# dafyomi

lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE DAY ON WHICH A VIRGIN IS MARRIED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A virgin is married on Wednesday, and a 
          widow on Thursday.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  In cities, Beis Din meets on Mondays and Thursdays. If 
          the Chasan finds that she is not a virgin, he will go to 
          Beis Din immediately the next morning.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Rav Yosef):</font></b> Rav Yehudah taught that the 
          reason that a virgin is married on Wednesday is like we 
          learned in a Mishnah:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If the time set for the Chupah came 
               and they were not married, the Chasan must feed the 
               Kalah. If he is a Kohen, she may eat Terumah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Now that our Mishnah says that the Chupah should 
               be on Wednesday, if the date set for the Chupah fell 
               on Sunday, he need not feed her until Wednesday.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Why does Rav Yehudah attribute a 
          Mishnah that was taught to one that was not taught?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> This is not so. Both Mishnayos were 
               taught!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Clarification of the question:</font></b> Rather, why does Rav 
          Yehudah attribute the reason for our Mishnah, which gives 
          its reason, to a Mishnah that does not give a reason?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Retraction (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Rather, Rav Yehudah taught that 
          the reason a virgin is married on Wednesday is so if the 
          Chasan finds that she is not a virgin, he will go to Beis 
          Din immediately the next day.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Yosef):</font></b> Let her be married on Sunday, and 
          he can go to Beis Din on Monday!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Chachamim deliberated to help the Kalah, that 
          the Chasan should exert for three days preparing the 
          Chupah feast.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Now that we learned that a virgin is married on 
               Wednesday, if the time for the Chupah fell on 
               Sunday, since he cannot marry her until Wednesday, 
               he need not feed her until then.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>IF THE KALAH BECOMES SICK OR NIDAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> If the time for the Chupah falls before 
          Wednesday, the Chasan need not feed the Kalah until 
          Wednesday;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1:</font></b> Also, if one of them fell sick, or she 
          became a Nidah (Tamei from menstrual blood, causing the 
          Chupah to be postponed), he need not feed her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 - Question:</font></b> If he became sick, must he feed 
          her?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Perhaps he need not, because the delay of the 
               Chupah is beyond his control, just like when the 
               time for the Chupah fell before Wednesday.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps he must feed her. This is unlike when 
               the enactment of Chachamim delayed the Chupah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If he must feed her when he falls sick, what 
          is the law if she falls sick?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Perhaps he is exempt, for he can say 'I am 
               ready!'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps she can say 'your field was flooded 
               (is your bad luck. You are obligated to feed me.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If he must feed her when she falls sick, what 
          if she becomes Nidah?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If she became Nidah at the time of her Veses (her 
               normal period), she cannot say that it is his bad 
               luck;
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE 'TAKANAH' OF 'SHAKDU'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Yosef quotes Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel who teaches that the reason one must get married on Wednesday and not on Sunday is the enactment of 'Shakdu.' The Rabanan were concerned for the honor of Jewish women and they enacted that a man must get married on Wednesday so that he spend three days (Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday) preparing a respectable Se'udah for the wedding. Since one is required to get married on Wednesday because of the enactment of 'Shakdu,' if an engaged couple's twelve-month period of Erusin ends on a Sunday, the man is not obligated to pay for his bride's support ('Mezonos'), since he can justifiably claim that he is not required to marry her until Wednesday due to the Takanah d'Rabanan.
</p><p>
The wording of Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel implies that the Mishnah (which states that the reason for delaying the wedding until Wednesday is to provide the opportunity for the man to go to Beis Din on Thursday if he has a Ta'anas Besulim) does not provide sufficient reason for why the husband is justified in not paying the wife when the twelve-month period of Erusin ends on a Sunday and he delays marrying until Wednesday. It is only the additional reason of 'Shakdu' which the Beraisa introduces that justifies not paying the wife 'Mezonos' in such a situation.
</p><p>
Why is the reason of 'Shakdu' necessary in order to exempt him from Mezonos? The Mishnah teaches that one must get married on Wednesday because of the Takanah d'Rabanan; that Takanah should be sufficient reason to exempt him from paying Mezonos!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH v'Tinasei), as explained by the <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> and the <b>MAHARSHA</b>, explains that there is another factor which requires that a person get married on Wednesday. The Gemara (5a) says that one should get married on Wednesday in order to perform the Be'ilas Mitzvah at the beginning of Thursday (Wednesday night), because it was on the original Thursday that Hash-m gave a Berachah to the fish to multiply. Therefore, it is a good omen if one performs the Be'ilas Mitzvah on Thursday (Wednesday night).
</p><p>
Had the Beraisa not taught the reason of 'Shakdu' for marrying on Wednesday, one might have thought that the Mishnah instructs that one should get married on Wednesday (and not Sunday) simply because of the Berachah that Hash-m gave to the fish. If that would be the reason to get married on Wednesday (as opposed to Sunday), however, then it would not suffice to exempt the husband from paying Mezonos to his wife when the twelve-month period of Erusin ends on Sunday. The good omen of the Berachah of the fish does not <i>obligate</i> one to get married on Wednesday. It is merely a recommendation that he do so, as good advice. Since the Berachah of the fish does not obligate him to get married on Wednesday, he cannot claim that he is unable to get married on Sunday, and thus he would have to pay Mezonos to his wife. Furthermore, the reason of Berachah does not exempt him from paying Mezonos because it benefits <i>him</i> and not her, since <i>he</i> is the one who is obligated to fulfill the Mitzvah of 'Piryah v'Rivyah.' Therefore he cannot exempt himself from paying Mezonos until Wednesday arrives because his delay until Wednesday is for his benefit and not hers.
</p><p>
However, now that the reason for getting married on Wednesday is 'Shakdu,' it is an established enactment of the Rabanan that one is <i>obligated</i> to get married on Wednesday and is not permitted to get married on any other day. Furthermore, the enactment of 'Shakdu' is for <i>her</i> benefit and not for his benefit, and therefore he may claim that he cannot marry her until Wednesday and exempt himself from paying Mezonos until then.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> (quoting his Rebbi, the <b>MAHARAM</b>) suggests a different explanation for the Gemara, according to which our question is also answered differently.
</p><p>
From the words of the Mishnah it is not clear that a person must get <i>married</i> on Wednesday. Perhaps the Mishnah means that one merely must perform the Be'ilas Mitzvah on Wednesday night; he may get married on any day of the week as long as he waits to do the Be'ilas Mitzvah until Wednesday night (either because of the Berachah to fish, or because of Ta'anas Besulim). Even though the Mishnah says that 'a Besulah must <i>get married</i> on Wednesday,' perhaps the Mishnah means that the <i>Be'ilah</i> must be done on Wednesday night and it merely uses a nicer way of expressing this. Alternatively, the Mishnah means that since the Be'ilas Mitzvah cannot be done until Wednesday night, it is advisable to get married then and not earlier.
</p><p>
Accordingly, if the twelve-month period ends on a Sunday, then she should be able to insist on getting married then (and just waiting until Wednesday night for the Be'ilah), and if he does not agree to get married he must pay her the Mezonos. However, now that the Beraisa teaches that the Rabanan instituted getting married on Wednesday because of 'Shakdu,' it is clear that the Mishnah is not discussing merely the Be'ilas Mitzvah, but it is discussing the date of the actual marriage. The Rabanan instituted that the <i>marriage</i> itself must be on Wednesday (so that he can begin to prepare the wedding banquet three days in advance). Since the enactment was that he get <i>married</i> on Wednesday (that is, the Rabanan do not permit him to get married until then), he may exempt himself from paying Mezonos if the twelve-month period ends on a Sunday.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The question is if she becomes Nidah not at the 
               time of her Veses.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Perhaps she can say 'your field was flooded';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Or, perhaps since some women change their Vestos, 
               this is like becoming Nidah at the time of the 
               Veses!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Achai - Mishnah):</font></b> If the time came and the 
          women were not married, he feeds them and they may eat 
          Terumah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This connotes that the women are causing the 
               delay.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If they are delaying, why are they fed?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Rather, it must be that it is beyond 
               their control (i.e. they became sick or Nidah), and 
               we see that they are fed!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection (Rav Ashi):</font></b> We can say that whenever they 
          cause the Chupah to be delayed, they are not fed;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Really, the men caused the delay. It says 'the 
               women were not married' because the Reisha discussed 
               the women.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>CAN A CLAIM OF ONES INVALIDATE A GET?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 (Rava):</font></b> The law of Gitin (divorce) is 
          different (this will be explained).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference:</font></b> He holds that Ones (something beyond one's 
          control) does not apply to (Mevatel) Gitin (If one gave a 
          Get on Tnai (conditionally), even if the Tnai was 
          fulfilled due to Ones, the Get is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is Rava's source?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Mishnah):</font></b> If one gave a Get and said 'this 
          is your Get if I don't come within a year' and he died 
          during the year, the Get is invalid.
          1.	Inference: If he got sick, the Get is valid!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection #1:</font></b> Even if he got sick, the Get is invalid. 
          The Mishnah teaches that a Get cannot take effect after 
          death.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> The Reisha already taught this!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Reisha):</font></b> If he said 'This is your Get... after 
<br>           <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(my)</font></b></b> death', it is invalid!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection #2:</font></b> Rather, the Seifa (cited above, 'if I 
          don't come within a year...') teaches unlike Raboseinu:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> Raboseinu permitted her to remarry
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Raboseinu are the Beis Din who 
               permitted oil of Nochrim. They hold like R. Yosi, 
               who says that the date on a document shows that it 
               takes effect from that day. (Therefore, the Get took 
               effect before the husband died. We may not infer 
               that it is valid if he got sick.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (to Question (c) - Seifa):</font></b> If he said 'this 
          Get should take effect from now if I don't come within a 
          year', and he died during the year, the Get is valid.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> Also if he got sick, the Get is valid!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> Perhaps it is valid only if he dies, since 
          his intent was that his wife not fall to Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3:</font></b> A case occurred in which a man gave a Get on 
          condition that he will not return within 30 days. He was 
          returning on the 30th day, but was delayed because the 
          ferry was on the other side. Even though he was trying to 
          return, Shmuel ruled that the Get is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> Perhaps a common Ones is different. Since he 
          should have stipulated what will be in such a case, but 
          neglected to do so, he accepted on himself whatever will 
          happen.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #4:</font></b> Rava's law is a decree due to righteous 
          women and immoral women.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) 'EIN GET L'ACHAR MISAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara quotes a Mishnah in Gitin and explains that the Reisha of the Mishnah teaches that a man may not divorce his wife after his death -- 'Ein Get l'Achar Misah.' <b>RASHI</b> (DH Mes Hu) explains that the reason is because 'dead people cannot divorce' -- 'Ein ha'Mesim Megarshim.'
</p><p>
Why does the Mishnah need to teach that a man cannot divorce his wife after his death? After the man dies, he is not married anymore and there is no longer any Kidushin; of course the Get cannot take effect! Furthermore, why does Rashi say that the Mishnah teaches that 'dead people cannot give divorces'? The reason the Get does not take effect is because the woman is no longer married when her husband dies!
</p><p>
In fact, in Gitin (9b) -- where the Gemara teaches that a Shtar Shichrur (a document of release for an Eved) and a Shtar Mecher (a document of sale) cannot take effect after the death of the owner, <b>RASHI</b> (DH Lo Yitnu and DH v'Ein Shtar) explains that the reason is because when the owner dies, the Eved or property no longer belongs to him, and thus he has no right to set the Eved free or to sell the property. Why does Rashi here not give the same explanation -- that after a man has died the woman is no longer his wife to divorce? (See <b>KETZOS HA'CHOSHEN</b> 188:2.)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The Gemara is discussing a case in which the husband dies with no children and his wife falls to Yibum. If the Get is valid, it exempts her from Yibum (as Rashi explains in DH Eino Get). The Zikah of Yibum is considered, in a sense, like a continuation of the bond of marriage, since the Zikah to the Yavam comes only as a result of the marriage of the woman to his brother who died. (See <b>TOSFOS</b> to Kidushin 4b, DH Mah l'Yevamah, in the name of Rebbi Elazar mi'Shazna.) 
</p><p>
Therefore, one might have thought that since an element of the original Kidushin remains, the Get can be effective in divorcing one's wife even after he has died. This is why the Mishnah must teach that 'Ein Get l'Achar Misah' -- even though a part of the Kidushin does remain after the husband's death in a situation of Yibum, nevertheless 'Ein ha'Mesim Megarshim,' as Rashi explains.
