nedarim after Mesirah. (This is why the verse compares her to an Almanah Gerushah, for whom no one may annul her Nedarim.)
</p><p>
This answers a number of other difficult points in Rashi. <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> points out that Rashi earlier (48b, DH l'Olam) implies that even according to those who say that Mesirah makes them completely married, it is <i>not</i> Koneh her for everything; there are certain matters for which she is not considered married. Regarding what does Mesirah not serve to be Koneh her to him? 
</p><p>
The answer is that Mesirah does not make her married with regard to Hafaras Nedarim. It makes her married to him with regard to Terumah because there is no longer any fear of 'Simpon,' and with regard to other Halachos that are mid'Rabanan. (It also makes her like a married woman with regard to Tum'ah, if he is a Kohen, as Rashi (48b, DH Mesirasah la'Kol) writes. The reason for this is that since she has left the house of her father through Mesirah, there now is nobody to bury her. She therefore is deemed a 'Mes Mitzvah' and her Kohen husband may bury her, as the Gemara explains in Yevamos 89b with regard to a Mema'enes.)
</p><p>
This might also explain why Rashi says that the opinion that she may eat Terumah after Mesirah also maintains that the Rabanan prohibited an Arusah from eating Terumah only because she might give it to her brothers and sisters, but <i>not</i> because of 'Simpon.' <b>TOSFOS</b> asks that the conclusion of the Gemara (on 58b) is that the reason the Rabanan prohibited her from eating Terumah is 'Simpon' and not just that she might feed the Terumah to her brothers and sisters. Rashi should have explained that the opinion which allows her to eat Terumah after Mesirah maintains that there is no more problem of '<i>Simpon</i>' at that point, since that is already the beginning of Nisu'in and the husband examines her before that point. Why does Rashi explain that Rav Asi, who maintains that she eats Terumah, argues with the conclusion of the Gemara later (58b)?
</p><p>
The answer might be that Rashi follows his own opinion that Mesirah removes her only from her father's house but accomplishes nothing towards bringing her into the Reshus of her husband. Therefore, it is not logical to say that her husband checks her for blemishes and that there is no fear of 'Simpon' from the time of the Mesirah. Tosfos, on the other hand, follows his view that Mesirah is Chupah mid'Oraisa and therefore the husband checks her for blemishes before the Mesirah. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) MESIRAH WITHOUT CHUPAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara infers from a Beraisa that Mesiras ha'Av, the father's handing over of his daughter to the emissaries of the husband, can change an adulteress' punishment from Sekilah to Chenek (that is, it gives her a status of a Nesu'ah instead of an Arusah). The Beraisa says that when the woman is 'Nichnesah l'Reshus ha'Ba'al l'Nisu'in' ('she enters the domain of the husband for Nisu'in'), her punishment is Chenek. The Gemara says that 'Nichnesah l'Reshus ha'Ba'al' refers to a Mesirah without a Chupah. Although there is no Chupah, she does not receive Sekilah but only Chenek.
</p><p>
If the Gemara learns that the words 'l'Reshus ha'Ba'al' mean Mesirah to the husband and not actual Chupah, the same inference should be made from those words in the Mishnah (48a) which says that 'she is always in the Reshus of the father until she enters the Reshus of the Ba'al for Nisu'in.' The Mishnah should mean that from the time of the <i>Mesirah</i> to the husband she leaves the Reshus of her father. The Gemara there explains that this part of the Mishnah is discussing her right to eat Terumah when she marries a Kohen. The Mishnah is saying clearly that after the Mesirah she <i>does</i> eat Terumah. Why, then, does the Gemara not cite proof from the Mishnah for the opinion of Rav Asi and Rebbi Yochanan who say that the woman may eat Terumah after the Mesirah la'Ba'al? (<b>TOSFOS</b> 48a, DH l'Olam)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> explains that the inference the Gemara here makes is from the word '<i>Keivan</i> she'Nichnesah...' -- '<i>when</i> she enters his Reshus,' which implies that she just <i>started</i> to enter his Reshus, a reference to the Mesirah. The Mishnah, however, says '<i>Ad</i> she'Tikanes' -- '<i>until</i> she enters the Reshus,' which means until she <i>completely</i> enters the Reshus of the husband. (See a similar approach in Tosfos to Zevachim 56a, DH Minayin, in the name of Rabeinu Tam.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA's</b> text of the Mishnah omits the word 'l'Nisu'in.' He explains that it is only from the Beraisa which adds the extra word 'l'Nisu'in' that the inference can be made that it is discussing Mesirah la'Ba'al.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>ROSH</b>, <b>RIF</b>, and others have the Girsa in the Mishnah (48b), 'Ad she'Tikanes <i>l'Chupah</i>,' and not 'Ad she'Tikanes <i>l'Reshus ha'Ba'al</i>.' This is also the way the Gemara (48b) quotes the Mishnah. 
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  The Mishnah discussed the daughter to teach 
                    that even regarding a daughter, (there is no 
                    obligation, but) there is a Mitzvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> The Mishnah can be like R. Yehudah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A man is not obligated to feed his daughter, and all 
               the more so his son. There is a Mitzvah to feed his 
               son, all the more so his daughter.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  The Mishnah discussed the daughter, to teach 
                    that even regarding a daughter, there is no 
                    obligation.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3:</font></b> The Mishnah can be like R. Yochanan ben 
          Berokah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A man is not obligated to feed his daughter. The 
               same applies to his son. There is not even a Mitzvah 
               to feed them.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Since the Seifa says that there is an 
                    obligation to feed a daughter after the father 
                    dies, the Reisha said that there is no 
                    obligation during his lifetime.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Ila'a citing Reish Lakish citing R. Yosi bar 
          Chanina):</font></b> In Usha it was enacted that a man feed his 
          children while they are small.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Does the Halachah follow this?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> When such cases came in front of Rav Yehudah, he 
          would say that 'a serpent had a child, and is throwing 
          (responsibility for feeding) it on the city.' (Ran - he 
          would not force the father to feed them. This shows that 
          the Halachah does not follow R. Ila'a. It seems that the 
          Rambam disagrees. He says that there is an enactment to 
          feed children.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  When such cases came in front of Rav Chisda, he would 
          command to publicly declare 'a raven wants children, but 
          this man does not.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> A raven does not feed its children - 'To 
               young ravens that cry for food'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It does not feed its children when they are 
               white, but it feeds them when they are black.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  When such cases came in front of Rava, he would ask 'Do 
          you want that they should be fed from Tzedakah?'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  This is if the father is not rich. If he is, we force him 
          to feed them (just like we force him to give Tzedakah);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rava forced Rav Nasan bar Ami to give 400 Zuz to 
               Tzedakah.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE WHO GAVE HIS PROPERTY TO HIS CHILDREN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Ila'a citing Reish Lakish):</font></b> In Usha they enacted that 
          if one gave all his property to his children, he and his 
          wife are fed from it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (R. Zeira):</font></b> We learned a bigger Chidush, that a 
          widow is fed from his property (in the case below). We 
          need not hear that he and his wife are fed!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Ravin):</font></b> If a man died and left a widow and a 
               daughter, the widow is fed from his property, even 
               if the daughter remarried. (A husband is like one 
               who bought his wife's property. Normally, we do not 
               take property from buyers to feed a widow. Here we 
               do, since he did not pay for it.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yosi bar Chanina's nephew):</font></b> A case occurred in 
               which the daughter died. They ruled that the widow 
               is fed from the property (that her son-in-law 
               inherited).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We must hear that he and his wife are fed. One 
          might have thought that a widow is fed because there is 
          no one to fend for her, but the husband can fend for 
          himself and his wife!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Does the Halachah follow R. Ila'a?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Chanina saw a man kiss R. Yochanan's feet. He 
          had written his property to his sons, and R. Yochanan 
          coerced the sons to feed him;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If letter of the law says that the son need not feed 
               him, we understand why he needed to coerce them 
               (Rashi - and therefore the man was so thankful);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> But if the sons must feed him, why does it say that 
               he coerced them (verbally? He should have beaten 
               them until they complied! - R. Tam)
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>'TZEDAKAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Ila'a):</font></b> In Usha it was enacted that one should not 
          give more than a fifth of his income to Tzedakah, lest he 
          come to need to take from people.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Beraisa):</font></b> One should not give more than a fifth 
          of his income to Tzedakah, lest he come to need to take 
          from people;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #1:</font></b> A case occurred in which a man wanted to 
               give more. His colleague, R. Yesheivav, did not 
               allow him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #2:</font></b> R. Yesheivav wanted to give more. His 
               colleague, R. Akiva, did not allow him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Nachman):</font></b> We learn from 'Aser A'asrenu (I will tithe 
          twice)'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The second tithe (is a tenth of the 90% 
          remaining after the first tithe) is less than a tenth. In 
          all, less than a fifth is given!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> 'A'asre<i>nu</i>' - I will take the second 
          tithe (on it, i.e. all that You give to me,) like the 
          first tithe.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Simi bar Ashi):</font></b> These three teachings of R. Ila'a 
          are in descending order (of the number of Amora'im he 
          quoted).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A Siman (way) to remember the order of the teachings 
               is 'children wrote and squandered'.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN TO TEACH CHILDREN 'TORAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yitzchak):</font></b> In Usha it was enacted that a man should 
          be gentle with a son that does not want to learn until 
          age 12. From then on, he should whip him and deprive him 
          of food.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rav said 'Do not accept to teach a child below 
          six. After six, stuff him (with Torah) like an ox!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> One stuffs him with Torah, but does not whip 
          or hunger him until 12.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Six is the age to afflict a son who refuses to 
          learn Chumash. Twelve is the age for one who refuses to 
          learn Mishnah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Abaye, citing his (surrogate) mother):</font></b> Six is the 
               age to learn Chumash, 10 is the age to learn 
               Mishnah, 13 is the age to fast (on Yom Kipur) the 
               entire day, and for a girl, 12.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Abaye, citing his mother):</font></b> If a boy is bitten by a 
               scorpion on the day he turns six, he will die.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the cure?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Take bile of a white Dayah bird and anoint 
               him with it, and give him some to drink with beer.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Abaye, citing his mother):</font></b> If a boy is stung by a 
               bee on the day he turns one, he will die.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What is the cure?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Put moss of a date tree in water; anoint him 
               with it, and give him some to drink.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 (Rav Katina):</font></b> If one starts teaching his child 
          before six, he will run but not succeed (to cure him).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2:</font></b> His peers will run but not succeed (to attain 
          his level of learning).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Resolution #1:</font></b> Both are true. He will be weak and 
          learned.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Resolution #2:</font></b> If a sickly child starts learning before 
          6, he will never be cured. If he is healthy, he will 
          learn greatly.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yosi bar Chanina):</font></b> In Usha they enacted that if a 
          woman sold her Nichsei Melug (property that she brought 
          into the marriage), when she dies her husband takes the 
          property from the buyers.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi bar Yitzchak heard from R. Avahu that R. Yosi bar 
          Chanina taught this. R. Yosi learned this from him 40 
          times, until it was utterly ingrained in him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> 'Happy is the one who guards justice and 
          constantly does Tzedakah' - is it possible to constantly 
          do Tzedakah?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Our teachers in Yavneh):</font></b> This refers to one 
          who feeds his children when they are minors.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani):</font></b> This refers to one 
          who raises orphans in his home and marries them off.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Huna or Rav Chisda):</font></b> 'Wealth in his house; his 
          Tzedakah stands forever' refers to one who learns and 
          teaches Torah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (The other of Rav Huna and Rav Chisda):</font></b> This refers to 
          one who writes Sefarim (Tanach) and lends them to others.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> 'And you will see children to 
          your sons; Shalom upon Yisrael.' If all sons have 
          children, there is no need for Yibum or Chalitzah (which 
          leads to strife).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani):</font></b> When there are children there 
          is no dispute about who inherits. There will be Shalom 
          among the judges of Yisrael.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>FEEDING THE DAUGHTERS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> R. Elazar ben Azaryah expounded...
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: GIVING AWAY MORE THAN A FIFTH OF ONE'S MONEY TO TZEDAKAH</b></font><b>
<br></b>The Gemara relates that the Rabanan of Usha instituted that one should not give away more than one fifth of his assets to Tzedakah, because doing so might cause him to become impoverished. It seems that one is <i>permitted</i> to give away up to a fifth, but one is not <i>required</i> to do so.
</p><p>
The <b>CHAFETZ CHAYIM</b> discusses many points of this Halachah in <b>SEFER AHAVAS CHESED</b> (chapters 19-20). 
</p><p>
(a) <b>DISTRIBUTING</b> A <b>FIFTH <b><b>OF</b></b> ONE'S INCOME <b><b>TO</b></b> TZEDAKAH</b>:
<br>1. Although one is not required to give more than a tenth of his income to Tzedakah (see <b>TOSFOS</b> to Ta'anis 9a), the Chafetz Chayim (ch. 19) writes that a person who wants to give Tzedakah generously should give one fifth of his income, as Yakov Avinu did (Bereishis 28:22).
</p><p>
When a person gives a fifth of his money to Tzedakah he should not give it all at once, but he should divide it into two tenths, as the verse implies. The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> gives a number of reasons for this. First, it accustoms a person towards giving, as the <b>RAMBAM</b> writes in Avos (3:15) that it is better to give one coin a thousand times than a thousand coins at one time. 
</p><p>
Second, the Shitah Mekubetzes writes in the name of the <b>ME'IRI</b> that it is proper to divide it into two tenths in order to parallel the two Ma'aseros that are given from fruits of fields in Eretz Yisrael. Every year two Ma'aseros are separated -- Ma'aser Rishon and Ma'aser Sheni (or Ma'aser Ani). Since the two tenths parallel the two Ma'aseros, it is appropriate that one tenth, which corresponds to Ma'aser Sheni, may be invested in any Mitzvah. It may even be invested in a Mitzvah from which one benefits personally, such as writing a Sefer Torah or buying Sefarim to lend out, similar to Ma'aser Sheni which is eaten by the owner himself in Yerushalayim. The other tenth, which corresponds to the Ma'aser that is given to Kohanim and Leviyim, should be distributed as Tzedakah to the poor. The Chafetz Chayim adds that since it corresponds to the Ma'aser that is distributed to the Kohanim and Leviyim, it should be given to needy Talmidei Chachamim, as the verse refers to the tribe of Levi as those who teach the Torah (Devarim 33:10).
</p><p>
(Besides these reasons, the Chafetz Chayim points out that it is important to separate Tzedakah in tenths for Kabalistic reasons.)
</p><p>
2. The Chafetz Chayim adds that there are situations in which one is required, and not just encouraged, to give a fifth of one's earnings to Tzedakah. Based on the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Perush ha'Mishnayos to Pe'ah 1:1) and on the <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> in his letter, <b>ALIM L'TERUFAH</b>, the Chafetz Chayim asserts that the Gemara here is discussing a person who separates money for Tzedakah before he has a particular Tzedakah to which to give it, and he is looking for ways in which to use the money for Tzedakah. (This is implicit in the Gemara's expression 'ha'Mevazbez.') If, however, a person knows of a specific poor man who is in need of help, he is <i>obligated</i> to help the poor man even if it requires separating up to a fifth of his earnings.
</p><p>
(b) <b>DISTRIBUTING MORE THAN</b> A <b>FIFTH <b><b>OF</b></b> ONE'S INCOME <b><b>TO</b></b> TZEDAKAH</b>:
<br>Although the Chachamim in Usha prohibited one from distributing more than a fifth of one's money to Tzedakah, the Chafetz Chayim (ch. 20) writes that a person sometimes <i>is</i> permitted to give even <i>more</i> than a fifth of his earnings to Tzedakah.
</p><p>
1. When there are poor people whom one knows are in need, he is obligated to give up to one fifth of his money to help them (see above). The Chafetz Chayim bases this ruling on the words of the Rambam. One is <i>permitted</i> to give even more than a fifth of one's money in such a situation (see Insights to Ta'anis 24:1).
</p><p>
2. An exceptionally wealthy person is permitted to give more than a fifth of his money to Tzedakah, since doing so will most likely not cause him to become impoverished (based on <b>TOSFOS</b> to Bava Kama 9b, DH Ileima).
</p><p>
3. If a person is a Shechiv Mera (on his deathbed) and expects to die very soon and thus does not have to worry about becoming impoverished, he may distribute even more than a fifth of his money (but not all of it) to Tzedakah (based on the <b>RABEINU YONAH</b>, cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes, who cites the Gemara in Kesuvos 67b).
</p><p>
4. The Chafetz Chayim writes that the prohibition of the Rabanan of Usha perhaps applies only to a person who gives away a large sum of money at once from his estate (as the word 'Mevazbez' implies). Is one permitted, though, to calculate how much he needs for his weekly income (and other needs) and to set aside the rest for Tzedakah, even if that extra amount is more than a fifth? Perhaps in such a situation there is no concern that he will become impoverished and have to beg for food, since he makes sure to leave enough money to support himself. The Chafetz Chayim concludes that in such a case one indeed is permitted to give away more than a fifth of his earnings. 
</p><p>
5. The Chafetz Chayim writes that if a person wants to enter into a 'Yisachar-Zevulun' arrangement by supporting a Talmid Chacham with even more than a fifth of his earnings, he is permitted to do so, as the Gemara implies in a number of places (see, for example, Sotah 21a, and Rashi there, DH Shimon). Similarly, the Shitah Mekubetzes writes that one is permitted to support Bnei Torah with more than a fifth of one's money, as was the conduct of Rebbi Akiva as cited in the Midrash Rabah (Vayikra 34:16) to Parshas Behar.
</p><p>
The Chafetz Chayim explains that a 'Yisachar-Zevulun' agreement is not simply a distribution of Tzedakah; it is a formal business deal whereby one invests his money in the Torah in order to share in the reward of the one learning. That is why one is permitted to make such a deal even with more than a fifth of one's possessions.
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Hamnuna):</font></b> Just like sons inherit only land, also 
          daughters are fed only from land.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (everyone):</font></b> If one died without land, don't his 
          sons inherit (Metaltelim)?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Perhaps Rav Hamnuna refers to 
          Kesuvas Benin Dichrin (an enactment that sons inherit 
          their mother's dowry - 52b).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Hamnuna:</font></b> You are a great Chacham, therefore you 
          understood what I meant.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chiya bar Yosef):</font></b> Rav was <i>Zan</i> from wheat of 
          <i>Aliyah</i> (this will be explained).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Possibility #1:</font></b> 'Zan' refers to Parnasah (dowry). 
          'Aliyah' refers to the estimation of how much the father 
          would have given, like Shmuel;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Shmuel):</font></b> We estimate the father's generosity to 
               determine how much of a dowry to give to his 
               daughters (from his estate after he died).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Possibility #2:</font></b> 'Zan' literally means fed. 'Aliyah' 
          refers to nice teachings said in the attic:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yitzchak bar Yosef):</font></b> In the attic, they enacted 
               that daughters be fed (also) from Metaltelim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  A case occurred in which Shmuel ruled to be Zan orphan 
          girls be fed from Metaltelim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> He literally fed them, like R. Yitzchak bar 
          Yosef's teaching.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, it was Parnasah, like he holds;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Shmuel):</font></b> We estimate the generosity of the father 
               to determine how much of a dowry to give his 
               daughters. (Therefore, we give even from 
               Metaltelim).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  A case occurred in Nehardai; Rav Chana bar Bizni fed the 
          girls from Metaltelim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Nachman:</font></b> Return them, or I will confiscate your 
               houses!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  Rav Ami and Rav Asi planned to feed from Metaltelim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yakov bar Idi:</font></b> Will you do something that R. 
               Yochanan and Reish Lakish did not do?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar planned to feed from Metaltelim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Shimon ben Elyakim:</font></b> Surely you know that this is 
               not the law. You merely want to be merciful. 
               Refrain, lest Talmidim see and establish this to be 
               the Halachah forever!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b></b>  Rav Yosef ruled that daughters be fed from dates on 
          mattresses.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> A creditor would not collect from them 
          (they are Metaltelim)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> I referred to dates ready to be put 
          on mattresses (they are ready to be harvested).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is ready to be harvested is considered to 
          be harvested (i.e. Metaltelim)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> I referred to dates that must remain 
          on the tree a little longer.