<br> 
<br>(This also explains why Rashi, in DH Eino Get, writes that the practical consequence of the Get not being valid is that the wife falls to Yibum. At the end of the Daf, Rashi mentions a different consequence -- that the woman does not become Pesulah l'Kehunah if the Get is not a valid Get. Why does Rashi not mention that consequence here? The answer is that Rashi wants to point out that the case of the Mishnah <i>must</i> be a case in which the woman falls to Yibum, because otherwise there is no Chidush in teaching that 'Ein Get l'Achar Misah.')
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONES DOES NOT COUNT IN GITIN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Mid'Oraisa, if a Tnai was fulfilled due to Ones, the 
          Get is invalid;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Righteous women might refrain from remarrying, 
               from concern lest there was an Ones, and the Get is 
               invalid;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Immoral women might deny that there was an Ones, 
               even when they have heard or know that there was. 
               They will remarry, and their children will be 
               Mamzerim (bastards, who cannot marry those of 
               legitimate lineage).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> To prevent both of these concerns, Chachamim 
               decreed that in a case of Ones, the Get is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If the Torah disqualifies the Get, can 
          Chachamim decree that it is valid, and permit a married 
          woman to remarry?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Yes! Everyone who is Mekadesh stipulates that 
          the marriage should be like Chachamim desire. In this 
          case, Chachamim uproot the marriage.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> (Ravina): This is understandable for one who 
          was Mekadesh with money (the Kidushin is uprooted, and 
          the money is a gift);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he was Mekadesh with Bi'ah, how can we uproot 
               it?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> The marriage is uprooted. 
          Retroactively, the Bi'ah was Znus (harlotry).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 (Rava):</font></b> Also regarding Gitin, Ones exempts 
          (i.e. the Get is invalid).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #1 (Mishnah):</font></b> If he said 'this is your Get if 
          I don't come within a year' and he died during the year, 
          the Get is invalid.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> If he got sick, the Get is valid!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Even if he got sick, the Get is invalid. The 
          Mishnah teaches that a Get cannot take effect after 
          death.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> The Reisha already taught this!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, the Seifa teaches unlike Raboseinu. 
          (We cannot infer that if he got sick the Get is valid.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #2 (Seifa):</font></b> If he said 'this Get should take 
          effect from now if I don't come within a year' and he 
          died during the year, the Get is valid.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> Also if he got sick, the Get is valid!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> Perhaps the Get is valid only if he dies, 
          since his intent was that his wife not fall to Yibum.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3:</font></b> A case occurred in which a man gave a Get on 
          condition that he will not return within 30 days. He was 
          returning on the 30th day, but was delayed because the 
          ferry was on the other side. Even though he was trying to 
          return, Shmuel ruled that the Get is valid.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> Perhaps a common Ones is different. Since he 
          should have stipulated what will be in such a case, but 
          neglected to do so, he accepted on himself whatever will 
          happen.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE DAYS TO GET MARRIED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak):</font></b> Our Mishnah, which says that 
          a virgin is married on Wednesday, applies after Ezra 
          decreed that Beis Din meet every Monday and Thursday;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Before Ezra, a virgin could be married on any 
               day.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why did he teach this - it has no relevance 
          today!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If Beis Dins would again meet equally all days 
          of the week, a virgin may be married on any day.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We require the Chasan to prepare the feast 
          for three days!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We discuss a case in which he prepared.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE RABANAN'S AUTHORITY TO UPROOT A MARRIAGE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara states that in certain situations, the Rabanan -- in order to end a marriage -- uproot the Kidushin retroactively so that the marriage will no longer exist. The Gemara here discusses a situation in which a man gives a Get to his wife on condition that he does not return from abroad, and then circumstances beyond his control prevent his return. Although mid'Oraisa the Get is not valid (since a fulfillment of a condition against one's will is not considered a fulfillment of the condition), the Rabanan instituted that the Get takes effect (for the reasons the Gemara describes). What authority do the Rabanan have to make the Get valid when, mid'Oraisa, it is not valid? The Gemara explains that the Rabanan utilized their authority to uproot the Kidushin (retroactively) -- 'Afke'inhu Rabanan l'Kidushei Minei.'
</p><p>
Another example of a situation in which the Rabanan remove the Kidushin is when a man sends a Get to his wife and then annuls the Get after the Shali'ach has departed, without informing the Shali'ach of the annulment. Although the Get is not valid when the Shali'ach gives it to the woman, the Rabanan proclaimed that it takes effect by using their authority to uproot the Kidushin.
</p><p>
How does this mechanism of uprooting the Kidushin work? When the Rabanan uproot the Kidushin, is it considered as though the man and woman were never married? If it indeed works this way, then it should be possible to remove the status of a Mamzer from a child born to a married woman through rape or an adulterous relationship. By uprooted the Kidushin retroactively (such as by having her husband send her a Get with a Shali'ach and then annul the Get), the child's status as a Mamzer should be able to be removed. Similarly, in the same manner a man should be able to save his wife from being punished with Misah when she willfully committed adultery.
<br> 
<br>In addition, the <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> points out that if the Rabanan uproot the Kidushin retroactively, then if the brother of the husband later marries the woman (who is forbidden to him as 'Eshes Achiv'), the Kidushin should take effect mid'Oraisa (and she should require a Get if she wants to leave him) since she is not his 'Eshes Achiv.' Is this indeed the Halachah?
</p><p>
Another question is that if the Rabanan are able to remove Kidushin in such a manner, then why do they not use it in a broader context -- such as to permit Agunos to remarry? For example, in a case in which a husband drowns at sea ('Mayim she'Ein Lahem Sof') and there is no positive testimony that he is dead, the Halachah is that his wife may never remarry. The Rabanan should permit her to remarry by exercising their authority to uproot the Kidushin retroactively!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> in Gitin (33a) writes that it is true that where the Rabanan uproot the Kidushin, a child who is a Mamzer due to the presence of the Kidushin becomes legitimate, and the woman becomes exempt from punishment for committing adultery (and, presumably, if she marries the brother of her husband, the Kidushin with him will take effect). However, a person cannot intentionally take advantage of this power of the Rabanan to correct the status of a Mamzer. In such a case -- where a man intentionally sends a Get to his wife with a Shali'ach and then annuls the Get in order to save his wife from punishment or to make his wife's illegitimate children legitimate -- the Rabanan do <i>not</i> uproot the Kidushin. They uproot the Kidushin only when a man annuls the Get innocently, with no ulterior motives.
</p><p>
Why do the Rabanan not exercise their authority to uproot Kidushin in order to permit Agunos to remarry? The <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>RASHBA</b> explain that the Rabanan exercise this power only where there is some form of Get that was already given. Although the Get itself is not valid, the Rabanan uproot the Kidushin based on the giving of that Get.
</p><p>
This also seems to be the intention of <b>RASHI</b> here who repeatedly writes that the Rabanan uproot the Kidushin 'when a Get is given.' (Rashi in Shabbos (155b) writes that the reason the Rabanan permitted a woman to remarry based on the testimony of a single witness is because of the principle of 'Afke'inhu.' Here, Rashi explains why the Rabanan do not apply 'Afke'inhu' to permit Agunos in other situations. Rashi is explaining that in the case of a single witness who testifies that the husband died, there is at least some sort of testimony that he died, and thus there is a basis for the Rabanan to uproot the Kidushin. According to Rashi, wherever there is some form of Get or some form of testimony of death, the Rabanan may apply 'Afke'inhu.')
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>RE'AH</b> write that although the Rabanan uprooted the Kidushin d'Oraisa, they nevertheless established in its place a Kidushin d'Rabanan. Therefore, the child born to the woman from another man will still be a Mamzer d'Rabanan, and the relatives of the husband will be prohibited to the woman mid'Rabanan. Similarly, she will be prohibited mid'Rabanan to marry a Kohen.
</p><p>
(c) The Rishonim here (<b>RAMBAN</b>, <b>RASHBA</b>) and in Gitin quote the <b>RASHBAM</b> (see also <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> here) who suggests that when a condition of the Get is fulfilled against the husband's will, and when a husband annuls a Get after having sent it with a Shali'ach, the Kidushin is not uprooted retroactively, but rather it is uprooted <i>from now on</i> -- 'mi'Kan ul'Haba.' (See also <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> who quotes the words of the Rashbam as found in a marginal note in a manuscript of Rashi's commentary.)
</p><p>
The Rashbam explains that the Gemara means that the Rabanan have the right to uproot the Kidushin retroactively, and if they do so, all of the Be'ilos retroactively become Be'ilos of Z'nus. Since nobody wants his Be'ilos to become Be'ilos Z'nus, when he gives a Get with a condition he has in mind that even if the condition is fulfilled later against his will he still wants the Get to be valid. Similarly, when a man annuls a Get, since he knows that the Rabanan will make his Be'ilos into Be'ilos Z'nus if the Get is annulled, he does not really want to annul the Get.
</p><p>
The Ramban asks that according to this understanding, in a case in which a woman is only betrothed (with Erusin) and her husband gives her a Get on condition or annuls a Get that he sent with a Shali'ach, the Kidushin <i>should</i> be uprooted retroactively since the man has not had relations with his wife and thus has no fear that his Be'ilos will be made into Be'ilos Z'nus. The Ramban answers that even though there was no Be'ilah, the husband has in mind that the Get should take effect even if the condition is fulfilled against his will, because he knows that his intention will not prevent the Get from taking effect (since the Kidushin will still be uprooted against his will). Therefore, he intends for the Get to take effect under any circumstance.
</p><p>
(d) <b>RASHI</b> cites a fourth explanation in the name of 'all of my teachers.' This explanation is found in <b>PERUSH RABEINU GERSHOM</b> to Bava Basra (48b). He explains that all Kidushin nowadays is only mid'Rabanan in any case, and that is why the Rabanan are able to uproot it from now on. Rabeinu Gershom asserts that Kidushei Kesef (and Kidushei Shtar) are mid'Rabanan, while Kidushei Bi'ah -- which is mid'Oraisa -- cannot make a Kidushin d'Oraisa nowadays since the Rabanan prohibited one from being Mekadesh a woman with Bi'ah (Kidushin 12b). The Rabanan went further and said that since everyone is 'Mekadesh Al Da'as d'Rabanan,' all Kidushei Bi'ah does not work mid'Oraisa nowadays (and it makes only a Kidushin d'Rabanan).
</p><p>
(Once the Rabanan instituted that one can be Mekadesh a woman with Kidushei Kesef, it became an act of effrontery to be Mekadesh a woman with Bi'ah. Therefore, when the Rabanan instituted Kidushei Kesef, they also instituted that a person may not be Mekadesh with Bi'ah and they annulled that form of Kidushin, based on the premise that when a person gets married he does so according to the will of the Rabanan.)  
</p><p>
Rashi and the other Rishonim challenge the explanation of Rabeinu Gershom.
</p><p>
1. Rabeinu Gershom's assertion that Kidushei Kesef and Kidushei Shtar are mid'Rabanan contradicts the Gemara (Kidushin 2a) which clearly derives Kidushei Kesef from a Gezeirah Shavah in the Torah.
</p><p>
Apparently, Rabeinu Gershom understand that the Gezeirah Shavah is not an actual Gezeirah Shavah mid'Oraisa, but is only an Asmachta. (The same applies to Kidushei Shtar, which is derived through a comparison with a Get (Kidushin 9b). Rabeinu Gershom understands that comparison as only an Asmachta.)
</p><p>
2. Rashi asks that a Ne'arah Me'urasah is defined as a woman who was assumed to be a Besulah at the time of the Nisu'in but was found to have had relations with another man while she was an Arusah. The Torah punishes such a woman with Sekilah. How can the Torah consider her to be a Besulah at the time of Nisu'in if, mid'Oraisa, there is no such thing as Kidushei Kesef or Kidushei Shtar? The only way she could have become an Arusah mid'Oraisa is through Kidushei Bi'ah, in which case she would not be a Besulah and thus it is not possible for there to be a case of Ne'arah Me'urasah!
</p><p>
Rabeinu Gershom apparently is not bothered by this question because he understands that the Kidushin mid'Oraisa could be done with a Bi'ah <i>she'Lo k'Darkah</i>. Such a Bi'ah serves to make the woman an Arusah, but it does not make her a Be'ulah and she remains a Besulah. (See at length the Gemara in Kidushin 9b. Although the Gemara there rejects this possibility, perhaps Rabeinu Gershom understands that the Sugyos are arguing.)