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>FEEDING ORPHANED DAUGHTERS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  An orphan and his sister came in front of Rava, who 
          instructed that they give him (from Metaltelim) enough 
          food for both of them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Chachamim:</font></b> You yourself said that food, Kesuvah and 
          Parnasah are collected only from land!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rava:</font></b> (She will serve him to be fed.) If he wanted a 
          slave to serve him, would we not buy one? All the more 
          so, we are also feeding a daughter!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> Both property that can have a lien on 
          it (i.e. land) and property which cannot (Metaltelim) are 
          used to feed a widow and orphan daughters;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Elazar says, from land we take from sons to 
          daughters (for food and dowries), from daughters to 
          daughters (when there are no sons and the older daughters 
          seized the property, we make them divide it equally, and 
          likewise) from sons to sons, and from daughters to sons 
          when there is much property (more than needed to feed the 
          children until they mature);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  We do not take from daughters to sons when there is 
          little property;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  We take Metaltelim from sons to sons, from daughters to 
          daughters, from daughters to sons, but not from sons to 
          daughters.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  Even though we (generally) rule like Rebbi against his 
          colleague, here the Halachah follows R. Shimon ben 
          Elazar;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava):</font></b> Food, Kesuvah and Parnasah are collected 
               only from land.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>EVERY WIFE MUST HAVE A 'KESUVAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a man did not write a Kesuvah to his wife, 
          it is an enactment of Beis Din that a virgin collects 200 
          and a non-virgin collects 100;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If he wrote that she should collect a field worth 100 in 
          place of 200, or did not write that there is a lien on 
          all his property to the Kesuvah, he is obligated (she has 
          a lien and collects 200), by an enactment of Beis Din.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If he (a Yisrael) did not write 'if you will be captured, 
          I will redeem you and return you to be my wife', or if a 
          Kohen did not write 'if you will be captured, I will 
          return you to your land', he is obligated by an enactment 
          of Beis Din.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  If she is captured, he must redeem her. He may not say 
          'Behold, I divorce her. Here is a Get and her Kesuvah, 
          let her redeem herself.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If she gets sick, he must heal her. He may say 
               'Behold that I divorce her; here is a Get and her 
               Kesuvah, let her heal herself.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara):</font></b> The Mishnah is like R. Meir, who says that if 
          her Kesuvah is less than 200 for a virgin or 100 for a 
          non-virgin, Bi'ah with her is considered Znus.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It cannot be R. Yehudah, who permits writing 200 to 
               a virgin or 100 to a widow, and she writes a receipt 
               for him that she received half (even if she received 
               nothing).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Seifa):</font></b> Even if he did not write that there is a lien on 
          all his property, he is obligated.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  This is like R. Yehudah, who says that Acharayos Ta'us 
          Sofer (a loan document puts a lien on land even if it 
          does not say so. We attribute the omission to a mistake 
          of the scribe). R. Meir disagrees;
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE 'TENAI BEIS DIN' OF A KESUVAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that if a person writes a 100-Zuz field for his wife's Kesuvah instead of the 200 Zuz to which she is entitled, or if he does not write in the Kesuvah that all of his property is bound to the Kesuvah, he still must pay the full 200 Zuz, and she may collect from Nechasim Meshubadim (from property which buyers bought from him after the Kesuvah was written), because those elements of the Kesuvah are included in the Tenai Beis Din of a Kesuvah.
</p><p>
The Gemara asserts that the Tana of this Mishnah is Rebbi Yehudah, who maintains that 'Achrayus Ta'us Sofer,' that any Shtar that does not contain mention of Achrayus may still be used to collect from Nechasim Meshubadim, because it is assumed that every Shtar is meant to be used to collect from Meshubadim. If the Achrayus is not written in the Shtar, the scribe who wrote the Shtar simply left out mention of Achrayus by accident.
</p><p>
How can the Gemara assert that our Mishnah follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah? According to Rebbi Yehudah, <i>every</i> Shtar may be used to collect from Meshubadim even if no mention of Achrayus is written in it. Yet our Mishnah says that a Kesuvah may be used to collect from Meshubadim, 'because it is a Tenai Beis Din,' implying that other Shtaros (for which there is no Tenai Beis Din) may <i>not</i> collect from Meshubadim unless they include mention of Meshubadim! (<b>RISHONIM</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RAMBAN</b> answers that when the Mishnah says the words 'because it is a Tenai Beis Din,' it is only explaining the Halachah mentioned at the beginning of the Mishnah: that the woman may collect 200 Zuz even if her husband designated only a 100-Zuz field for the Kesuvah. Those words are <i>not</i> explaining why she may collect from Meshubadim. The Beraisa says (51b) that collection from Meshubadim is <i>not</i> part of the Tenai Beis Din, and that the woman may indeed forgo the right to collect from Meshubadim. Rather, the reason our Mishnah says that she may collect her Kesuvah from Meshubadim is for the same reason one may use any Shtar to collect from Meshubadim -- because 'Achrayus Ta'us Sofer,' like Rebbi Yehudah holds.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b> suggests that when the Mishnah says 'because it is a Tenai Beis Din,' it is not explaining why one may collect from Meshubadim. Rather it is explaining why a Kesuvah should be no different than other Shtaros. We might have thought that a Kesuvah differs from other Shtaros: In other Shtaros, we assume that the omission of Achrayus is simply an error and it is as if Achrayus is indeed written in the Shtar, but in a Kesuvah, perhaps Achrayus must be mentioned explicitly, since we find (see Gitin 49b) that the Rabanan were more lenient on the husband's estate when it comes to collecting the Kesuvah. Therefore, perhaps if there is no explicit mention of Achrayus, she may <i>not</i> collect from the Nechasim Meshubadim of his estate with her Kesuvah.
</p><p>
To counter that argument, the Mishnah says that a Kesuvah also has a quality that gives the woman <i>more</i> power to collect than a regular Shtar -- it is a Tenai Beis Din. This proves that we should not be more lenient with the collection of the Kesuvah, and thus we remain with the Halachah that 'Achrayus Ta'us Sofer' even with regards to a Kesuvah.
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah - R. Meir):</font></b> If one finds a loan document, 
               if it mentions a lien on property, we do not return 
               it, since Beis Din collects (from land that people 
               bought from the borrower) to pay the loan (and we 
               suspect that the loan was already paid);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If the document does not mention a lien, it may be 
               returned, since Beis Din does not collect from it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say, in either case it may not be 
               returned, since Beis Din collects (from sold land).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If the Reisha R. Meir and the Seifa R. 
          Yehudah?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps the whole Mishnah is like R. 
               Meir, and he distinguishes between a Kesuvah and 
               other documents.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> He doesn't distinguish!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Five things are collected only from 
                    free (unsold) property: Peiros of and 
                    improvements made on stolen land; one who 
                    agrees to feed his wife's child; a loan 
                    document or Kesuvah that does not mention a 
                    lien.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> This Beraisa is like R. Meir, who says that a 
                    loan document without a lien does not permit 
                    collecting from sold property, and it says the 
                    same about a Kesuvah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> The entire Mishnah is R. Yehudah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah permits her to write that she received 
               half, but he must write the full amount!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> The entire Mishnah is R. Meir.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> It says that even if he didn't write a lien, he must 
               pay, i.e. from unsold property.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>A MARRIED WOMAN WHO WAS RAPED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel's father):</font></b> If a Yisrael's wife was raped, she is 
          forbidden to her husband. We are concerned lest initially 
          she was forced, but later desired the Bi'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #1 (Rav - Mishnah):</font></b> 'If you are captured... I 
          will return you to be a wife'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Shmuel's father was silent.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav:</font></b> 'The princes held back word, they put a hand to 
               their mouths'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> What could Shmuel's father have answered?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Chachamim were lenient about a captured 
               woman (since it is a Safek whether or not she was 
               raped).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #2:</font></b> The Torah permits a raped woman to her 
          husband (this is brought below). According to Shmuel's 
          father, what is the case?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Witnesses say that she screamed from beginning to 
          end.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  Rava disagrees with Shmuel's father.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava):</font></b> If initially she was forced, even if she 
               later desires, even if she says 'Leave him. If he 
               didn't want to, I would pay him for this', she is 
               permitted (to her husband).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> This is because he put the evil inclination on her 
               (against her will).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (for Rava - Beraisa #1):</font></b> If 'she was not grabbed' 
          she is forbidden. Had she been grabbed, she would be 
          permitted;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> There is another case in which she is permitted even 
               if she was not grabbed, i.e. she was forced in the 
               beginning and desired in the end.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa #2):</font></b> If 'she was not grabbed' she is forbidden. 
          Had she been grabbed, she would be permitted;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> There is another case in which she is forbidden even 
               if she was grabbed, i.e. a Kohen's wife.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah citing R. Yishmael):</font></b> If 'she was not 
          grabbed' she is forbidden. Had she been grabbed, she 
          would be permitted;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> There is another case in which she is permitted even 
               if she was not grabbed, i.e. mistaken Kidushin. Even 
               if her son is on her shoulder, she may do Mi'un (say 
               that she doesn't desire him) and leave him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Women captured by robbers are permitted to 
          their husbands.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Chachamim:</font></b> The women supply the robbers with bread 
               (this shows that they want to be with them)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Yehudah:</font></b> They do so out of fear.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Chachamim:</font></b> But they supply them with arrows!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Yehudah:</font></b> They do so out of fear;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If the robbers allow the women to return to 
                    their husbands and they choose to stay with the 
                    robbers, they are certainly forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa #3):</font></b> A captive of the king is like a captive 
          (she is permitted to her husband if he is a Yisrael). A 
          captive of a robber is not like a captive (she is 
          forbidden to her husband).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Contradiction:</font></b> Another Beraisa (#4) says oppositely!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Beraisa #3 permits a captive of the king, i.e. a 
          king like Achashverosh. (She has no hope that he will 
          marry her, so she is forced.) Beraisa #4 forbids a 
          captive of a king like Ben Netzar (a marauder who 
          conquered cities. Perhaps she hoped that he would marry 
          her and had Bi'ah willingly);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Beraisa #3 forbids a captive of a robber like Ben 
               Netzar. Beraisa #4 permits a captive of a plain 
               robber.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why does Beraisa #3 call Ben Netzar a robber, 
          and Beraisa #4 calls him a king?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Compared to Achashverosh he is only a robber. 
          Compared to regular robbers, he is a king.
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHO MUST BE REDEEMED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A Kohen writes 'If you will be captured, I 
          will return you to your land.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> If a Kohen Gadol married a widow, he must redeem 
          her. We apply to her, or to any Kohen's wife (who becomes 
          forbidden when captured) 'I will return you to your 
          land.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If a Mamzeres or Nesinah was married to a Yisrael, he 
          need not redeem her, since 'I will return you for a wife' 
          does not apply.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> Whenever the captivity caused her to be forbidden 
          to her husband, he must redeem her. If she was forbidden 
          without this (e.g. a widow to a Kohen Gadol), he is 
          exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Tana'im argue like Abaye and Rava:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Eliezer):</font></b> If one forbade his wife 
               through a vow, and she was captured, he redeems her 
               and gives to her a Kesuvah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yehoshua says, he need not redeem her, but must 
               pay a Kesuvah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (R. Nasan):</font></b> Does R. Yehoshua discuss when 
               the vow preceded the captivity, or when it came 
               later?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Sumchus):</font></b> I did not hear, but presumably, 
               the vow came first. If not, he will scheme (he will 
               vow to exempt himself of the obligation to redeem 
               her)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> The Tana'im argue about a Kohen. (R. 
               Eliezer would not obligate a Yisrael to redeem her, 
               since 'I will return you for a wife' does not 
               apply.) Abaye holds like R. Eliezer, and Rava holds 
               like R. Yehoshua.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, (they discuss a Yisrael;) the case is, she 
          forbade herself to him through a vow and he confirmed the 
          vow;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer holds that he is to blame (for confirming 
               it). R. Yehoshua says that she is to blame.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection #1:</font></b> If R. Yehoshua blames her, her husband 
          should not need to pay a Kesuvah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection #2:</font></b> If R. Yehoshua says that she is to blame, 
          why did R. Nasan ask whether the vow preceded the 
          captivity? It makes no difference!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Retraction:</font></b> Rather, he vowed. Abaye and Rava argue 
          according to both Tana'im:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Abaye says that all agree that a Kohen Gadol must 
               redeem a widow, but a Yisrael need not redeem a 
               Mamzeres or Nesinah. A Kohen who vowed must redeem 
               his wife, just like the Kohen Gadol.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  They argue about a Yisrael who vowed. R. 
                    Eliezer goes according to the beginning (when 
                    he wrote the Kesuvah 'I will return you as a 
                    wife' applied). R. Yehoshua goes according to 
                    the end (when she was captured, he could not 
                    return her to be a wife).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rava says that all agree that a Kohen Gadol married 
               to a widow or a Yisrael married to a Mamzeres or 
               Nesinah need not redeem her;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  They argue about a Kohen or Yisrael who vowed. 
                    R. Eliezer goes according to the beginning 
                    (when he wrote the Kesuvah, there was no other 
                    Isur). R. Yehoshua goes according to the end 
                    (without the captivity, she is forbidden due to 
                    the vow).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If she was captured in his lifetime, and he 
          died, the heirs must redeem her only if he had heard that 
          she was captured.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  Levi was ready to rule in a case like this Beraisa.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav citing R. Chiya):</font></b> The Halachah does not follow this 
          Beraisa. Rather, it is like the following Beraisa:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If she was captured after the husband 
               died, or even during his lifetime and he died, the 
               heirs need not redeem her, since 'I will return you 
               to be my wife' does not apply.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>HOW MUCH MUST HE PAY TO REDEEM HER?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If the captors demanded up to 10 times her 
          value, the first time, he must redeem her. After this, it 
          is his choice;
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE HUSBAND'S OBLIGATION TO REDEEM HIS CAPTURED WIFE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Kesuvah of a woman married to a Yisrael obligates the husband to redeem her if she is captured and to take her back as his wife. The Kesuvah of a woman married to a Kohen obligates her husband (the Kohen) to redeem her and send her to her former home, since her captivity makes her Asur to him.
</p><p>
If a Yisrael marries a woman who is prohibited to him, he does not have to redeem her since he cannot fulfill the condition of the Kesuvah to take her back to be his wife. If a Kohen marries a woman who is Asur to him (such as a Kohen Gadol who marries an Almanah), Abaye and Rava argue: Abaye says that he must redeem her because he can still fulfill the condition of the Kesuvah to send her to her former home. Rava says that he does not have to redeem her. He is only obligated to redeem her if her captivity caused her to become Asur to him and send her home, but not if she was Asur to him before she was captured.
</p><p>
The Gemara suggests that this Machlokes between Abaye and Rava is a Machlokes Tana'im. The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which discusses a case in which a man prohibits his wife with a Neder from benefiting from him, and then she is captured. Rebbi Eliezer says that he must redeem her. Rebbi Yehoshua says that he does not have to redeem her. The Gemara explains that the Beraisa is discussing the wife of a Kohen, and Rebbi Eliezer who obligates him to redeem her holds like Abaye, and Rebbi Yehoshua holds like Rava who says that he does not have to redeem her because she is Asur to him in any case, because of the Neder.
</p><p>
The Gemara eventually rejects this explanation and says that the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua revolves around another point entirely. The Beraisa is discussing a case where the woman prohibited herself with a Neder to her husband, and he upheld the Neder and did not annul it. Rebbi Eliezer, who says that he must redeem her, holds that it is <i>his</i> fault that she became Asur through the Neder. Since he caused the Isur, he has no right to refrain from redeeming her. Rebbi Yehoshua argues and holds that <i>she</i> is the one at fault for making the Neder, and therefore the husband does not have to redeem her. According to this explanation of the Gemara for the Machlokes in the Beraisa, which woman is the Beraisa discussing -- the wife of a Kohen, or the wife of a Yisrael?
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH Hacha b'Mai Askinan) explains that the Beraisa is not discussing an Eshes Kohen (the wife of a Kohen) who made herself Asur with a Neder, because that Halachah is not the subject of dispute between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua, but rather it is the point about which Abaye and Rava argue. Rather, says Rashi, the Beraisa is discussing the wife of a Yisrael who made the Neder. Had she been Asur to him for reasons other than the Neder, it would be clear that he would not have had to redeem her. Since the Isur came about through the husband's upholding of the Neder, Rebbi Eliezer says that <i>he</i> is the cause of the Isur and therefore he has no right to exempt himself from redeeming her.
</p><p>
Rashi's words are very difficult to understand. Rashi seems to be saying that the case of the Beraisa is one in which there would be no obligation to redeem her if not for the fact that he caused the Isur. Why, then, does he say that it is only discussing an Eshes Yisrael (the wife of a Yisrael)? According to Rava, it could also be discussing an Eshes Kohen, since there, too, the husband would not have to redeem her had she been prohibited to him with a different type of Isur (like the Gemara eventually concludes when it says that the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua is whether we follow her status at the beginning of the marriage  ('Me'ikara') or at the end ('ba'Sof'), after the Neder was made), and now that the husband caused the Isur, he is obligated to redeem her according to Rebbi Eliezer. But Rashi says that in the case of an Eshes Kohen, even according to Rava, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua <i>agree</i> (that the husband does <i>not</i> have to redeem her, despite the fact that he caused the Isur), and they only argue in the case of an Eshes Yisrael according to both Abaye and Rava! (<b>RAMBAN</b>, <b>MAHARSHA</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>MAHARSHA</b> suggests that there is a printer's error in Rashi. When Rashi says that 'they do not argue about an Eshes Kohen who is Asur because of a Neder,' it should instead read that 'they do not argue about an Eshes Kohen who is Asur because of <i>reasons other than</i> a Neder.' Also, when Rashi repeats himself and says that the argument is about an Eshes Yisrael, he does not mean to <i>limit</i> their argument to an Eshes Yisrael, but he is merely mentioning Eshes Yisrael as an example of what the Tana'im argue about, since both Abaye and Rava agree that the Tana'im argue in that case. In truth, though, according to Rava the Tana'im will argue also in a case of Eshes Kohen. 
</p><p>
The Maharsha's explanation is rather forced. Moreover, all the Rishonim cite Rashi's text as it appears in our Gemara and do not emend his words.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> answers that when Rashi says that the Tana'im do not argue in the case of an Eshes Kohen, he means that they do not argue <i>exclusively</i> in the case of an Eshes Kohen, but rather they argue both in the case of Eshes Kohen according to Rava, and in the case of Eshes Yisrael according to both Abaye and Rava. Rashi mentions this to contrast the Gemara's original assumption that they argue exclusively in the case of Eshes Kohen. When Rashi says that they argue in the case of Eshes Yisrael, he means that they argue <i>even</i> in the case of Eshes Yisrael.
</p><p>
This approach is also very forced in the words of Rashi. Rashi says that in the case of Eshes Kohen, Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua <i>agree</i> (either to the view of Abaye or to the view of Rava). Rashi is not just saying that they argue in the case of Eshes Yisrael in addition to the case of Eshes Kohen!
</p><p>
(c) Rashi might be trying to answer a question posed by all of the Rishonim on the Sugya. The Rishonim ask that in the Gemara's original assumption, when it thought that Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua were discussing a man who prohibited his wife with a Neder from deriving benefit from him, the Gemara was satisfied to equate the Isur of Neder with every other type of Isur with which the woman could be Asur to her husband. The Gemara did not accept the possibility that in this case, since <i>he</i> created the Isur, we should be more stringent with him and force him to redeem his wife. 
</p><p>
However, when the Gemara answers that the case of the Beraisa is where the <i>woman</i> made the Neder and the husband upheld it, the Gemara suddenly assumes that if he is at fault, then all Tana'im agree that he <i>is</i> obligated to redeem her, even in the case of an Eshes Yisrael. Why does the Gemara switch, in its assumptions, from one extreme to the other? It should have suggested that the case in the Beraisa is a case where the husband made a Neder to prohibit his wife, in which case Rebbi Eliezer obligates the husband to redeem her because of the newly suggested reasoning that 'he caused the Isur,' whereas Rebbi Yehoshua exempts him because he reasons like the Gemara held all along, that the Isur of Neder is the same as every other Isur (and the fact that it is his fault is irrelevant)! (Various answers to this question are offered by the Rishonim: See Ramban, and the Ba'al ha'Me'or cited by the Re'ah -- see also Pnei Yehoshua.) 
</p><p>
Rashi is answering that even in its initial assumption, the Gemara originally knew that if the husband causes the Isur, the obligation to redeem her remains, since it is he who is causing the stipulation in the Kesuvah to be unfulfillable by making her unable to marry him after the redemption. The Gemara holds, though, as the <b>RITVA</b> suggests, that this logic can only be applied in the case of an Eshes Yisrael, where the Kesuvah links the obligation to redeem her to taking her back as a wife. In the case of an Eshes Kohen, though, the Kesuvah does not link the two; on the contrary, it says that he redeems her and then sends her to her former home. It is true that according to Rava, if she is Asur to the Kohen for an external reason (other than her captivity), then the Rabanan did not institute the obligation to redeem her. However, that is not part of the stipulation of redeeming that is described in the Kesuvah. 
</p><p>
Therefore, if a Kohen husband prohibits his wife to him with a Neder before she is captured, he has <i>not</i> abused the condition in the Kesuvah (by actively causing the stipulation in the Kesuvah to be unfulfillable). He will not be obligated to redeem her, not because he made the condition unfulfillable, but because she is simply Asur to be married to him; the Rabanan did not institute the obligation to redeem the wife under such circumstances. If she has already been captured and then he makes the Neder, then he is clearly trying to free himself from the obligation. But if she has not yet been captured, we do not view his act of prohibiting her as an attempt to take advantage of a loophole in the Kesuvah so that he should not have to redeem her if she is captured. Hence, since the Gemara originally thought that the Beraisa was discussing an Eshes Kohen, it thought that it makes no difference if he caused the Isur -- he is not being Mevatel the Tenai in the Kesuvah! 