</p><p>
3. Rashi asks that according to Rabeinu Gershom, a woman who gets married with Kidushei Bi'ah should be permitted to leave her husband without a Get. Rabeinu Gershom apparently understands that although the Rabanan removed the Kidushin d'Oraisa, they nevertheless substituted in its place a Kidushin d'Rabanan which requires a Get.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> A virgin is married on Wednesday, so if the 
          Chasan finds that she is not a virgin, he will go to Beis 
          Din the next day.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If the marriage is on Sunday, he could also 
          go to Beis Din the next day!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Chachamim deliberated to help the Kalah, so 
          that the Chasan will exert for three days preparing the 
          Chupah meal.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE IS DANGER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> From the time of danger and onwards, the 
          custom was to be married on Tuesday. Chachamim did not 
          object;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  One may not be married on Monday. If there is an Ones, 
          it is allowed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  We separate the Chasan from the Kalah on Shabbos night 
          (if they have not yet had Bi'ah), since the first Bi'ah 
          causes a wound.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What danger does the Beraisa refer to?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If there was a decree that any virgin married on 
               Wednesday will be killed, why was it only a custom 
               to be married on Tuesday? The enactment should be 
               entirely uprooted!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> There was a decree that a virgin married 
          on Wednesday must first have Bi'ah with the mayor.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This is Ones, it is not a danger!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> There are virtuous women who would resist, and 
          be killed for doing so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We should publicize that if a woman is forced 
          into adultery, she is permitted to her husband!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> There are immoral women. (If we publicize the 
          above law, they will willingly have Bi'ah. Their husbands 
          will not know that their wives are forbidden.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  Also, there are wives of Kohanim, who become forbidden 
          to their husbands even if they are forced (so publicizing 
          the law will not help).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why don't we uproot the enactment for virgins 
          to get married on Wednesday?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is common that the (mayor's) decree is 
          revoked. Therefore, Chachamim do not revoke their 
          enactment due to the decree.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If the danger is like Rava says, the mayor 
          will come on Tuesday to have Bi'ah Rishonah with the 
          virgin!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Since we do not formally enact Tuesday to be 
          the day for the wedding, he is not sure that there is a 
          wedding on Tuesday, so he will not bother to come.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE IS ONES</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the Ones of the Beraisa?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> It is the mayor's decree.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection #1:</font></b> Above it was called danger. Why is 
               it called Ones now?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection #2:</font></b> When there is that decree we said 
               that the custom was to be married on Tuesday. 
               Regarding Ones, we say that it is permitted!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rava):</font></b> People say that the general is coming 
          to the city (and he will take the food prepared for the 
          Chupah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If he will leave promptly, we should delay 
          the Chupah until after he leaves!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He is going to fix himself in the city (for a 
          while).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why do we permit Monday? The Chupah should be 
          on Tuesday!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> His scouts are coming on Tuesday (they will 
          confiscate food for him).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> The Ones of the Beraisa is the death of the 
          Chasan's father or the Kalah's mother.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) HALACHAH: THE 'BI'AH' OF A NOCHRI</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara teaches that during an era when the wicked regime instituted that every Jewish Besulah was to be defiled by the local governor before her wedding, people started getting married on Tuesday to avoid the decree (since the officials knew that the Chachamim had instituted that a Besulah get married only on Wednesday). The Gemara says that those who were defiled by the governor were nevertheless permitted to live with their husbands afterwards (because the act was one of Ones), except for the wives of Kohanim, who become forbidden to their husbands even when raped.
</p><p>
It is clear from the Gemara that a woman who lives with a Nochri <i>willfully</i> is <i>not</i> be permitted to her husband. What is the Halachah if a married, Jewish woman commits adultery with a Nochri? Does she become prohibited to her husband and to the adulterer (if, for example, he later converts and becomes Jewish)? The Rishonim discuss this question at length.
</p><p>
(a) <b>RABEINU TAM</b> (cited by <b>TOSFOS</b> DH v'Lidrosh) writes that the Bi'ah of a Nochri is like that of a Behemah. Therefore, a married woman is not Chayav Misah if she willfully commits adultery with a Nochri. This is also the opinion of the <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> and the <b>RAMBAN</b> (in Milchamos) in Sanhedrin (74b). However, the reason they give for exempting her from Misah is that the Torah says that only a man who commits adultery with 'Eshes Re'ehu' ('the wife of one's <i>fellow</i> man') is Chayav Misah, and when a Nochri commits adultery with a Jewish man's wife, she is not called 'Eshes Re'ehu.'
</p><p>
Rabeinu Tam adds that for the same reason, if the Nochri later converts, he is permitted to marry the woman with whom he lived, even though normally a woman who commits adultery is prohibited both to her husband and to the adulterer. In this case, the Nochri may marry her after he converts, because his Bi'ah with her was like the Bi'ah of a Behemah which is not the type of Bi'ah that makes a woman forbidden to her adulterer.
</p><p>
The <b>RIVAM</b> (cited by Tosfos, ibid.) understands that Rabeinu Tam means that not only is the Nochri permitted to marry the woman (after he converts), but even the husband is permitted to his wife after she committed adultery with a Nochri. However, he strongly opposes this ruling based on the Gemara here which implies that a woman who willfully lives with a Nochri becomes forbidden to her husband. 
</p><p>
(Moreover, if Rabeinu Tam means that adultery with a Nochri does not prohibit the woman to her husband or to the adulterer, he should also rule that when the woman's husband is a Kohen she remains permitted to him. However, the Gemara clearly says that she is prohibited to her husband if he is a Kohen! The answer to this question may be that that the prohibition to a Kohen is not because of Tum'ah, that she became defiled (which is the reason for her prohibition to her husband and to the adulterer), but it is because of the Isur of 'Zonah.' The Gemara here maintains that even Bi'ah b'Ones renders a woman a Zonah (see Yevamos 56b and 59b).)
</p><p>
Perhaps Rabeinu Tam had a different intention. Rabeinu Tam means only that the woman is permitted to the adulterer, but <i>not</i> to her husband or to a Kohen, as the <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> (DH v'Ivra) writes. The logic behind this distinction is that since the Nochri's Bi'ah is not the same as that of a Jew because of the element of 'Zirmas Susim Zirmasam,' the woman is not Chayav Misah for such a Bi'ah. For the same reason, the adulterer is not prohibited to the woman, as his Bi'ah was not the type of Bi'ah which the Torah punishes with Misah, and we do not find that such a Bi'ah forbids her to the adulterer. 
</p><p>
She <i>is</i> forbidden to her husband, however, because she was unfaithful to him, and the Torah says that if a woman is unfaithful to her husband she becomes forbidden to him; it makes no difference whether she was unfaithful to him with a Nochri or with a Jew. In summary, the prohibition to her husband depends on her being unfaithful, while the prohibition to the adulterer depends on the Bi'ah being considered a normal Bi'ah. (See <b>MISHNEH L'MELECH</b>, Hilchos Yibum 6:19, who discusses the extent to which we compare the woman's status to her husband with her status to the adulterer.)
</p><p>
This indeed is the opinion of <b>RABEINU YECHIEL</b> (cited by the <b>RITVA</b> here and by the <b>MORDECHAI</b> in Sanhedrin #720). Rabeinu Yechiel rules that if a Nochri lives with a married, Jewish woman, he is permitted to marry her after he converts, since he was permitted to her at the time he had relations with her (since he was a Nochri), and when he converts he becomes like a 'Katan she'Nolad' (see also <b>RASHASH</b> here). This implies that if he had been forbidden to her while he was a Nochri, the prohibition would <i>not</i> have been revoked because of 'Ger she'Nisgayer k'Katan she'Nolad Dami.'
</p><p>
Accordingly, Rabeinu Tam is giving the reason why the prohibition does not apply to the Nochri while he is a Nochri, and Rabeinu Yechiel is adding why the prohibition does not apply to him when he converts. Indeed, the <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> and <b>TOSFOS YOM HA'KIPURIM</b> (Yoma 82b) explain that Rabeinu Tam means to say the same as Rabeinu Yechiel.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>ROSH</b> (1:4, and in <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b>) also rules that when a woman commits adultery with a Nochri and then he converts, she is permitted to marry him, as Rabeinu Tam says, but for a different reason. The Rosh asserts that a woman is prohibited from marrying her adulterer only when she was permitted to him before the Z'nus. Since she is prohibited to marry a Nochri even before the Z'nus, the Torah does not prohibit her to him when he converts after she committed adultery with him.
</p><p>
The <b>TERUMAS HA'DESHEN</b> (#29) discusses the Rosh's view in a case in which a woman commits adultery with the husband of her sister, and then her sister dies. Following the logic of the Rosh, she should be permitted to the adulterer, because at the time of the Z'nus she was prohibited to him (because of 'Achos Ishto').
</p><p>
The Terumas ha'Deshen concludes that even the Rosh permits her only in the case of a Nochri who converts, because a Nochri is <i>always</i> forbidden to the woman. If he converts, he is not the same person anymore because he is like a 'Katan she'Nolad.' Therefore, the prohibition to the adulterer will not apply when the Nochri converts. In contrast, the husband of her sister is prohibited to her only as long as her sister is alive. Therefore, when she commits adultery with him, the prohibition to marry her adulterer will apply.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RIVAM</b> rejects Rabeinu Tam's argument entirely. He rules that the woman <i>is</i> prohibited to the Nochri with whom she committed adultery.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (EH 178:19) rules like Rabeinu Yechiel and the Terumas ha'Deshen, that the woman is permitted to the Nochri when he converts, but she is not permitted to the husband of her sister after her sister dies.
</p><p>


<font><b>3) UPROOTING A 'TAKANAH D'RABANAN' IN THE FACE OF DANGER</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that if a wicked regime were to institute that anyone who marries a Besulah on Wednesday is to be killed, the Rabanan would uproot the Takanah d'Rabanan and would not require a Besulah to get married on Wednesday. 
</p><p>
However, the Gemara later says that if a wicked regime decrees that any Besulah who gets married on Wednesday must live with the governor first, then even though there is a concern that some women, the Tzenu'os, might give up their lives, the Rabanan do not uproot the Takanah of getting married on Wednesday, because 'evil decrees are wont to be retracted, and we do not uproot a Takanah d'Rabanan because of an evil decree which will eventually be retracted.'
</p><p>
According to the Gemara later, why are the Rabanan prepared to uproot their Takanah if the regime decrees that whoever gets married on Wednesday will be killed? That, too, is an evil decree that will eventually pass!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Takanah) explains that if the regime makes a decree to kill anyone who gets married on Wednesday, the Rabanan would not have to uproot their Takanah because they could institute a different day for getting married instead of Wednesday. Such a change would satisfy the governor, since he would be content with the knowledge that he was able to cause a change in the Halachah of the Jews. Since his intention in making such a decree was clearly to prevent the Jews from observing the Halachah, it will not bother him if he finds that everyone is getting married on another day.
</p><p>
However, when the governor institutes a decree that he will have relations with every Besulah who gets married on Wednesday, he obviously is interested in personal pleasure and not in abolishing the Jews' practice. (This also explains why there is no requirement 'to be killed and not to transgress' in this case, even though the Halachah is that when Nochrim attempt to make the Jews change any religious practice with the express intent to abolish the Jewish faith, there is a requirement 'to be killed and not to transgress.') If the Rabanan were to institute that Besulos should get married on Tuesday, the governor would just change his evil decree to take all the woman who get married on Tuesday. Therefore, the Rabanan would have to avoid instituting a new day for getting married and abolish the Takanah of getting married on a specific day. Since they do not abolish any Takanah because of an evil decree, the Takanah remains in force.
</p><p>
This appears to be the intention of Rashi as well (DH v'Ne'akrei).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> explains that if the evil decree would have been to <i>kill</i> people who get married on Wednesday, the Rabanan certainly would have annulled their enactment in order to save lives. However, since the decree was only that the Besulos must be defiled by the governor, and there was no definite danger to lives but only a <i>possible</i> danger that a modest woman might give up her life in order to avoid living with the governor, the Rabanan did not annul their enactment, as there is a possibility that <i>no</i> lives will be lost by the time that the evil decree is revoked. (See also <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b>.)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RITVA</b> answers that in the case of the decree that each Besulah must be defiled by the governor, the Rabanan did not uproot their enactment to get married on Wednesday because the only concern is that some women will give up their lives 'Lifnim mi'Shuras ha'Din,' beyond the letter of the law. For such a concern, the Rabanan do not abolish an enactment. If, however, there would be a concern that a person would have to give up his life according to the letter of the law, then the Rabanan certainly would abolish their enactment.