</p><p>
When the Gemara switches tracks and says that the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua involves whose fault is the Isur, it must be discussing an Eshes Yisrael, whereby if the man is at fault, it makes a difference since he is actively making the condition in the Kesuvah unfulfillable and thus will have to redeem his wife. This explains why Rashi says that according to this conclusion of the Gemara -- that the Machlokes is whether he or she has caused the Isur and made the condition of the Kesuvah unfulfillable -- the case in the Beraisa cannot be that of an Eshes Kohen but will have to be an Eshes Yisrael, according to both Abaye and Rava. (M. Kornfeld -- see also <b>HAFLA'AH</b>.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, we do not redeem captives for 
          more than their value (to be sold for slaves). This is an 
          enactment to fix the world (lest we encourage captors to 
          ask for exorbitant amounts);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> Up to her value we redeem, even if it exceeds 
          her Kesuvah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Contradiction (Beraisa):</font></b> If the captors demanded up to 10 
          times her value, the first time, he must redeem her. 
          After this, it is his choice;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if her redemption does 
               not exceed her Kesuvah, he must redeem her. If it is 
               more, he is exempt.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel is lenient both ways. (One 
          need not pay more than her value, nor more than her 
          Kesuvah.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>HEALING HER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If she gets sick, he must heal her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> A widow is fed from the orphans. Medical 
          expenses are like food;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, medical expenses with a limit 
          are taken from her Kesuvah. If there is no limit, they 
          are like food.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> In Eretz Yisrael, bloodletting is 
          considered to be unlimited.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan's relatives lost their father; the widow had 
          daily medical expenses. He advised them to get a doctor 
          to fix a price to treat her permanently (so it will be 
          deducted from the Kesuvah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yochanan:</font></b> I acted like a lawyer (which is wrong - 
               Avos 1:8).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why did he initially advise them, and later 
          regret it?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Initially, he thought that he should fulfill 'Do 
          not hide from your flesh (kin).' Later, he thought that 
          an important person should not do so (his counsel hurt 
          the widow).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'KESUVAH' PASSES TO HER SONS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The following enactments of Beis Din apply, 
          even if they were not written in the Kesuvah:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'Your sons from me will inherit the money of your 
               Kesuvah together will their portion with their 
               brothers (from other wives)';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> 'Your daughters from me will live in my house and be 
               fed from my property until they get married';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> 'You will live in my house and be fed from my 
               property all the days of your widowhood in my 
               house.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> People in Yerushalayim and Galil wrote this. In 
               Yehudah, they wrote '...until the heirs want to pay 
               your Kesuvah.' Therefore, if they wanted they could 
               pay her Kesuvah and end her privileges.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - R. Yochanan):</font></b> Chachamim enacted 'Kesuvas Benin 
          Dichrin' (that sons inherit their mother's Kesuvah) to 
          encourage men to give property to their daughters, like 
          to their sons. (Amram is hesitant to give a dowry to his 
          daughter (Miryam), lest she die before her husband 
          (Kalev), and part or most of the dowry will be inherited 
          by Kalev's sons from other wives.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Torah says that a son inherits and not a 
          daughter. Would Chachamim enact (to encourage fathers to 
          give) as if a daughter inherits?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Torah says that a man should give to his 
          daughter - 'Take wives for your sons and give your 
          daughters to men';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Granted, it is normal for a man to seek a 
               girl (for himself or for his son). But it is not 
               normal (for a woman, or a man on behalf of his 
               daughter) to seek a man!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> The verse teaches that one should give to 
               daughters clothing and property so men will want to 
               marry them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How much should he give?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye and Rava):</font></b> He should give up to a tenth of 
          his property.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> (If the enactment was to encourage dowries,) it 
          should apply to only to the dowry that her father (Amram) 
          gave, but not to what the husband (Kalev) pays! (The Ikar 
          Kesuvah of 100 or 200 should be inherited by all his 
          sons.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If her sons would not (exclusively) inherit also 
          from her husband, Amram would not want to give.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We should say that her sons exclusively inherit 
          what the husband pays only when Amram gave a dowry!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Chachamim made a uniform decree.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If Miryam has a daughter but no sons, her 
          daughter should inherit the Kesuvah, even when Kalev has 
          sons from other wives!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Chachamim made their enactment like an 
          inheritance (daughters do not inherit when there are 
          sons).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> When Kalev has only daughters, Miryam's 
          daughter should (exclusively) inherit her mother's 
          Kesuvah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Chachamim made a uniform decree.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> It should be collected from Metaltelim as well!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Chachamim made the enactment like a Kesuvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Miryam should be able to seize (on behalf of 
          her sons) property that Kalev sold!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Mishnah says 'they <i>inherit'</i> (heirs do not 
          receive property that was sold).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The enactment should apply even if Kalev does 
          not leave more property than his wives' Kesuvos!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(t)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Chachamim did not enact in a case where 
          inheritance mid'Oraisa will be uprooted.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) HALACHAH: 'KESUVAS BENIN DICHRIN' TODAY</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> We see from the Mishnah that the text of the Kesuvah once included the 'Kesuvas Benin Dichrin,' a clause promising to the wife's children her entire Kesuvah and Nedunya that she brought into the marriage, in addition to a portion of the rest of the possessions of the father (shared with the father's children from other wives). This applies even when a man may not marry two wives at the same time, in a case where a man marries a second wife after the first one dies (or is divorced). Nowadays, this clause is not written in our Kesuvos. Why not? 
</p><p>
The <b>ROSH</b> (4:24) discusses at length whether the Kesuvas Benin Dichrin applies today. He cites a number of different opinions.
</p><p>
(a) The <b>GE'ONIM</b> cited by the <b>ITUR</b> rule that the Kesuvas Benin Dichrin is not practiced today. The reason it was instituted was in order to encourage a person to give a proper Nedunya to his daughter like he gives to his son. Today, though, people give such large Nedunyos to their daughters when they get married (to the extent that they give <i>too</i> much) that there is no longer any need for an enactment to ensure that they give to their daughters.
</p><p>
In addition, the Kesuvas Benin Dichrin is only practiced when there remains at least a Dinar in the estate of the father aside from the money of the Kesuvas Benin Dichrin. This is because the Torah law of inheritance must be fulfilled (by splitting the Dinar and giving it to the man's heirs) before the enactment of the Rabanan is executed. In order to assess whether or not there is a Dinar in his estate aside from the money of the Kesuvas Benin Dichrin, it is necessary to appraise in court the possessions of the deceased according to their true value without unfairly inflating their value to make it look like there is a Dinar so that the children may take their mothers' Kesuvos. Today, though, we cannot rely on getting an accurate estimate of the value of the possessions.
</p><p>
(b) The Rosh cites <b>RAV HAI GA'ON</b> and the <b>MAHARAM</b> who do not accept this argument, because it is not legitimate grounds for annulling an established enactment of the Rabanan like Kesuvas Benin Dichrin.
</p><p>
Nevertheless, some Rishonim accept the arguments of the Ge'onim at least partially. The Gemara (51a) states that the Kesuvah, along with Kesuvas Benin Dichrin and the other stipulations in the Kesuvah, may be collected only from land (Karka) and not from chattel (Metaltelin). However, at a later period, the Ge'onim instituted that a Kesuvah <i>may</i> be collected from Metaltelin (see <b>RIF</b>, p. 18b, #243, and end of 30b, #305). If so, the Kesuvas Benin Dichrin should also be collectible from Metaltelin and not just from Karka.
</p><p>
However, many Rishonim write that because of the arguments of the Ge'onim we should limit the Kesuvas Benin Dichrin as much as possible. Even though we allow it to be collected, it should be collected only from Karka and not from Metaltelin today (like the original Takanah). (<b>ITUR</b>, <b>RAV MEIR HA'LEVI</b>, <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Ishus 16:7), and <b>RABEINU YONAH</b> cited by the Rosh)
</p><p>
(c) However, <b>TOSFOS</b> (52b, DH v'Tigbah) writes that Kesuvas Benin Dichrin is a Tenai Kesuvah and therefore it may be collected from Metaltelin nowadays, just like the Kesuvah may be collected from Metaltelin after the enactment of the Ge'onim. This is also the ruling of the <b>RITZBA</b> cited by the Rosh and the <b>ME'IRI</b>.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (EH 111:14) quotes the latter two opinions, that the Kesuvas Benin Dichrin may be collected either from Karka only, or even from Metaltelin.
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>PRESSURE ON THE FATHER TO GIVE A DOWRY</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Rav Papa was marrying off his son to a daughter of Aba 
          Sura'ah. He went to Aba Sura'ah's house to write the 
          Kesuvah. (Presumably, Aba Sura'ah would likewise give to 
          his daughter.) Yehudah bar Meremar accompanied Rav Papa, 
          and showed that he did not want to enter the house.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Papa:</font></b> Perhaps you do not want to enter due to 
          Shmuel's opinion?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shmuel (to Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Do not take part in 
               transferring inheritance, even from a bad son to a 
               good son. Perhaps the bad son will have good 
               offspring!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> All the more so, one should not transfer 
               from a son to a daughter!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection (Rav Papa):</font></b> Chachamim decreed to encourage 
          dowries, like R. Yochanan taught above!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Yehudah:</font></b> That is when the father wants to give. He should 
          not be coerced!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Papa:</font></b> I do not ask you to coerce him, merely to 
          enter!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Yehudah bar Meremar:</font></b> My entering is like coercing (he 
          will give more, to honor me)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Papa coerced Yehudah to enter. Yehudah sat 
               silently. Aba Sura'ah thought 'he is angry because I 
               am not giving enough.' He wrote all his property to 
               his daughter.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Aba Sura'ah:</font></b> You still won't speak?! I swear that I 
          didn't leave anything for myself!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Yehudah:</font></b> I disapproved of giving even the first amount!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Aba Sura'ah:</font></b> If so, I will retract!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Yehudah:</font></b> I do not counsel you to be a retractor.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN ARE PRIVILEGES OF THE 'KESUVAH' FORFEITED?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Yemar):</font></b> If a woman sold her Kesuvah to her 
          husband, does she still have Kesuvas Benin Dichrin?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rava:</font></b> You should ask about if she pardoned the 
               Kesuvah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Yemar:</font></b> I asked about one who sold her Kesuvah, 
               even though she was forced (by the need for money) 
               as if she was beaten 100 times. All the more so, if 
               she pardoned it (I ask whether or not she forfeits 
               Kesuvas Benin Dichrin)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> Clearly, if she sells the Kesuvah to others, she 
          retains Kesuvas Benin Dichrin. Financial pressure forced 
          her;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If she pardons the Kesuvah to her husband, clearly she 
          loses Kesuvas Benin Dichrin. She pardoned it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> If she sold the Kesuvah to her husband, 
          what is the law?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Is this like selling it to others, or like pardoning 
               to her husband?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> It is like selling to others.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Idi bar Avin - Mishnah):</font></b> If a woman (who 
          remarried based on a witness who (falsely) testified that 
          her husband died) died, her heirs from both husbands do 
          not inherit her Kesuvah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> But the Mishnah already said that she 
               receives no Kesuvah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> Her heirs do not receive Kesuvas 
               Benin Dichrin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Summation of question:</font></b> According to Rava's 
               reasoning, they should receive it. Her desire to 
               remarry is like being forced!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> There, Chachamim fined her. (Chachamim were 
          lenient to let her remarry through one witness, relying 
          on her to first verify that her husband truly died.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ravin bar Chanina citing R. Elazar):</font></b> One who pardons her 
          Kesuvah to her husband is not fed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Chisda:</font></b> Had you not said that in the name of a 
               great Chacham, I would apply 'One who repays evil 
               for good, evil will not depart from his home' (and 
               she should be fed).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  An Arusah died. Rav Nachman, Ula and Avimi ruled that the 
          Arus must bury her or pay her Kesuvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Chiya bar Ami - Mishnah):</font></b> If an Arus or 
          Arusah died, the law of an Onen (one who lost a relative, 
          before the burial) does not apply to the spouse, and the 
          spouse does not become Tamei by engaging in the burial;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If she died, he does not inherit her. If he died, 
               she collects a Kesuvah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> When she dies, there is no Kesuvah. (I.e. 