</p><p>
As the <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> here points out, the Ritva apparently follows his opinion as expressed elsewhere (19a), where he writes that for any Mitzvah for which a person is not required to give up his life, he is <i>prohibited</i> to give up his life. (This is also the ruling of the <b>RAMBAM</b> in Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah 5:4.) Accordingly, the Rabanan did not find it necessary to abolish their Takanah because of women who are acting improperly by giving up their lives when they are not supposed to do so (and they are prohibited to do so). This is the 'Lifnim mi'Shuras ha'Din' to which the Ritva refers -- an act in error, not a laudable one.
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE CHUPAH THAT PUSHES OFF AVEILUS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> If the bread was baked, the animals were 
          slaughtered, or the wine was mixed, and then the Chasan's 
          father or Kalah's mother died:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We put the deceased in a room until after the 
               Chupah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> They have Bi'as Mitzvah, and separate;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> They celebrate the seven days of festivity (of 
               newlyweds), followed by seven days of Aveilus.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> All 14 days he sleeps among men, and she sleeps 
               among women.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> She may use any cosmetics she desires during the 
               30 days of Aveilus.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  All this applies only when the Chasan's father or 
          Kalah's mother died, for no one else will toil to prepare 
          another Chupah. If his mother or her father died, the 
          burial and Aveilus precede the Chupah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chisda):</font></b> Permission to postpone the burial and 
          Aveilus due to having slaughtered animals applies only if 
          water was put on the meat. If not, the meat can be sold;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rava):</font></b> In a large city, even if water was put on 
               the meat, it can be sold (so we must delay the 
               Chupah).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Papa):</font></b> In a village, even if water was not 
               put on the meat, it cannot be sold (so we may delay 
               the burial and Aveilus).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, where does Rav Chisda's law apply?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> It applies in a middle-sized city.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  A Beraisa supports Rav Chisda.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Similarly, if the Kalah becomes Nidah, he 
          sleeps among men, and she sleeps among women.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  Whether or not there is an Ones, the first act of Bi'ah 
          may not be on Shabbos night nor Saturday night.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE SEPARATION OF THE KALAH AND CHASAN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> He sleeps among men, and she sleeps among 
          women.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  This supports R. Yochanan, who says that even though we 
          do not show signs of Aveilus on a festival (a Chasan has 
          the same law as a festival), private matters (i.e. Bi'ah) 
          are forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yosef brei d'Rava):</font></b> They must sleep (separately) 
          with other men and women only if they have not yet had 
          Bi'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But the Beraisa says that they sleep 
          separately, even though they have had Bi'ah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rav Yosef discusses only when she became Nidah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa says 'similarly' (which connotes 
          that the cases are identical)!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: GETTING MARRIED DURING 'AVEILUS'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara says that if a Chasan and Kalah were about to get married and all of the preparations for the wedding had been made, and then the father of the Chasan or mother of the Kalah passed away, the body is moved to a different room, the Chupah is performed, they do Be'ilas Mitzvah, and then they bury the dead. After the burial, they observe seven days of Mishteh (celebration) followed by seven days of Aveilus.
</p><p>
The Gemara says that this procedure applies only if it is specifically the father of the Chasan or the mother of the Kalah who died, as opposed to other relatives. In addition, it applies only if the food that was prepared for the wedding will spoil if the wedding is not performed immediately.
</p><p>
What is the procedure if a different relative of the Chasan or Kalah dies, or if the food will not spoil if the wedding is postponed?
</p><p>
(a) The <b>RIF</b>, as explained by the <b>ROSH</b> (1:6), writes that if the food will not spoil, or if it has not yet been prepared, the dead body still is removed to a different room and the Chupah is performed and Be'ilas Mitzvah is done, just as in the case of the Gemara. The difference is that after burying the dead, the seven days of <i>Aveilus</i> are observed first, and then the seven days of Mishteh are observed. The Rosh cites the <b>MAHARITZ GE'AS</b> who rules that the same applies when a different relative (other than the father of the Chasan or the mother of the Kalah) passes away; the Chupah is performed and Be'ilas Mitzvah is done, but the seven days of Aveilus are observed first, followed by the seven days of Mishteh.
</p><p>
The source for their ruling appears to be the Gemara (at the end of 4b) that states that allowing the Chasan and Kalah to get married and do Be'ilas Mitzvah is not a leniency instituted by the Rabanan in the laws of Aveilus, because the Aveilus does not start until after the burial. Rather, the leniency is that the seven days of Mishteh precede the seven days of Aveilus. Accordingly, even if a different relative dies the only difference in the procedure is the order of the seven days of Aveilus and the seven days of Mishteh (that is, the Rabanan did not institute the leniency of observing the days of Mishteh first in such a case).
</p><p>
(b) The <b>ROSH</b> disagrees and says that if a different relative dies or if the food will not spoil, the wedding does <i>not</i> take place at all before the burial. Rather, the Chupah and Be'ilas Mitzvah are performed <i>after</i> the burial and the Aveilus. This also seems to be the view of <b>RASHI</b> (end of 3b).
</p><p>
How does the Rosh understand the Gemara that says that there is nothing wrong with doing Be'ilas Mitzvah before the burial (since the obligation of Aveilus has not yet taken effect)? The Rosh says that there certainly is something inappropriate with doing Be'ilah before burial; it is a disgrace to the Mes to delay the burial. Rather, the Gemara means that the Be'ilas Mitzvah is not an affront to the requirement to observe Aveilus (even if it is an affront to the honor of the Mes). Similarly, the <b>RAMBAN</b> (in Toras ha'Adam) and the <b>RASHBA</b> write that during the period of Aninus, before the burial, Be'ilah indeed is generally prohibited, and when the Gemara says that before the Aveilus takes effect doing Be'ilah is not an affront to the Aveilus, it means that it <i>is</i> an affront to the Aninus, but not to the Aveilus. Therefore, where there is no loss of money, it is not permitted to perform the Chupah and Be'ilas Mitzvah before burying the dead.
</p><p>
This argument seems to reflect a basic difference in opinion concerning how the Rabanan were lenient to allow the marriage in the case of the death of the father of the Chasan or the mother of the Kalah. The <b>RIF</b> seems to understand that the Rabanan overrode the laws of Aveilus by instituting that the seven days of Mishteh override the Aveilus. Therefore, neither the Chupah nor the Be'ilas Mitzvah had to take place before the burial, because the Rabanan could have simply instituted to override the Aveilus and perform the Chupah and Be'ilas Mitzvah <i>after</i> the burial. Since the Rabanan instituted that the Chupah be done before the burial, it must be that something is gained by doing so -- that is, by instituting that the Chupah and Be'ilas Mitzvah be done before the burial, the Rabanan avoided having to override the Halachos of Aveilus d'Rabanan, and the Chupah is being done entirely b'Heter (without overriding anything). (Apparently, there is no Isur Be'ilah during <i>Aninus</i>, either because Nisu'in and Be'ilah are not prohibited during Aninus, or because in this specific situation Be'ilah is not prohibited during Aninus, as the <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> on 4b explains.)
</p><p>
Rashi (4a, DH u'Poresh), however, has a completely different understanding. Rashi explains that the leniency was simply to allow the Chupah and Be'ilas Mitzvah to take place during Aninus. Once the Chupah is performed, it 'causes the Chasunah to take effect' and it becomes like a festival, a Regel, for the Chasan. Because the Chupah creates a Regel for the Chasan, it is the <i>Chasunah</i> that overrides the Aveilus, and that is why the seven days of Mishteh precede the days of Aveilus. Therefore, in a case in which it is not necessary for the seven days of Mishteh to precede the Aveilus (i.e. where there is no financial loss involved), the Rabanan do not permit the Chupah and Be'ilas Mitzvah to be performed before the burial.
</p><p>
Another practical difference between Rashi and the Rif may exist a situation in which a relative -- not the father of the Chasan or the mother of the Kalah -- passes away <i>after</i> the Chupah and Be'ilah Rishonah. According to Rashi, the seven days of mourning should be postponed until after the seven days of festivity, since the celebration already started. According to the Rif, the seven days of mourning should be observed immediately. In this case, Rashi's opinion would be the lenient one, and the Rif's would be the stringent one.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (YD 342:1) rules like Rashi and the Rosh, that Chupah and the Be'ilas Mitzvah are not permitted before the Aveilus begins. The <b>DERISHAH</b> rules, similarly, that if the relative died after the Chupah and the days of festivity had already begun, the rest of the seven days of festivity are observed before the Aveilus. 
</p><p>
(In a case in which the relative died immediately after the Chupah but before the seven days of festivity began, the Acharonim argue whether the Aveilus precedes the Mishteh or not -- see <b>TAZ</b>, <b>NEKUDOS HA'KESEF</b>, and others. The conclusion of the Acharonim seems to be that the seven days of Mishteh precede the Aveilus, as Rashi implies. See <b>DIVREI SOFRIM</b> YD 342:38.)
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It means 'similarly, if a Kalah became Nidah 
          before they had Bi'ah, they sleep among men/women.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  We are more stringent about Aveilus than about Nidah. 
          We must say that a Chasan is less than careful to refrain 
          from Bi'ah during Aveilus than to refrain from Bi'ah with 
          a Nidah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Yitzchak bar Chanina):</font></b> A Nidah may do 
          everything a woman does for her husband, except for 
          mixing his drink, making his bed, and washing his face, 
          hands and feet. (This is more stringent than regarding 
          Aveilus!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> Even though a man cannot force his 
               wife to color her eyes and be Pokeses (apply rouge 
               to her face; alternatively, part her hair) during 
               her Aveilus, she may mix his drink, make his bed, 
               and wash his face, hands and feet.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> That refers to her Aveilus. The restrictions 
          of a man during his own Aveilus are more stringent than 
          those of a Nidah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa says that they sleep among men 
          and women, whether his father or her mother died!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We postpone burial and Aveilus (even) when her 
          mother died, but sleeping among men/women applies only 
          when his father died.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> There is no difference between his Aveilus 
          and hers!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If a woman lost a parent, her husband 
               cannot force her to color her eyes and be Pokeses. 
               Rather, he inverts his bed and mourns with her;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Similarly, if a man lost a parent, his wife may 
               not color her eyes or be Pokeses. Rather, she 
               inverts her bed and mourns with him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> During his Aveilus, they sleep among men/women.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But it says 'similarly'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This refers to coloring eyes and being Pokeses.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> It says that she mourns with him. This 
          connotes in the same bed!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No, it means in his presence;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The wife of Rav's son Chiya was mourning. Rav 
               told him to conduct like an Avel only in front of 
               her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (to Question (i) - Rav Ashi):</font></b> Normally, a 
          person is careful about Aveilus. Here we were lenient, so 
          we must add stringencies so he will not treat it lightly.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE LENIENCY OF THIS AVEILUS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the leniency of this Aveilus?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> They may have Bi'ah before the 
               burial.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> This is not a leniency. Aveilus did 
               not begin yet!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  R. Eliezer says that Aveilus begins when the 
                    coffin leaves the house.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> R. Yehoshua says that Aveilus begins from 
                    the sealing of the coffin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The leniency is that the week of Aveilus is 
          postponed until after the seven days of festivities.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> Whether or not there is an Ones, the first 
          Bi'ah may not be on Shabbos night nor Saturday night.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Granted, Shabbos night is forbidden because 
          he makes a wound;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Why is Saturday night forbidden?