               we do not obligate him to bury her in exchange for 
               inheriting her Kesuvah, like we said about a Nesu'ah 
               - 47b, 3:b.)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Hoshaya):</font></b> This is because 'When you will (be 
               allowed to) marry another, you will receive what I 
               wrote to you' does not apply.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> (Since the Arus did not inherit anything from her, 
               he need not bury her!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ravin):</font></b> An Arusah who died does not receive a Kesuvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Abaye:</font></b> We already learned this from R. Hoshaya!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) GIVING A DOWRY</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> When Rav Papa invited Rav Yehudah bar Mereimar to accompany him to the negotiations for the Nedunya for his son, Rav Yehudah declined. Rav Papa prodded him to come, telling him not to think that it is prohibited to give a Nedunya to one's daughter for one thereby causes that money to be taken away from the inheritance of the sons. On the contrary -- the Rabanan instituted that one should give a Nedunya to his daughter, as we find that Rebbi Yochanan said in the name of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai that the Rabanan instituted the 'Kesuvas Benin Dichrin' -- that the Kesuvah of the mother goes to her children after her death -- in order to persuade a man to write a large Nedunya for his daughter.
</p><p>
Why did Rav Papa mention the Takanah d'Rabanan of 'Kesuvas Benin Dichrin' as proof that one may give his daughter a Nedunya? The Gemara earlier (52b) points out that it has a source in the Torah! The prophet tells the Jewish people, after the Churban, that Hash-m wants them to acquire husbands for their daughters, as the verse says, 'One should acquire husbands for his daughters [by giving them a large Nedunya]' (Yirmeyahu 29:6). Why, then, did Rav Papa quote Rebbi Yochanan's statement about the Takanah d'Rabanan? He should have quoted the verse which teaches that one should give a Nedunya to one's daughter! (<b>MAHARSHA</b>, <b>MITZPEH EISAN</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> Rav Papa perhaps wanted to prove that not only is it permissible to give a Nedunya to one's daughters, but that it is a Mitzvah to give a Nedunya to one's daughters, even when one does not need to do so in order to find a Shiduch for her. Rav Papa was the father of the groom and had already decided to give his son in marriage to his wife's sister. The Nedunya, then, was not necessary to persuade Rav Papa's family to agree to the Shiduch. From the verse we do not see that one should give a Nedunya under such circumstances. The Rabanan, though, instituted that there should always be a respectable Nedunya. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) REDIRECTING ONE'S INHERITANCE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara mentions Shmuel's teaching that it is improper for a person to give all of his possessions to one child and not let it be split equally among all of his children, even if one of his children is 'bad.' Why, then, did Avraham Avinu, in his lifetime, give all of his possessions to Yitzchak (Bereishis 25:5-6)? He left nothing for Yishmael and left only gifts to the children of his Pilagshim before sending them away!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) Yitzchak's situation was different, because Avraham was told in a prophecy that the only child that would be considered his descendant would be Yitzchak. (<b>KLI YAKAR</b> -- the <b>RAMBAN</b> also hints to this answer in Bereishis 25:6; see also <b>MAHARSHA</b> to Sanhedrin 91a.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>DA'AS ZEKEINIM</b> (end of Parshas Chayei Sarah) writes that Yishmael was not considered a rightful heir of Avraham because Yishmael was Megayer after his birth, and a 'Ger she'Nisgayer k'Katan she'Nolad Dami.' Thus he was not Halachically related to Avraham.
</p><p>
As far as the children of the Pilagshim were concerned, those children were only born after Avraham Avinu had already given away everything to Yitzchak. He already gave his possessions to Yitzchak at the time that he married Rivka, as we see in the verse (Bereishis 24:36).
</p><p>
(c) <b>RAV ELYASHIV</b> (in He'oros b'Maseches Kesuvos) answers that we see from our Sugya that it is permissible to give a gift to one's daughter, even though it will then not be split among the sons, because there is a purpose to it -- it will help the girl get married. Accordingly, since Avraham Avinu gave all of his money to Yitzchak in order for Eliezer to be able to find him a proper wife, it had a purpose and it was certainly permitted to give all of his possessions to Yitzchak.
</p><p>
(d) <b>RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN</b> zt'l (<b>IGROS MOSHE</b>, Choshen Mishpat II:50) writes that when the Gemara says that one should not take away one's possessions from one son and give it to another son, even from a bad son to a good son, it is only referring to a bad son who is slightly disrespectful towards the Torah, or a son who has bad character traits. If, however, the child is a heretic and desecrates Shabbos and is raising his children in his evil ways, then certainly a person is permitted to give his possessions to the son who observes the Mitzvos, and doing so is commendable. One does not have to take into account that perhaps his grandchildren from the other son will do Teshuvah, since it is unlikely and uncommon. 
</p><p>
The <b>TCHEBINER REBBE</b> (in <b>DOVEV MESHARIM</b> 1:97) uses this to explain why Avraham Avinu gave all of his possessions to Yitzchak. The other children were clearly not going to grow up to be Shomer Mitzvos and their children would not be part of the Jewish people.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) WHY A WOMAN SHOULD LOSE THE 'KESUVAS BENIN DICHRIN'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses whether a woman who forgoes her Kesuvah to her husband also loses the Kesuvas Benin Dichrin if she dies before her husband dies. The Gemara asks that perhaps she loses it because she belittled the Kesuvah by forgoing it.
</p><p>
Why should the woman's Mechilah of the Kesuvah cause her to lose the Kesuvas Benin Dichrin? The Mishnah (54b) tells us that a man is not allowed to remain with his wife if there is no Kesuvah, even when the woman was Mochel the Kesuvah or lost it (57a), and a new Kesuvah must be written in order for them to be permitted to continue living together. Consequently, since they must rewrite the Kesuvah, she should get the Kesuvas Benin Dichrin from the new, re-written Kesuvah!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RIF</b> (Teshuvah #42) cited by the <b>RITVA</b> explains that the Gemara means that she was Mochel the Kesuvah immediately before she died, and no new Kesuvah was written. 
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RASHBA</b> understands the Rif differently. He says that the Rif's answer is that she was Mochel her rights to the Kesuvah in the event of her husband's death, but she was not Mochel her rights to the Kesuvah in the event of divorce. Since the only reason a man's wife must have a Kesuvah is so that she not feel that the husband can divorce her at whim, here there is no need to write a new Kesuvah after her Mechilah, because the original Kesuvah remains in force as far as divorce is concerned. Therefore they are allowed to remain together.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RASHBA</b>, <b>RA'AVAD</b> (cited by the Rashba), <b>RITVA</b> and others answer that the Gemara's case is where she forgoes the Kesuvah and she writes a new Kesuvah, but she does not include in the new Kesuvah the Kesuvas Benin Dichrin. Since she belittled the Kesuvas Benin Dichrin by being Mochel the first Kesuvah which contained it, she is not entitled to the Kesuvas Benin Dichrin when she writes the Kesuvah anew.
</p><p>
The Rif, who does not accept this answer, might have learned that she only loses the Kesuvas Benin Dichrin as a penalty for belittling the Kesuvah itself (by expressing a desire to remain with her husband without a Kesuvah), and not just for belittling the Kesuvas Benin Dichrin. If she is only Mochel the Kesuvas Benin Dichrin, but she still keeps a Kesuvah, then she still gets the Kesuvas Benin Dichrin.
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>HOW LONG ARE ORPHAN GIRLS FED?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Daughters you will have from me (will be 
          fed)...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> The Mishnah reads 'until they are taken by men';
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Levi):</font></b> It reads 'until Bagrus (6 months after Na'arus)'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Does Rav really say that she is fed after 
          Bagrus? Does Levi really say that she is fed after 
          marriage?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Clarification:</font></b> Both agree that she is not fed after 
          Bagrus <i>or</i> Nisu'in. They argue about after Kidushin but 
          before Bagrus.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  Levi taught in his version of the Mishnah 'until Bagrus 
          and the time for Nisu'in comes.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Does she eat until both come?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, he taught 'until Bagrus <i>or</i> the time 
          for Nisu'in.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  Tana'im argue as Rav and Levi do:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> Girls are fed until Kidushin;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Elazar says, They are fed until Bagrus.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yosef - Beraisa):</font></b> (They are fed) until they will be 
          (married) to men.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Does this mean until Kidushin, or until 
          Nisu'in?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  This question is unresolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Chisda to Rav Yosef):</font></b> Did you hear Rav 
          Yehudah's opinion about whether or not an Arus is fed?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 - Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> I did not hear, but 
          presumably she is not fed;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Since she is Mekudeshes, her husband does not want 
               her to be disgraced (by having to beg. Since he will 
               feed her, she is not fed from her father's estate).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rav Chisda):</font></b> Logically, she should be fed! Her 
          husband is unsure whether or not she has a Mum (a blemish 
          that would invalidate the marriage), so he will not 
          freely throw away his money (to feed her. Therefore, she 
          is fed from her father's estate.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 - Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> I didn't hear, but 
          presumably, she is fed. Her husband is unsure whether or 
          not she has a Mum, so he will not feed her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rav Chisda):</font></b> Just the opposite! Since she is 
          Mekudeshes, her husband does not want her to be 
          disgraced.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHICH GIRLS ARE FED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If a girl did Mi'un, is she fed?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Sheshes - Beraisa):</font></b> A widow, divorcee or 
          Yevamah in her father's house is fed;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehudah says, she is fed only if she is still in 
               her father's house.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> The first Tana said the same!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, they argue about a Mema'enes. The 
               first Tana says that she is fed; R. Yehudah says 
               that she is not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Reish Lakish):</font></b> Is the daughter of a Yevamah 
          from her Yavam fed after the Yavam dies?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Since we learned that she collects her Kesuvah from 
               the property of her first husband, she is not fed 
               (he obligated himself to feed only his own 
               daughters);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, since if there is not property from the first 
               husband the Yavam writes her a Kesuvah from his own 
               property, she is fed!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  The question is unresolved.
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHICH DAUGHTERS ARE FED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Elazar):</font></b> Is the daughter of a Sheniyah (a 
          relative forbidden mid'Rabanan) fed (after the husband 
          dies)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Since a Sheniyah has no Kesuvah (she has no 
               provisions of the Kesuvah), her daughter is not fed;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps Chachamim fined only the mother, who 
               sinned, but not her daughter!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  The question is unresolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> Is the daughter of his Arusah fed (after 
          he dies)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Since an Arusah has a Kesuvah, her daughter is fed;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, since she has no Kesuvah until Nisu'in, her 
               daughter is not fed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  This question is unresolved.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Papa):</font></b> If a man raped Dinah (and married 
          her), is her daughter fed after he dies?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> According to R. Yosi bar Yehudah, clearly she is 
               fed. He says that Dinah has a Kesuvah of 100;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The question is according to Chachamim, who say that 
               the fine is in place of her Kesuvah.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Since she has no Kesuvah, the daughter is not 
                    fed;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Or, we say that she lacks only Ikar Kesuvah, 
                    which is so it will not be light in her 
                    husband's eyes to divorce her. This does not 
                    apply to a rapist, who cannot divorce her (but 
                    all other provisions of the Kesuvah do apply).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  This question is unresolved.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE WIDOW LIVES IN HIS HOUSE AND IS FED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> 'You will sit in my house...'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yosef - Beraisa):</font></b> In my house - not in my shack (if 
          the husband did not leave a proper house, just a shack, 
          she has no privilege to stay in it); she is fed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mar bar Rav Ashi):</font></b> In such a case, she is not even fed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Halachah does not follow Mar bar Rav Ashi.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Nachman citing Shmuel):</font></b> If they asked to marry her 
          and she agreed she is not fed (she is no longer in 'the 
          days of widowhood').
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If she did not agree, is she fed (in any 
          case)?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Anan citing Shmuel):</font></b> If she refused due to 
          her deceased husband, she is fed. If she refused because 
          the suitor was not fitting, she is not fed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> If she had Znus, she is not fed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> If she colored her eyes and beautified 
          herself, she is not fed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Chisda, who says that she is not fed if she had 
               Znus, certainly agrees that she is not fed if she 
               colored her eyes.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rav Yosef, who said that she is not fed if she 
               colored her eyes, would say that she is fed if she 
               had Znus.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  This is because her evil inclination forced 
                    her. (She does not seek to remarry.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  The Halachah does not follow any of these teachings 
          (Tosfos - except for Shmuel's). Rather, it is like Rav 
          Yehudah:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> If she demanded to be paid her 
               Kesuvah in Beis Din, she is not fed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Beraisa):</font></b> If she sold her Kesuvah, used it 
               for collateral or designated that it will be used to 
               pay a loan, she is not fed.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  For these, she forfeits being fed, but not for 
                    demanding payment!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> For these, whether or not she did them in 
               Beis Din she forfeits being fed. She forfeits food 
               for demanding payment only in Beis Din.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> People in Yerushalayim and Galil wrote this...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> The Halachah follows the people of Yehudah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> The Halachah follows the people of Galil.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Bavel and its nearby cities conduct like Rav. 
               Nehardai and its nearby cities conduct like Shmuel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  A woman from Mechuza married a man from Nehardai. She 
          came to Rav Nachman, who could tell from her voice that 
          she was from Mechuza (which is near Bavel). He judged her 
          case like Rav.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Chachamim:</font></b> But she married a man from Nehardai!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Nachman:</font></b> If so, we judge her case like Shmuel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> How far does Nehardai extend (for this law)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is as far as the Kav (a measure) of Nehardai 
          is used.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>IS A WIDOW'S CLOTHING COUNTED TOWARDS THE 'KESUVAH'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> We evaluate the clothing a widow is wearing (it is 
          considered partial payment of her Kesuvah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Shmuel):</font></b> It is not deducted from her Kesuvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chiya bar Avin):</font></b> They hold oppositely regarding a 
          worker who lives by his employer (whether or not clothing 
          he is wearing (that his employer bought for him) is 
          deducted from his wages.).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Nachman):</font></b> They argue similarly regarding a hired 
          worker;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav gave a Siman to remember his opinion - a widow 
               and a worker, strip them and send them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Even though a Mishnah supports Shmuel, the 
          Halachah follows Rav.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If one made his property Hekdesh, or 
               pledged his Erech value to Hekdesh, the Gizbar 
               (treasurer of Hekdesh) does not collect from his 
               wife's or children's clothing, nor from clothing he 
               dyed for them, nor from new sandals he bought for 
               them.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava):</font></b> Since the Mishnah supports Shmuel, why 
          is the law as Rav?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> The Mishnah appears to support 
          Shmuel. When you look deeper, you find that it does not;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Gizbar not collect from her clothing, because 
               the husband gave it to her to wear in front of him 
               (i.e. during the marriage);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> He did not give it to her to leave with it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  The daughter-in-law of Bar Elyashiv's house wanted to be 
          paid her Kesuvah. She was taking the orphans to Beis Din.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Orphans:</font></b> It is a disgrace to us for you to appear like 
          this in Beis Din!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> She put on all her ornaments and came to Beis Din.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Ravina):</font></b> The Halachah follows Rav. We evaluate what 
               she is wearing.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHO PROFITS FROM A CHANGE IN PRICE?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  A dying man said that his daughter should receive a dowry 
          of (standard) garments. The price went down.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chiya bar Avin):</font></b> The orphans profit. (We do not give 
          to her the amount they would have cost when he commanded 
          to give them.)
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE 'TOSEFES' OF A KESUVAH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that a person may add additional money to the Kesuvah of his wife, even if the additional amount is many times more than the base value of the Kesuvah. The Gemara asks why the Mishnah has to tell us this. After all, why should a man not be permitted to give a gift to his wife? The Gemara answers that we might have thought that the Rabanan put an upper limit to the amount one may write in the Kesuvah 'in order not to embarrass he who does not have [money].'
</p><p>
Why would we have thought that the Rabanan prohibited adding to a Kesuvah for that reason? The extra amount, the Tosefes, that the husband adds to the Kesuvah is a gift that he gives to his wife. The Rabanan never put an upper limit to other gifts, such as the gift that a man gives to his son-in-law as a Nedunya, or a gift that a person gives as Tzedakah to a poor person, out of concern that it will embarrass others who cannot give as much. Why, then, should we think that the Rabanan prohibited giving a large gift to one's wife in the Kesuvah because others might be embarrassed? (<b>RISHONIM</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>RITVA</b> in the name of the <b>GE'ONIM</b> explain that the Gemara is not explaining why we might have thought that it is prohibited to write a Tosefes into the Kesuvah apart from the 100 or 200 Zuz of the Kesuvah. Rather, the Gemara is explaining why we might have thought that it is prohibited to <i>include</i> the Tosefes and the base amount of the Kesuvah in one large sum without distinguishing between the two parts. We might have thought that this is prohibited not because other husbands will be embarrassed because they cannot give so much, but because other <i>wives</i> will be embarrassed if the sum of their Kesuvah is less than that of their neighbor's. The smaller sum in the Kesuvah might make a woman feel less special, just like an Almanah receives a smaller Kesuvah because her marriage is indeed less special than that of a Besulah. The Mishnah teaches that we are not concerned for that, and it is indeed permitted to include the Kesuvah and the Tosefes together in one large sum.
</p><p>
According to this explanation, however, why does the Gemara say that we might have thought that it is prohibited to add an extra amount to the Kesuvah 'in order not to embarrass <i>he</i> who does not have (Mi she'Ein <i>Lo</i>)?' It should have said, '... in order not to embarrass <i>she</i> who does not have (Mi she'Ein <i>Lah</i>)!' The <b>RAMBAN</b> answers that the Gemara is referring to the father of the Kalah, and it means that we do not want to embarrass the father who could not afford to write a large Nedunya to his son-in-law, and therefore he and his daughter were left in return with a minimal Tosefes from the son-in-law.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>MORDECHAI</b> (Kesuvos 12b, #136) disagrees with this, based on Halachic grounds. He points out that the Mishnah (12a) tells us that the Chachamim permitted a Kohenes (a daughter of a Kohen) to take a larger Kesuvah than that of Bas Yisrael. The Gemara adds that the same is true for families known to be of pure lineage. This implies that only such families are permitted to add to the amount in the Kesuvah, but not anyone else. How is that Mishnah and Gemara to be reconciled with our Mishnah that says that anyone may add to the Kesuvah? It must be that the Mishnah there permits lumping together the Kesuvah along with the additional sum, and writing a single large sum, only for those particular families. Our Mishnah permits adding a Tosefes to the Kesuvah and expressing it as a <i>second</i> sum, apart from the sum of the Kesuvah itself. The <b>PISKEI RID</b> (54b) rules similarly.
</p><p>
According to the Mordechai, though, our original question returns. Why would we have thought that adding a Tosefes should be prohibited because it is embarrassing to others who cannot add so much? 
</p><p>
The answer might be as follows. Since the Kesuvah is a publicly known document and every man has to write a Kesuvah for his wife, there is more reason to be concerned that one who cannot add to the Kesuvah will be embarrassed. Other gifts are not publicly known. When it comes to the Nedunya, even though it is written into the Kesuvah and is known publicly, someone who cannot give so much for the Nedunya will not be embarrassed because the Nedunya is only given to attract a Shiduch. If someone gives a smaller Nedunya, he will not be embarrassed; on the contrary, a smaller Nedunya shows that the woman is so desirable that the father does not need to give a large Nedunya in order to marry her off.
</p><p>
How will the Ramban and other Rishonim answer the question from the Mishnah earlier (12a), which implies that only certain families are allowed to add to the Kesuvah?
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> (12b, DH Beis Din) explains that the Kohanim would write in the Kesuvah not just that they are giving a Kesuvah of 400 Zuz, but that they are giving a Kesuvah of 400 Zuz 'as she deserves' ('d'Chazu Leichi'). We might have thought that this is prohibited because the Kesuvah that she deserves is only 200 Zuz and the rest is the Tosefes. The Mishnah therefore teaches that for such unique families, they indeed deserve a larger Kesuvah. 
</p><p>
Tosfos seems to be answering the Mordechai's question. Our Mishnah permits adding extra money to the Kesuvah in a single, large sum without writing 'as she deserves.' The additional money is purely a gift from the husband and is not something that the woman 'deserves' to have as her Kesuvah. If the words 'as she deserves' were written in the Kesuvah, she would not be able to collect the extra amount because it is not true that she deserves it, unless she is from one of the unique families mentioned in the Mishnah on 12a.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>REMA</b> (EH 66:7) cites both opinions. He mentions the view of the Ramban, that both the base amount and the Tosefes may be expressed as one large sum in the Kesuvah, and he mentions the view of the Mordechai, that the two amounts must be written separately. He adds that in his area, the practice was to write them separately. 