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHY THE FIRST BI'AH MAY NOT BE ON SATURDAY NIGHT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Zeira):</font></b> He will make calculations for the 
          feast on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Abaye):</font></b> On Shabbos, one may make 
          calculations for a Mitzvah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Chisda and Rav Hamnuna said so explicitly.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Elazar):</font></b> We may apportion Tzedakah to the 
               poor on Shabbos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yakov):</font></b> We go to Batei Kenesiyos and Batei 
               Midrashos to oversee communal concerns on Shabbos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yakov bar Idi):</font></b> We oversee mortal issues on 
               Shabbos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani):</font></b> We go to theaters and 
               stadiums to oversee communal concerns on Shabbos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Menasya):</font></b> One may arrange Kidushin for his 
               daughter and contract teachers (for Torah and a 
               trade) for his son on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (R. Zeira):</font></b> This is a decree lest one 
          slaughter a small bird on Shabbos (in preparation for the 
          feast).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> If so, we should not allow Yom Kipur 
          to fall on Monday, lest one slaughter a small bird on 
          Shabbos (in preparation for the festive meal of Erev Yom 
          Kipur)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> We are concerned only when one is busy 
          preparing a meal for others.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> The meal for the Chupah is right after 
          Shabbos. The meal of Erev Yom Kipur is the following day, 
          so he is not rushed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  This same concern also explains why the first Bi'ah may 
          not be on Shabbos night. (We need not say like we said 
          above that the concern is wounding.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE PROPER TIME FOR BI'AH RISHONAH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> A virgin is married on Wednesday.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> May they have Bi'ah that day?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Are we confident that if he finds that she is not 
               a virgin, his anger will not subside so quickly, and 
               he will go to Beis Din the next day?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Or, are we concerned lest he will calm down 
               quickly, and therefore require that they postpone 
               Bi'ah until the evening?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The following shows that the former is correct:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Bar Kapara):</font></b> A virgin is married on Wednesday 
               and they have Bi'ah at night, because the Berachah 
               to fish was given on Thursday;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> A non-virgin is married on Thursday and they have 
               Bi'ah at night, because the Berachah to man was said 
               on Friday.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> This shows that the only concern is the Berachah, 
               not that his anger will subside.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If the Berachah to fish is so important, a 
          non-virgin should also have Bi'ah on Wednesday!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> The Berachah to man is preferable.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Beraisa):</font></b> A non-virgin is married on 
          Thursday, and Bi'ah is at night, so that the Chasan will 
          spend three days with her before he returns to his work.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Bi'ah was by day the fondness would pass 
               sooner, and he might go to work the next day.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why do we need both answers?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> There is no concern lest he go to his job the 
          next day if he man is idle, or if Yom Tov falls on 
          Friday.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>AGADIC TEACHINGS OF BAR KAPARA</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Bar Kapara):</font></b> The deeds of Tzadikim are greater than 
          the creation of Shamayim and earth.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A verse says that one hand of Hash-m made earth 
               and one hand made Heaven, but the Mikdash is called 
               the work of both hands.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Chiya):</font></b> 'His hands formed the dry land'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> (We read 'hands', but) it is written 'hand'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> It says 'Yotzru' (they formed)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> His fingers formed 
          the land.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We find that the moon and stars are called the 
               work of His fingers.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> 'The firmament tells the work of His hands'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The firmament recounts the work of the hands of 
          Tzadikim (which is the work of His hands);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This refers to rain (for which Tzadikim pray).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Bar Kapara):</font></b> 'You should have a shovel with Azenecha 
          (your weapons)' - we can read this like Oznecha (your 
          ears), to teach that one should stick his finger in his 
          ear if he hears something improper.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) PERHAPS HE WILL SLAUGHTER A BIRD ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara here concludes that one is prohibited to perform Be'ilas Mitzvah on Erev Shabbos and on Motza'i Shabbos because of the fear that one might slaughter a young bird ('Ben Of') on Shabbos for the festive meal that celebrates the marriage. The Gemara asks why there is no similar Gezeirah for when Yom Kippur occurs on a Monday: since there is a Mitzvah to eat on Erev Yom Kippur (Sunday), there is a fear that one might slaughter birds on Shabbos for the Se'udah of Erev Yom Kippur, and thus Yom Kippur should be postponed to Tuesday.
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that there is a difference between preparing a Se'udah for Erev Yom Kippur and preparing a Se'udah in honor of a marriage. When one prepares a Se'udah for Erev Yom Kippur, one prepares only for himself and thus there is no fear that he will slaughter a bird on Shabbos, as he does not have to slaughter many birds for his private Se'udah. When one prepares a Se'udah for the marriage, in contrast, he prepares for many people, and thus there is a fear that he will slaughter a bird on Shabbos. Moreover, the Se'udah of Erev Yom Kippur is held on the <i>day</i> of Erev Yom Kippur (Sunday), and not during the night (Motza'i Shabbos), and thus there is no fear that he will slaughter on Shabbos.
</p><p>
There are several questions on the Gemara. 
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Ela) asks why is the Gemara worried only about Erev Yom Kippur falling on Sunday? It is true that large Se'udos are held on Erev Yom Kippur, but there are many other times during the year when large meals with meat are held, such as the four times of year described in Chulin (83a; the first day of Pesach, Shemini Atzeres, Shavuos, and Rosh Hashanah). <i>None</i> of those times should be permitted to fall right after Shabbos. Why does the Gemara ask specifically about Erev Yom Kippur?
</p><p>
(b) A festive Se'udah of Sheva Berachos is held each day for seven days after the wedding, including Shabbos. Why does the Gemara not ask how a Se'udah of Sheva Berachos may be held on Shabbos if there is a fear that one might slaughter a bird on Shabbos?
</p><p>
Similarly, on <i>every</i> Shabbos large Se'udos are made. Why is there no fear that one might slaughter a bird on an ordinary Shabbos?
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RITVA</b> asks a number of other questions: Why does the Gemara mention the fear that one might slaughter a 'bird' in particular, when one might also slaughter any other type of kosher animal? Why does the Gemara call it a '<i>Ben</i> Of,' a <i>young</i> bird? Why does the Gemara say that the only fear is that one might <i>slaughter</i> the bird, and it does not mention the fear that one might <i>cook</i> the bird on Shabbos?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER: TOSFOS</b> (DH Ela) explains that Erev Yom Kippur is the only day on which specifically <i>birds</i> are slaughtered. At all other times it is common to slaughter other animals for the festive meals. Apparently, it is only when slaughtering <i>birds</i> that there is a fear that one might slaughter on Shabbos.
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> explains the logic behind this distinction. A person will not inadvertently commit an act of Chilul Shabbos with an act which involves a tedious labor; he will remember that it is Shabbos before he transgresses. The only concern is that he will transgress Shabbos with an act which is done easily and effortlessly. A person might inadvertently do such an act before he remembers that it is Shabbos and that the act is prohibited. Slaughtering a large animal and cooking a bird are acts that involve considerable effort, and thus there is no concern that a person will accidentally do those acts on Shabbos. The only concern is that one will do the relatively easy and swift act of slaughtering a bird on Shabbos. (See <b>TOSFOS</b> to Beitzah 3a, DH Gezeirah Shema.) 
</p><p>
This is also why the Gemara says that the concern is that one might slaughter a <i>young</i> bird on Shabbos. A young, small bird is very easy to slaughter, and thus there is greater concern that a person will do it before he remembers that it is Shabbos.
</p><p>
This also explains why there is no fear that one might slaughter a bird on Shabbos for an ordinary Shabbos meal, or for the meal of the day of Sheva Berachos that coincides with Shabbos. Whenever people make large Se'udos, they usually slaughter large animals which provide a greater expression of Simchah ('Ein Simchah Ela b'Basar'). They slaughter birds only for the Se'udah of Erev Yom Kippur and for the special Se'udah that follows the Be'ilas Mitzvah (it was apparently the common practice to make such a Se'udah during the time of the Gemara, as the Rishonim here explain). 
</p><p>
What is the source for the custom to slaughter birds, and not animals, on those days? Apparently, since it is advisable to eat light food before the fast of Yom Kippur, it is the custom to eat fowl instead of meat. (See Insights to Megilah 6:2 for a deeper reason for why fowl is eaten on Erev Yom Kippur, based on the <b>MAHARAL</b>.) Similarly, the Se'udah for the Be'ilas Mitzvah was a Se'udah of fowl, because a bird is a sign of Piryah v'Rivyah, as the <b>ME'IRI</b> writes (see Berachos 57a and Gitin 57a). 
</p><p>


<font><b>2) WHERE HEAVEN MEETS EARTH</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Bar Kapara states that the deeds of the Tzadikim are greater than the creation of heaven and earth ('Shamayim va'Aretz') because heaven and earth were created with one hand, while the Beis ha'Mikdash -- which was the handiwork of the Tzadikim (since the deeds of the Tzadikim merited that it be built) -- was created with two hands of Hash-m, as it were. 
</p><p>
In what sense did the building of the Beis ha'Mikdash require a second 'Divine Hand,' while the creation of heaven and earth did not?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The <b>MAHARSHA</b> points out that it is the 'Yemin,' the right hand, that created the heavens (according to the verse, Yeshayah 48:13, cited by the Gemara here), while it was the 'Yad,' the left hand, that created the earth. The right hand represents Hashem's attribute of mercy (and His clearly perceived presence), or Rachamim. The left hand represents the concealment of Hashem's mercy (and of His presence), or Din. The heavens are eternal, while everything on earth eventually perishes.
</p><p>
The Beis ha'Mikdash combines the two elements of Rachamim and Din. It is the place where 'the heavens touch the earth' (see Bava Basra 74a and Maharsha there) -- the conduit through which Hash-m sends His blessing to this world and the place where the mundane residents of this world can clearly perceive Hashem's presence. (This concept is alluded to by the design of the windows in the Beis ha'Mikdash, which are narrow on the inside and wide towards the outside. This design shows that a heavenly influx of blessing spreads from the Beis ha'Mikdash out to the rest of the world. See <b>RASHI</b> to Melachim I 6:4, and Vayikra Rabah 31:7.) In this sense the Beis ha'Mikdash was made with 'both hands' of Hash-m.
</p><p>
We may add that the Gemara says further that the earth was created with the five fingers of Hash-m. Perhaps this alludes to the four 'Yesodos,' or states of physical being (Bamidbar Rabah 14:12, Zohar 2:24a) -- earth (solid), water (liquid), air (gas), and fire (energy) -- as well as the fifth Yesod, Nefesh (the spiritual element), which together describe all existence in this world.
</p><p>
The Gemara then says that when rain descends upon the world, people see that it is the deeds of the Tzadikim that bring about the blessings from Hash-m with His two hands. Just as the Beis ha'Mikdash is a conduit for the Berachos of Hash-m to come into the world, so, too, the Tzadikim are a conduit for the Berachos of Hash-m to come into the world. That is why the Gemara compares one's association with a Tzadik with the offering of Korbanos: bringing a present to Tzadikim is like bringing Bikurim (Kesuvos 105b), and feeding him wine is like offering Nesachim (Yoma 71a). Similarly, the Gemara says that the death of a Tzadik is akin to the destruction of the Beis ha'Mikdash (Rosh Hashanah 18b).
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Elazar):</font></b> Why do man's fingers resemble 
          pegs?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> He asks why the fingers are separate 
               from each other.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> We learned that each has its own 
               purpose (even for Avodah)!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  The pinkie is the measure of the Choshen 
                    (breastplate of the Kohen Gadol).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> The ring finger is used to take a handful 
                    (of incense or a Minchah).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b></b>The middle finger is needed to define an 
                    Amah (from its end until the elbow). The Amah 
                    is used in the Mishkan, the Beis ha'Mikdash and 
                    their Kelim.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b></b> The index finger is used to drop blood of a 
                    Chatas on the corners of the Mizbe'ach.
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b></b> The thumb is where we pour blood and oil on a 
                    Metzora; or, it evens out the handful of 
                    incense or flour.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Clarification:</font></b> He asks why fingers are slanted like 
          pegs.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If one hears something improper, he can stick 
          his fingers in his ears.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael):</font></b> The ear is hard but the lobe 
          is soft, so if one hears improper things he can fold the 
          lobe over the ear.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> One should not let his ears here idle words, 
          for they are the first limbs to be singed (in Gehinom).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>MAY ONE HAVE BI'AH RISHONAH ON SHABBOS?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If a woman's first Bi'ah permitted on 
          Shabbos?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question #1:</font></b> Is (virginal) blood stored up (and 
               Bi'ah creates an opening that allows it to leave), 
               or is it absorbed (in the walls of the womb, and it 
               comes due to a wound made by Bi'ah Rishonah, so this 
               is forbidden on Shabbos)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 - Question #2:</font></b> If it is stored, does a man 
          want the blood (this is not forbidden), or does he want 
          to create an opening (which is forbidden)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #3:</font></b> If he wants the blood and he is not 
          concerned about the opening, does the Halachah follow R. 
          Shimon, who permits Davar she'Eino Miskaven (something 
          unintended, but it might occur) or R. Yehudah, who 
          forbids it?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #4:</font></b> If the Halachah follows R. Yehudah, do we 
          say that making an opening is destructive (and permitted) 
          or constructive (and forbidden)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 - Question #2:</font></b> If the blood is absorbed, 
          does a man want the blood (and Bi'ah is forbidden), or 
          does he intend for his own pleasure (and Bi'ah is 
          allowed)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #3:</font></b> If he intends for his own pleasure and the 
          blood comes by itself, does the Halachah follow R. 
          Yehudah, who forbids Davar she'Eino Miskaven, or R. 
          Shimon, who permits it?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #4:</font></b> If the Halachah follows R. Yehudah, is the 
          wound destructive (and permitted) or constructive (and 
          forbidden)?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #5:</font></b> If it is destructive, does the Halachah 
          follow R. Yehudah who permits this, or R. Shimon who 
          forbids?
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) AGADAH: A FINGER IN THE EAR</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Bar Kapara expounds the verse, 'You shall have a Yated (shovel or peg) in addition to Azenecha (your equipment)' (Devarim 23:14). He explains that the word 'Azenecha' should be read 'Aznecha' (your ear), and that the verse means that if a person hears something improper being said, he should place his fingers in his ears. The verse says that one should use the 'pegs' that Hash-m gave him to stop his 'ears' from hearing improper things.
</p><p>
How does Bar Kapara's interpretation fit the straightforward context of the verse? The end of the verse clearly states that the 'Yated' of the verse is to be used to dig up earth and cover excrement! Why does Bar Kapara interpret this verse as a reference to fingers, ears, and Lashon ha'Ra? Moreover, what compels Bar Kapara to read the word as 'Aznecha' against the accepted reading of 'Azenecha'?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) Based on Bar Kapara's teaching, the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Moreh Nevuchim 3:43) asserts that wherever the Chachamim say, 'Do not read the word like this, but rather like this,' they simply mean to express their teachings in a memorable manner. The verse itself, however, does not really express the thought that they are discussing. (See also <b>SHELAH HA'KODESH</b> (Torah she'Ba'al Peh, end of Aleph), and <b>TORAH TEMIMAH</b> (Bamidbar 19:21), who follow the Rambam's approach to a limited degree. The Rambam, in his 'Introduction to the Mishnah,' uses a similar approach to explain the significance of the 'Asmachta.')
</p><p>
(b) However, numerous Rishonim and Acharonim reject the Rambam's approach as an oversimplification. Although it is obvious that the Chachamim are not trying to change the accepted pronunciation or intention of the verse, it is still possible that the ideas they express by saying, 'Do not read the word like this...,' are indeed based on a lesson learned from the verse in its literal sense. (The <b>RITVA</b> in Rosh Hashanah (16b) disagrees with the Rambam's understanding of 'Asmachta' based on a similar argument.)
</p><p>
A number of works have been published in defense of this text-based understanding of the tool, 'Do not read the word like this...' (see <b>SHIVREI LUCHOS</b>, Rav Yechiel of Nemerov; <b>KOREI B'EMES</b>, Rav Yitzchak Bamberger of Wurtzberg).
</p><p>
Perhaps a novel understanding of Bar Kapara's words may be suggested based on this latter approach. (See also <b>MAHARSHA</b>; <b>KOREH B'EMES</b>, p. 39; and <b>KLI YAKAR</b> for other explanations.)
</p><p>
The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (Mishlei 24:31, Imrei No'am to Berachos 8a) shows that when the Chachamim offer advice about how to relieve oneself, aside from the simple meaning of their words they are also alluding to relieving oneself of the mental spoilage and corruption that brings a person to unacceptable behavior. If relieving oneself of excrement means abandoning unacceptable motivations, then the excrement which the verse commands one to cover might allude to hiding one's improper acts. The concept of hiding improper acts is discussed in several places. The Gemara in Chagigah (16a) says that 'it is better for a person to sin in private so that he not desecrate the Name of Hash-m in public.... If a person feels an uncontrollable urge to sin, let him go to a place where he is not known, wear black clothing and do there what he desires, rather than desecrate the Name of Hash-m in public.'
</p><p>
The Gemara there does not mean that it is acceptable to sin in private. Rather, the Chachamim are addressing an extreme case, where someone feels compelled uncontrollably to sin (see Insights there). Under such circumstances, he is advised at least to 'cover up' his act. The best course of action, of course, is to control his impulses and refrain from the act. No matter how compelling it seems to him at the time, in the final analysis it is <i>he</i> who retains control over his desires and not vice versa. (See Insights to Moed Katan 17:2.)
</p><p>
There is, however, a situation in which even the Torah itself takes into account a person's uncontrollable desire and relaxes its rules: the case of the 'Eshes Yefas To'ar.' The Torah permits a Jewish soldier in time of war to take a woman from the defeated nation ('Eshes Yefas To'ar'). Since the women of the enemy nation are liable to arouse the desires of the Jewish soldiers (the enemy women used to dress up and apply their finest perfumes in order to seduce their captors, as Rashi (Devarim 21:13) says), the Torah permits a soldier to marry such a woman, with the logic that it is better to permit the soldiers to do something morally improper than to prohibit the act and cause them to desecrate the Torah outright (Rashi to Kidushin 21b).
</p><p>
Similarly, the Torah permits soldiers, when hungry, to eat prohibited foods during a war (<b>RAMBAM</b>, Hilchos Melachim 8:1; see, however, <b>RAMBAN</b> to Devarim 6:10 who differs with the Rambam on this point).
</p><p>
The verse which discusses the treatment of excrement in the army camp may be understood as an allusion to the unpleasant situation that arises during wartime. It may be a warning that when soldiers 'leave' the normally accepted way of moral behavior, they at least should not do so publicly. They should 'cover up' their actions so that they will not be seen by their fellow Jews. <b>RABEINU BACHYE</b> (Devarim 21:10) indeed writes that the Gemara warns the soldier to take the 'Eshes Yefas To'ar' in as covert a manner as possible, and he quotes the end of the verse here to support this teaching.
</p><p>
The concealment of sin serves two purposes. The first is that it prevents others who might witness the sin from suffering from a weakening of their own resolve. The second is that it prevents others who might witness the sin from speaking Lashon ha'Ra about what they saw. This would cause resentment, denial, and internal quarreling among the troops. This was, in fact, a major issue during wartime, as the Ramban points out (Devarim 23:10, see also Vayikra Rabah 26:2).
</p><p>
This is the lesson which Bar Kapara derives from the verse. The Torah warns the soldiers to conceal the occasional sin that they commit under duress, because revealing the sin may have a detrimental effect on the moral standards of others who hear of it. Similarly, the Gemara infers that is incumbent upon a Jew to avoid <i>listening</i> to someone who attempts to tell him of the moral decline of a fellow Jew, so that one not learn from his bad example or provoke his animosity.
</p><p>
Bar Kapara said that the verse may be read as, 'You shall use a finger to stop up your ear from hearing of another Jew's misdeeds.' Although this reading is not the literal translation of the verse, it is a lesson that certainly is derived from the literal meaning of the verse. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


<font><b>4) A 'PESIK RESHEI' THAT AN OPENING WILL BE MADE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses whether or not one is permitted to perform the first Be'ilah on Shabbos. The Gemara says that if the blood is 'Mifkad Pakid' (stored in and separate from, and not absorbed in, the flesh), then the only reason to prohibit the first Be'ilah on Shabbos is because of the opening ('Pesach') that one makes with the act of Be'ilah. The Gemara suggests that perhaps even the concern that an opening will be made should not prohibit the act on Shabbos, because the man does not intend to make an opening but only to extract the blood. Since the formation of an opening is a 'Davar she'Eino Miskaven' it should be permitted according to Rebbi Shimon. (See Chart #3.)
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (DH O k'Rebbi Shimon) asks that although the formation of an opening is a 'Davar she'Eino Miskaven,' the Be'ilah still should be prohibited because it is a 'Pesik Reshei' -- an opening certainly will be made even though he does not intend to make one, as it is not possible to extract the blood without making an opening. Rashi answers that the Gemara later (6b) relates that there are those who know how to perform Be'ilah with 'Hatayah' in such a way that blood does not come out and no opening is made, and thus it is not a 'Pesik Reshei.' The <b>RA'AVAD</b>, cited by the Rashba, gives the same answer.
</p><p>
What does Rashi mean? The Gemara here discusses a person who has intention to extract blood. Obviously he does not do Hatayah, because with Hatayah he would not be able to extract any blood, as Rashi says. The formation of the opening <i>should</i> be a 'Pesik Reshei' since he is trying to extract blood! (<b>RASHBA</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> (DH v'Im Timtza Lomar l'Dam, in the name of 'Kuntreisim') explains that Rashi means to say two things. Rashi is saying that there is one type of Hatayah in which no blood is extracted. There is a second type of Hatayah in which blood does come out, but in which no opening is created. The reason why it is not a 'Pesik Reshei' that an opening will be made when one has intention to extract blood is because of the second type of Hatayah.
</p><p>
Why, though, does Rashi write that there is a type of Hatayah in which no blood comes out? Rashi is explaining the Gemara later that says that blood is 'Chaburei Michbar' (absorbed in the flesh) and yet Be'ilah is permitted because a man has intention only to get personal pleasure and not to extract the blood. Why is the extraction of the blood not a 'Pesik Reshei'? Rashi answers that a person can fulfill his intention to get personal pleasure without extracting blood or making an opening at all, by way of the first type of Hatayah. (See also <b>MAHARSHA</b> to <b>TOSFOS</b> DH l'Dam.)
</p><p>
(b) It is possible that Rashi chooses his words carefully and is following his opinion as expressed later (on 6b). There is a basic Machlokes among the Rishonim how to understand the Gemara that says that there is no 'Pesik Reshei' because of the possibility to do Be'ilah with Hatayah. <b>TOSFOS</b> (6b, DH Lo) writes that it is not a 'Pesik Reshei' only when a person <i>does not intend</i> to do an act of Be'ilah Gemurah (a full-fledged Be'ilah). If he intends to do a Be'ilah Gemurah, then he certainly will avoid Hatayah and Be'ilah is prohibited because the making of an opening is a 'Pesik Reishei.'
</p><p>
In contrast, Rashi understands that Hatayah is not something that one intends to do, but it is something that happens inadvertently, even when one is trying to perform a Be'ilah Gemurah (see Insights to 6b). Rashi says that even if a person intends to extract blood, the Be'ilah is permitted on Shabbos because perhaps he will do Hatayah (inadvertently) and not extract blood nor make an opening!
</p><p>
Tosfos (5b, DH l'Dam) and the Rashba follow their own reasoning and learn that Hatayah permits the Be'ilah only when one is not trying to perform a Be'ilah Gemurah and extract blood. If one is trying to extract blood, then obviously the Be'ilah cannot be permitted on the grounds that he might do Hatayah. That is why Tosfos must say that there is another type of Hatayah in which one extracts blood without making an opening. (M. Kornfeld)
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>IS 'BI'AH' 'RISHONAH' PERMITTED ON 'SHABBOS'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (The house of Rav):</font></b> Rav permits this, and Shmuel forbids.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Chachamim of Nehardai):</font></b> Rav forbids and Shmuel permits.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> A way to remember this is 
          that each place is lenient on themselves (each follows 
          its teacher, and says that its teacher permits).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rav forbids!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Simi bar Chizkiyah citing Rav):</font></b> One may not 
               cram a piece of cloth into the opening of a barrel 
               of beer to seal it. (This shows that Rav holds like 
               R. Yehudah. who forbids Davar she'Eino Miskaven, 
               i.e. squeezing from the cloth.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Stuffing the cloth will definitely squeeze;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Abaye and Rava):</font></b> R. Shimon agrees that a Pesik 
               Reisha (a case when the result will definitely 
               happen) is forbidden.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rav Chiya bar Ashi and R. Chiya bar Avin said 
          that Rav rules like R. Yehudah, and Rav Chanan bar Ami 
          said that Shmuel holds like R. Shimon!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Really, Rav holds like R. Yehudah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> According to the version that the blood is stored, 
               he holds that one ruins the opening;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> According to the version that the blood is absorbed, 
               he holds that the wound is destructive.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Chisda - Mishnah):</font></b> If a girl was married 
          below (12,) the age at which one normally sees Dam Nidah:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Beis Shamai attribute blood seen during Bi'ah on the 
               first four nights to her Besulim (tokens of 
               virginity), and she remains permitted;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Beis Hillel apply this leniency until the wound 
               heals.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> If she was married above this age, Beis Shamai apply 
               the leniency the first night;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Beis Hillel are lenient until Saturday night, four 
               nights.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE SECOND 'BE'ILAH' ON SHABBOS</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Beraisa teaches that a person may perform Be'ilah with a Besulah during the first four nights after the wedding, even though one of those nights is Shabbos.
</p><p>
The Gemara explains that the Beraisa does not provide proof that one is permitted to perform the first Be'ilah on Shabbos (i.e. that the blood is not absorbed within the flesh and thus extracting it is not considered a Melachah of Chaburah), because in the case of the Beraisa he already performed Be'ilah before Shabbos, and thus when he does Be'ilah again on Shabbos he is not making a Chaburah. The Gemara asks that if the case of the Beraisa is when he already performed the first Be'ilah before Shabbos, then what new law does the Beraisa teach? The Gemara answers that the Beraisa teaches the Halachah of Shmuel, that a person is permitted to enter a narrow opening on Shabbos even though he rubs off stones from the sides of the opening.