</p><p>
In the <b>DARCHEI MOSHE</b> (EH 66:9), the Rema writes that nowadays all of the Kesuvos for Besulos are written the same way, and those for an Almanah are written the same way, and that standardized Kesuvah is what is read under the Chupah (so as not to embarrass one who gives, or receives, less). Anything that the husband wants to add is written separately afterwards.
</p><p>
However, the practice of some Sefardic communities (Edot ha'Mizrach) is to add a separate Tosefes in the Kesuvah itself which is read during the Chupah.
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  A man said that 400 Zuz from his wine should go to his 
          daughter. The price of wine increased.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> The profit goes to the orphans.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan's relatives were concerned that their 
          father's wife was spending too much on food. He counseled 
          them to ask their father to designate some land towards 
          her food.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  After the father died, they came in front of Reish 
          Lakish.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Reish Lakish:</font></b> The father gave this land so she 
               should have extra food from it (if you will give to 
               her minimal rations)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Orphans:</font></b> R. Yochanan did not say so!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Reish Lakish:</font></b> Give to her, or I will withdraw R. 
               Yochanan's support from you!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> They came to R. Yochanan.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yochanan:</font></b> I cannot overrule Reish Lakish. He is 
               qualified to disagree with me!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan):</font></b> If he said '<i>towards</i> 
               her food', he gave extra. If he said; '<i>for</i> her 
               food', he set a limit.
<br>
<br><b>PEREK <b><b>AF</b></b> <b><b>AL</b></b> <b><b>PI</b></b></b>
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>ADDING ON TO THE STANDARD 'KESUVAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> Even though Chachamim said that the Kesuvah of 
          a virgin is 200 and of a non-virgin is 100, one may add 
          even 10,000 if he wants. If she is widowed or divorced, 
          whether from Eirusin or Nisu'in, she collects it all;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Elazar ben Azaryah says, from Nisu'in she collects it 
          all. From Eirusin, she collects 100 or 200.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He wrote the Tosefes (addition) only on condition 
               that they have Nisu'in.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, he may write 200 to a virgin, and she 
          writes (a receipt) that she received 100 (even if she did 
          not). He may write 100 to a non-virgin, and she writes 
          that she received 50;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Meir says, if one reduced the Kesuvah from 200 for a 
          virgin or from 100 for a non-virgin, their Bi'ah is like 
          Znus.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara) Question:</font></b> Obviously a man may add! Why should it 
          be forbidden?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We would have thought that Chachamim did not want 
          him to do so, lest this shame one who cannot give so 
          much.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> The Mishnah did not say that one who wants to 
          <i>write</i>, rather, one who wants to <i>add</i>. (This connotes 
          that the addition is considered part of the Kesuvah. It 
          is not a mere gift.) This supports R. Eibo:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Eibo):</font></b> (Tosefes and other) stipulations of the 
               Kesuvah are like the Kesuvah. This is relevant to a 
               woman who:
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  Sells or pardons her Kesuvah;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> Rebels (refuses to have Bi'ah with her 
                    husband);
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>Says that she received only partial payment of 
                    the Kesuvah;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b></b> Demands payment of her Kesuvah;
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b></b> Transgresses Das (causes her husband to 
                    transgress Torah law, or does not behave like 
                    modest Bnos Yisrael).
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>STIPULATIONS OF THE 'KESUVAH' ARE LIKE THE 'KESUVAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  (Tosefes and other) stipulations of the Kesuvah are like 
          the Kesuvah also regarding:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Collecting from improvements made to his land after 
               he died;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> An oath (to collect them);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Collecting them after Shemitah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> A man who wrote all his property to his sons (and 
               something to his wife. We say that she pardoned her 
               lien on his property);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> Collecting (only) from land;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> Collecting from lowest quality land;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> A widow living in her father's house (if she did not 
               mention the Kesuvah in 25 years, she pardoned it);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b></b> Kesuvas Benin Dichrin. (Each woman's sons receive 
               her Kesuvah, including the Tosefes.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>DISPUTES BETWEEN PUMBEDISA AND MASA MACHSIYA</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Chachamim of Pumbedisa):</font></b> Kesuvas Benin Dichrin is not 
          collected from land that was sold. The Mishnah says 'they 
          will inherit.' (Heirs do not collect land that their 
          father sold.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Chachamim of Masa Machsiya):</font></b> It is collected from land 
          that was sold. The Mishnah says 'they are owed.' (A 
          creditor collects from sold land.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  The Halachah is, it is not collected.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  If Metaltelim were designated to pay the Kesuvah and they 
          are around, she collects them without an oath;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Chachamim of Pumbedisa):</font></b> Even if they are not around, 
          she collects without an oath;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Chachamim of Masa Machsiya):</font></b> She must swear.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  The Halachah is, she does not swear.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  If land designated to pay the Kesuvah was delimited in 
          all four directions, she collects it without an oath;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Chachamim of Pumbedisa):</font></b> Even if only one border was 
          specified, she collects without an oath;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Chachamim of Masa Machsiya):</font></b> She must swear.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  The Halachah is, she does not swear.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  If Reuven told witnesses 'write, sign and give a deed (of 
          land) to Ploni', if they acquired (through Chalipin, 
          transferal of a garment) on behalf of Ploni, they fulfill 
          the command without consulting with Reuven again.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Chachamim of Pumbedisa):</font></b> (Even) if they did not acquire 
          for Ploni, they need not consult again;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Chachamim of Masa Machsiya):</font></b> They must consult.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b></b>  The Halachah is, they must consult.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>DO WE FOLLOW ASSESSMENT?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Elazar ben Azaryah):</font></b> (If she was widowed or 
          divorced from Eirusin, she does not receive Tosefes, for 
          this was on condition that they have Nisu'in.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Rav and R. Nasan argue about whether or not the Halachah 
          follows R. Elazar ben Azaryah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> R. Nasan is the one who says that the 
          Halachah follows R. Elazar ben Azaryah, since he follows 
          estimation.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Nasan):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Shimon Shezuri 
               regarding the following:
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  One who is about to die. (If he commanded to 
                    write a Get for his wife, but neglected to say 
                    to give it, we assume that he wanted to give 
                    it.)
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) TELLING WITNESSES TO WRITE A SHTAR AND TO GIVE IT OVER</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses a case wherein a person tells witnesses to write a Shtar (of transfer of property), sign it, and give it to someone. If the owner made a Kinyan with the witnesses for the transfer of the property, they may just write and sign the Shtar and hand it over to the new owner. If the owner did not make a Kinyan with the witnesses, then they must ask the owner again for his consent before they actually transfer the property by giving over the Shtar.
</p><p>
If the owner already told them to write, sign, and give over the Shtar, then why do they have to ask him again before giving over the Shtar? If the person wants to change his mind, he would come and tell us that he has changed his mind! Why do we have to suspect that he changed his mind?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>ROSH</b> (5:4) explains that since the person did not make a Kinyan Chalifin to transfer ownership of the property immediately, but rather asked that a Shtar be written to transfer ownership at the time of the delivery of the Shtar, it shows that he is reluctant to part with his property. Had he made a Kinyan Chalifin through the witnesses, the witnesses would have acquired the property on behalf of the recipient and it would have belonged to the recipient immediately. Instead, he told the witnesses to write a Shtar and to give the Shtar to the recipient in order to give him the land. Since the owner demonstrated reluctance in parting with his land, the witnesses must confirm with him before giving over the Shtar and finalizing the Kinyan. This might be the intention of <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Kesuvu) as well.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RITVA</b>, quoting the <b>RA'AVAD</b> (see Ra'avad in Hilchos Malveh v'Loveh 11:1), explains the Gemara differently than Rashi. The Gemara is not discussing someone who is giving land to his friend with a Shtar. Rather, the Gemara is discussing a husband who is writing to his wife a Tosefes for her Kesuvah. The husband is saying to witnesses at the time of Erusin that they should write the Tosefes in the Kesuvah at the time of Nisu'in. Since he does not tell the witnesses to write the Tosefes to his wife right now, at the time of Erusin, he shows that he is reluctant to give away his land to her as a Tosefes to her Kesuvah, and therefore they must ask him for his consent again at the time of Nisu'in. If he obligates himself to give his wife the Tosefes immediately at the time of Eirusin, by having the witnesses make a Kinyan on the Tosefes on behalf of the wife, then the husband does not have to be consulted again before writing the Tosefes in the Kesuvah and delivering it to his wife. 
</p><p>
According to this explanation, it is clear why the Gemara records this case in this Sugya which discusses various aspects of the Kesuvah. (The <b>GE'ONIM</b>, in a Teshuvah cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes, give a similar explanation.)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Malveh v'Loveh 11:1) explains that the Halachah recorded in the Gemara refers exclusively to a borrower who is giving a Shtar Chov, a voucher for a loan, to his friend. There is a significant difference between a loan made without a Shtar and a loan made with one. When  one borrows money without giving a Shtar to the lender, then if the lender demands repayment of the loan <i>after</i> the borrower paid it back, the borrower can simply reply that it was paid and he does not need to prove it. On the other hand, when one borrows money and gives a Shtar to the lender, if the lender wants to collect the money using the Shtar after the borrower paid it back, the borrower will have to bring proof that he already paid back the loan. 
</p><p>
It is possible that according to the Rambam, we require that the borrower confirm his request to deliver the Shtar because he might not have taken into account all of the ramifications of this act. He might not have considered that if he gives a Shtar to the lender he will have to prove that the loan was repaid. Therefore, the witnesses must ask his consent again before giving over the Shtar.
</p><p>
The Rambam explains that when the Gemara says that if a Kinyan was made with the witnesses, they do not have to ask him again before giving over the Shtar, it means as follows. If the borrower made a Kinyan with the witnesses to <i>obligate himself to give his friend a certain sum of money</i>, then it is assumed that he wants them to write it down -- for a Kinyan performed before witnesses is presumably done with intention to have it written down (like Rashi says).
</p><p>
(d) The <b>HAGAHOS MAIMONIYOS</b> (Hilchos Malveh v'Loveh 11:1, #2) writes in the name of <b>RABEINU TAM</b> that the Halachah of our Gemara applies whenever a person gives his friend a gift. Basing himself on the Yerushalmi, he says that if a person asks a Shali'ach to give a gift to someone else, the Shali'ach must ask for the giver's confirmation before giving the gift, in order to make sure that the giver was serious (since he is giving something away without receiving any compensation for it).
</p><p>