</p><p>
If the Be'ilah on Shabbos still causes Dam Besulim to come out during the first four nights, like walking through a narrow opening causes stones to become detached from the sides, then why is it permitted on Shabbos? It should be prohibited just as the Be'ilah Rishonah is prohibited on Shabbos -- because of the blood that is drawn. Even if he does not intend to extract the blood, it is still a 'Pesik Reshei' and should be prohibited.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RIVASH</b> (#394) addresses the comments sent to him by a questioner. The questioner suggests that the reason one is permitted to walk into a narrow opening even though he thereby rubs off stones from the sides is because had the stones been firmly cemented into the wall, they would not have been rubbed off. Accordingly, even if the stones are not cemented-in firmly it is not considered a 'Pesik Reshei' if he rubs them off. Similarly, since there is no prohibition of Be'ilah on Shabbos in the case of women who have been married for a while and who will not bleed, Be'ilah with a newly married woman is not considered a 'Pesik Reshei' (even though she will bleed). It remains no more than a 'Davar she'Eino Miskaven' and is permitted.
</p><p>
The Rivash rejects this approach emphatically. He says that there is no logic to justify such a suggestion. If rubbing against the wall will cause stones to be detached, and if Be'ilah with the woman will cause blood to flow, then it is a 'Pesik Reshei' and certainly is prohibited.
</p><p>
However, a concept similar to that which the questioner suggests is expressed by <b>RASHI</b> in Zevachim (91b, DH Ha Rebbi Shimon). Rashi explains that pouring wine (for the Nesachim) on the fire of the Mizbe'ach is permitted because one does not intend to extinguish the fire of the Mizbe'ach but rather to bring the wine offering. Rashi there adds that extinguishing the fire is not a 'Pesik Reshei' because it is possible to pour the wine with very small drops that will not extinguish the flame, and therefore even if one pours thick drops that extinguish the flame on the Mizbe'ach it is a 'Davar she'Eino Miskaven' and not a 'Pesik Reshei' (because he could have poured small drops).
</p><p>
There is, however, a clear difference between the Halachah presented by Rashi in Zevachim and that of the questioner quoted by the Rivash. In Rashi's case, the person who pours the wine has an alternative way to achieve his goal, by pouring the wine in a way in which no Isur will be done. In the cases of the Gemara here, however, there is no way for this person to achieve his goal without doing an Isur; stones definitely will be rubbed off when he walks through the narrow opening, and blood definitely will flow when he does Be'ilah on Shabbos.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RIVASH</b> himself explains that Shmuel's words, 'even though one causes stones to be detached,' do not mean that stones will certainly fall when the person walks there, but that there is a <i>possibility</i> that stones will fall. His act is <i>not</i> a 'Pesik Reshei.' Similarly, there is only a <i>possibility</i>, not a certainty, that the woman will bleed, and therefore it is not a 'Pesik Reshei.' This also seems to be the intention of Rashi (DH she'Meshir Tzeroros) who writes that '<i>perhaps</i> he will cause bleeding.'
</p><p>
However, this approach still does not answer the Gemara fully. The Halachah that Be'ilah is permitted during the first four nights after the wedding is quoted in the name of Beis Hillel. If Beis Hillel is ruling that a 'Davar she'Eino Miskaven' is permitted, how will Rebbi Yehudah -- who says that a 'Davar she'Eino Miskaven' is prohibited -- understand the ruling of Beis Hillel? He certainly cannot argue with Beis Hillel.
</p><p>
Perhaps the Gemara understands that according to Rebbi Yehudah, Beis Hillel maintains that the first Be'ilah indeed is permitted on Shabbos because of Mekalkel. Beis Hillel is not discussing entering a narrow opening at all.
</p><p>
Alternatively, entering a narrow opening is not even a 'Davar she'Eino Miskaven' because it is <i>very</i> unusual for the stones to become detached, or for bleeding to occur. Therefore, it is permitted even according to Rebbi Yehudah.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RASHBA</b> writes that the bleeding that occurs after the first day is not from the Chaburah made to the Besulim. Rather, it is just blood that was stuck to the sides of the flesh that was already separated from the flesh. It is similar to walking into a narrow opening where there are loose stones which are not attached to the sides of the opening and which are brushed off when one rubs against them.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) PERFORMING 'BE'ILAH RISHONAH' WITH 'HATAYAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> The Gemara cites the Chachamim who rule that one is permitted to perform the first Be'ilah on Shabbos because causing blood to come out is a 'Davar she'Eino Miskaven.' Abaye asks that it should be prohibited because it is a 'Pesik Reshei.' Rabah replies that since there are those who have experience with performing Be'ilah with 'Hatayah,' and not like the Bavli'im who have no experience with Be'ilah in such a manner, it is not considered a 'Pesik Reshei' and is permitted.
</p><p>
The Gemara asks that if a man is able to perform Be'ilah with Hatayah, then why is a man who is newly married exempt from the Mitzvah of Keri'as Shema because he is 'Tarud' (worried) about performing the Mitzvah (on Shabbos; Tosfos), as the Mishnah in Berachos says? The Chasan simply should do Be'ilah with Hatayah and then he has nothing to worry about. The Gemara answers that the Mishnah there refers to a person who is not an expert in Hatayah, who <i>is</i> 'Tarud' and is thus exempt from Keri'as Shema.
</p><p>
The Gemara then asks that according to this, only an expert in Hatayah should be permitted to perform the first Be'ilah on Shabbos, and one who is not an expert should be prohibited. The Gemara answers that 'Rov Beki'in Hen,' most people are experts.
</p><p>
The Gemara apparently means that some people are able to do Hatayah and some are not. Those who are not able to do Hatayah are 'Tarud' because of the Be'ilas Mitzvah and they are exempt from Keri'as Shema even on Shabbos. Also, such people are not permitted to perform the first Be'ilah on Shabbos since they do not know how to do it with Hatayah.
</p><p>
There are a number of obvious questions on the Gemara. 
</p><p>
1. The <b>RASHBA</b> asks that if a non-expert is not permitted to perform the first Be'ilah on Shabbos, then why is he 'Tarud' and exempt from Keri'as Shema? An expert is not 'Tarud' because he can do Hatayah, and a non-expert is not 'Tarud' because he is not permitted to perform the Be'ilah Rishonah on Shabbos! Since no one will do a complete, prohibited form of Be'ilah on Shabbos, why should anyone be 'Tarud' and exempt from Keri'as Shema?
</p><p>
2. If every expert in Hatayah is required to read Keri'as Shema, why does the Mishnah in Berachos ask that Raban Gamliel should have been exempt from Keri'as Shema? Raban Gamliel was from Eretz Yisrael and not Bavel, and thus he certainly was part of the majority who are able to do Hatayah ('Rov Beki'in Hen') and he was not 'Tarud.' Why, then, did Raban Gamliel's Talmidim question why he read Keri'as Shema the night of his marriage?
</p><p>
3. If Be'ilah Rishonah on Shabbos is permitted only according to Rebbi Shimon because a person is an expert and will do Hatayah, then why does the Tana Kama argue and prohibit it? What reason could there be to prohibit the Be'ilah Rishonah for an expert who does Hatayah?
</p><p>
4. The Gemara concludes that Be'ilah Rishonah is permitted on Shabbos, and this is the Halachah (as the Poskim rule). Based on the Sugya here, however, it should be permitted only for one who is an expert in Hatayah and who specifically intends to do Hatayah! Why do the Poskim rule that Be'ilah Rishonah on Shabbos is permitted unconditionally, and make no mention that one must do Hatayah? (<b>HAGAHOS ASHIRI</b>; see <b>DERISHAH</b>, EH 63:1.)
</p><p>
5. Another basic question on the Sugya is that the Mishnah is discussing a man who was never married before (as the Gemara says on 9a-b). How, then, could he be an expert in Hatayah? 
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> cites the <b>RADVAZ</b> who explains that, in theory, Keri'as Shema <i>should</i> be recited on the night of one's wedding by one who is an expert in Hatayah, and it <i>should not</i> be recited by one who is not an expert. However, the Chachamim instituted that <i>no one</i> should recite Keri'as Shema on his wedding night because of 'Lo Sisgodedu' (to prevent making it look like there are two distinctly separate groups of people following two separate Halachos; see Yevamos 13b, Rashi to Sukah 44a, DH l'Didhu). The Chachamim could not have instituted conformity the other way by having everyone, including the non-expert, read Keri'as Shema on his wedding night, because it would be a lack of Kavod Shamayim to institute that Keri'as Shema be recited by someone who is not able to concentrate.
</p><p>
Similarly, with regard to Be'ilas Mitzvah on Shabbos, it should have been prohibited for a person who is not an expert in Hatayah, but the Chachamim permitted him to do it because of 'Lo Sisgodedu,' as they sought to establish the same protocol of conduct for everyone.
</p><p>
Although this approach answers the questions above (except for the last one), it is a forced answer. The Gemara and Poskim mention only that one is 'Tarud' is not <i>obligated</i> to say Keri'as Shema, but not that he is <i>prohibited</i> to say Keri'as Shema. Moreover, how can 'Lo Sisgodedu' be applied to Be'ilas Mitzvah, an act that is always done in private? If for some reason it does apply to Be'ilas Mitzvah, why did the Chachamim not <i>prohibit</i> it to everyone instead of permitting it to everyone?
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> (DH Baki Mutar) apparently maintains that even an expert cannot be certain that he will do Be'ilah with Hatayah and avoid extracting blood. Rather, when the Gemara refers to a person who is an 'expert' ('Baki') in Hatayah, it means one who is <i>able</i> to do Hatayah. Hatayah is not something that one decides to do and does based on skill. It is not an expertise acquired through experience. Rather, it is an <i>anatomical nature</i>. Some people are able to do Hatayah because of their physiological constitution, while others are unable to do Hatayah. This is what is meant by a 'Baki' at Hatayah.
</p><p>
This explains how a Bachur who was never married before might still be a 'Baki' in Hatayah. Hatayah is unrelated to acquired knowledge (of which a Bachur has none), but rather it depends on the physiology of the person.
</p><p>
This also explains why Rebbi Yehudah argues. He prohibits Be'ilah Rishonah on Shabbos because even a 'Baki' might end up not doing Hatayah. The act is therefore prohibited because of 'Davar she'Eino Miskaven.'
</p><p>
This also explains why the Halachah does not require that a person <i>intend</i> to do Hatayah, or that a person be an expert of some sort. He must simply have a particular physiological constitution.
</p><p>
Why, though, do the Poskim not mention that those people (the minority) who do not have the physiology required for Hatayah are prohibited from doing Be'ilah Rishonah on Shabbos? The answer is that a person cannot know whether he is able to do Hatayah or not before he does Be'ilah for the first time. Therefore, it is permitted for one to follow the Rov and to assume that he is probably a 'Baki.' (Rashi DH Rov Beki'in, <b>TOSFOS</b> DH Rov.)
</p><p>
When the Gemara asks that a 'Baki' should be obligated to read Keri'as Shema since he is not 'Tarud,' the Gemara at that point assumes that a 'Baki' is <i>always</i> able to do Hatayah and therefore he has nothing to worry about. The Gemara answers that even the 'Baki' is not a complete expert since he cannot know for sure that he is going to do Hatayah; it is only a possibility. The Gemara is saying that being a 'Baki' means only that it is <i>possible</i> that he will not extract blood and therefore the act is not a 'Pesik Reshei.' There is still an element of anxiety involved since one is never certain that he will do Hatayah. (Rashi's Girsa in the Gemara probably read 'she'Eino Baki' instead of 'l'she'Eino Baki,' like the Girsa of the Rashba and the Munich manuscript.)
</p><p>
Therefore, even a 'Baki' is exempt from Keri'as Shema. That is why the Mishnah in Berachos says that everyone is exempt from Keri'as Shema on the night of one's wedding, and even Raban Gamliel also should have been exempt.
</p><p>
(c) <b>RABEINU TAM</b> (cited by the Ritva and other Rishonim, and cited in part by Tosfos DH Lo) explains the Sugya differently. He explains that with regard to Keri'as Shema, even a 'Baki' is exempt because does not have confidence in himself that he will be a 'Baki' until he actually performs the Be'ilah. Hence, he is nervous on his wedding night and is exempt from Keri'as Shema. That is why Raban Gamliel and other 'experts' are also exempt from Keri'as Shema on their wedding night.
</p><p>
Why is a person who is not an expert permitted to perform Be'ilah Rishonah on Shabbos, as we asked above? The answer is that since most people are experts and can intend to do Hatayah, it stands to reason that the minority who are not able to do Hatayah <i>at will</i> might, nevertheless, <i>accidentally</i> do Hatayah. Therefore, for those people, too, the act is not a 'Pesik Reshei' and is permitted (<b>RIVASH</b> #394).
</p><p>
The <b>RITVA</b> explains the Gemara differently according to Rabeinu Tam. He explains that when Rabah says that the people of Bavel do not know how to do Hatayah, he does not mean that they literally do not know how to do Hatayah. He means that the Bavli'im are <i>not aware</i> that it is <i>possible</i> (for anybody) to do Hatayah, and therefore they think that causing blood to flow as a result of Be'ilah Rishonah on Shabbos <i>is</i> a 'Pesik Reshei.' They are mistaken, however, and the truth is that it is not a 'Pesik Reshei.'
</p><p>
Abaye, who asked that one who is not a 'Baki' should be prohibited from doing Be'ilah Rishonah on Shabbos, misunderstood Rabah's intention. Rabah corrected him and explained that he did not mean that there are some people who cannot do Hatayah. Rather, he meant that 'Rov Beki'in Hen,' meaning that <i>everyone</i> can do Hatayah.
</p><p>
The question remains, however, that Be'ilah Rishonah still should be permitted on Shabbos <i>only</i> if the man intends to do Hatayah, because then at least he <i>might</i> do Hatayah. Tosfos (DH Lo) writes clearly that one is permitted to do Be'ilah Rishonah as long as he does not have intention to do Be'ilah Gemurah. Why, then, do the Poskim make no mention of this condition?
</p><p>
The answer might be that Tosfos writes only that one must <i>not</i> have intention to do Be'ilah Gemurah (in the negative). He does not write that one <i>must</i> intend to do Be'ilah with Hatayah (in the positive). Tosfos is saying that Be'ilah Rishonah on Shabbos is prohibited only when the man intends to do Be'ilah Gemurah and specifically wants to avoid Hatayah; such a Be'ilah is prohibited because it is a 'Pesik Reshei' that blood will flow. As long as the man has no particular intention in mind, he is permitted to perform Be'ilah in the normal manner because he might do Hatayah. (Tosfos here follows his own explanation elsewhere; see Insights to 5b.)
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> They permit Bi'ah on Shabbos night, even 
               if they did not Bi'ah before!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rava):</font></b> No, they are permitted any night except 
          Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Abaye):</font></b> 'Until Saturday night, four nights' 
          includes Shabbos!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> Rather, the Mishnah discusses when they 
          had Bi'ah before Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, what do we learn from 'until Saturday 
          night'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It permits Bi'ah (if it is not the first) on 
          Shabbos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Shmuel):</font></b> One may enter through a narrow opening on 
               Shabbos, even though he might make pebbles fall (off 
               the sides, widening the opening).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>A 'CHASAN' IS EXEMPT FROM 'KRI'AS' 'SHEMA'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Yosef):</font></b> A Chasan is exempt from Kri'as 
          Shema the first night, until Saturday night if he has not 
          had Bi'ah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> He is exempt (even on Shabbos) because 
               he is distracted because he wants to have Bi'ah 
               (now)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> No, he is troubled that he has not had 
          Bi'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> Distress does not exempt from Kri'as 
          Shema! If it did, one whose ship sank should be 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><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Rav taught that a mourner is obliged to 
               keep all Torah Mitzvos, except for Tefilin, since 
               they are called 'glory'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> The Tana'im argue about whether or not 
          Bi'ah Rishonah is allowed on Shabbos (this Tana permits. 
          Shmuel holds like the other Tana.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa #1):</font></b> If he did not have Bi'ah on the first 
          night, he is exempt (from Kri'as Shema) even on the 
          second. If he did not have Bi'ah on the second night, he 
          is exempt even on the third (which is Shabbos).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa #2):</font></b> He is exempt the first two nights, and 
          obligated on the third.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rebuttal (Abaye):</font></b> The authors of both Beraisos forbid 
          Bi'ah. They argue about whether or not distress is an 
          exemption.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rashi explains that the following is according to Rava):</font></b> 
          These two Tana'im argue like the following Tana'im.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> One who marries a virgin may not have 
               Bi'ah Rishonah on Shabbos;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Chachamim permit it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Who are the Chachamim that permit it?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rava):</font></b> They hold like R. Shimon, who permits 
               Davar she'Eino Miskaven (in this case, wounding or 
               making an opening).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Abaye):</font></b> R. Shimon agrees that a Pesik 
               Reisha is forbidden!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rava):</font></b> The Beraisa does not discuss 
               Babylonians, who are unskilled in Hatiyah (tilting 
               the Ever to avoid breaking the Besulim). It 
               discusses those skilled in Hatiyah. (For them, it is 
               not a Pesik Reisha.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If they are skilled, why are they 
               distracted?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Unskilled men are distracted.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Only skilled men should be permitted!
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Most men are skilled.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava bar Rav Chanan):</font></b> If most men are skilled, 
          why do we do Bi'ah Rishonah with a cloth and Shushbinin 
          (people nearby to ensure that no one will lie about the 
          presence of Dam Besulim? Tosfos - we ask about Shabbos, 
          when he must do Hatiyah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> Perhaps he will (have normal Bi'ah,) find 
          blood and dispose of it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Ami):</font></b> If one opens a scab on Shabbos with 
          intent to make a (lasting) opening (to let out pus and 
          let air enter), he is liable. If he wants only to remove 
          pus, he is exempt (and we hold that it is permitted)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Pus in a scab is stored and outside the flesh. 
          Dam Besulim is stored but partially absorbed in the 
          flesh.
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>IS 'BI'AH' 'RISHONAH' ALLOWED ON 'SHABBOS' AND 'YOM' 'TOV'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  A case occurred in which R. Ami permitted Bi'ah Rishonah 
          on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rabanan):</font></b> A Kesuvah was not written!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Ami):</font></b> She should seize movable objects (for a 
          security until he writes a Kesuvah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1:</font></b> Rav Zvid permitted Bi'ah Rishonah on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2:</font></b> Rav Zvid himself had Bi'ah Rishonah on 
          Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  Rav Yehudah permitted Bi'ah Rishonah on Yom Tov.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Papi):</font></b> He permits even on Shabbos. The case he ruled 
          about just happened to be on Yom Tov.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Papa):</font></b> He permits only Yom Tov, but not Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Papi):</font></b> Do you hold that mi'Toch (since) 
          wounding is permitted when needed (for food, i.e. 
          Shechitah), it is also permitted when not needed?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If so, it should be permitted to burn incense on Yom 
               Tov! (Since one may burn for the needs of food, it 
               should be allowed even when not needed!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> 'What every person will eat' - the 
          Torah allows only what is common to all (most) people.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rava):</font></b> If so, one may not 
          slaughter a deer on Yom Tov, since not all people eat 
          deer!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Anything that all people enjoy is 
          allowed. All enjoy deer (just not everyone can afford 
          it).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yakov bar Idi):</font></b> R. Yochanan was Moreh (ruled) that 
          one may not have Bi'ah Rishonah on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Is <i>Hora'ah</i> an appropriate term for an Isur?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Yes! A Mishnah says that Beis Hillel were Moreh 
          (to Hilni ha'Malkah) to observe seven more years of 
          Nezirus.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - Rebbi):</font></b> If the majority of the spinal 
               cord was cut (the animal is Tereifah);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Yakov says, even if it is punctured it is 
               Tereifah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Rebbi was Moreh like R. Yakov.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Huna):</font></b> The Halachah does not follow R. Yakov.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> R. Yochanan forbade Bi'ah 
          Rishonah on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b></b>  The Halachah is, Bi'ah Rishonah is allowed on Shabbos.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE DAYS OF 'BIRKAS' 'CHASANIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Huna):</font></b> Both a virgin and a widow require a Berachah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Contradiction:</font></b> Rav Huna said that a widow does not 
          require a Berachah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> For a Bachur (one who was not married before), we 
          must bless, but not for a widower who marries a widow.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> A Beraisa learns from Boaz and Rus, a widower 
          and a widow, that we need 10 men for Birkas Chasanim!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rav Huna meant that a widow does not need seven 
          days of Berachah; one day is required.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> Chachamim deliberated how to help 
          Benos Yisrael, so a Chasan will rejoice three days (with 
          a widow).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he is a Bachur, seven days are required. If he is 
               a widower, only one is required!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> A widower requires one day of Berachah and 
          three days of Simchah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> A Bachur requires seven days of Berachah and 
          three days of Simchah.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) HALACHAH: ON WHAT DAY OF THE WEEK SHOULD ONE GET MARRIED</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara discusses at length the Mishnah (2a) which mentions the day of the week on which one should marry a Besulah or an Almanah. In practice, on which day should one marry a Besulah?
</p><p>
(a) <b>IKRUREI DA'ATA</b>. The primary reason for why the Mishnah says that a man who marries a Besulah should get married on Wednesday is because of 'Ikrurei Da'ata'; if a man finds that his wife is not a Besulah, the Rabanan want him to come to Beis Din immediately so that he does not 'cool off' and decide that he prefers to live with his wife (to whom he is prohibited if she indeed was unfaithful while she was an Arusah). By getting married on Wednesday, if he finds that his wife is not a Besulah he will come to Beis Din immediately on Thursday morning, when Beis Din convenes. (The other two reasons for getting married on Wednesday (5a) -- to receive the Berachah given to fish and because of 'Shakdu,' can be circumvented: the reason of 'Berachah' is merely a suggestion and not an obligation, and 'Shakdu' can be accomplished by preparing for three days in advance of any day of the week on which one wishes to get married (end of 3a).)
</p><p>
The reason of 'Ikrurei Da'ata' should not apply nowadays. The Gemara (3a) says that when Beis Din convenes every day, the marriage may be held on any day, because the man always has the opportunity to go to Beis Din immediately.
</p><p>
However, <b>TOSFOS</b> (3a, DH Iy Ika) points out that this does reasoning does not seem to suffice to permit a marriage to be held on Friday. If one performs Be'ilas Mitzvah on Friday night, he will not find a Beis Din on Shabbos. (Even if Beis Din convenes every other day of the week, it certainly does not convene on Shabbos.)
</p><p>
The Rishonim, however, give a number of reasons to permit marriage even on Friday:
</p><p>
1. Nowadays there is no set day on which Beis Din convenes. Instead, whenever a person has the need for a court, he gathers together three Talmidei Chachamim and presents his claims before them. A person may do that even on Shabbos if he needs to file a complaint about his newly married wife's lack of Besulim.
</p><p>
2. Perhaps today the enactment of 'Ikrurei Da'ata' does not apply due to the reasoning of Rashi earlier (2a, DH b'Sheni). Rashi writes that the purpose of reporting in court that one's wife was not found to be a Besulah is in order to publicize the claim in case there are witnesses who can come to testify how she became a Be'ulah. This does not apply nowadays. Since there are no official courts for such matters and family disputes do not attract onlookers and crowds, the word does not get out.
</p><p>
However, this reason applies only for the wife of a Yisrael, in which case it is necessary for witnesses to come to testify about the woman's status. For the wife of a Kohen or for a wife who was betrothed when she was less then three years old, it is still imperative that he come to Beis Din, because in those cases his wife is prohibited to him out of doubt, even without witnesses. Why, then, should a Kohen be permitted nowadays to get married on any day other than Wednesday? 
</p><p>
The answer might be that according to Rashi, the Rabanan did not institute that a man should get married on Wednesday because he might be a Kohen and need to go to Beis Din the next day. They instituted the Takanah in the first place only because it benefits <i>everyone</i> to some degree (see Tosfos 2a, DH she'Im). Once it no longer benefits everyone, the Takanah no longer applies at all, even for a Kohen. 
</p><p>
3. The <b>RAN</b> (1b of the pages of the Rif) writes that nowadays Kidushin and Nisu'in are done together, Nisu'in immediately following Kidushin (with no delay between the two). As such, it is not possible for the woman to commit adultery as an Arusah -- there is no time between the Kidushin and Nisu'in during which she can be unfaithful without her Chasan seeing her. Since there is no fear that she is prohibited to him, there is no need for him to come to Beis Din if he finds that she is not a Besulah, and thus he may get married on any day of the week. (The Gemara later (12a) presents a similar logic, 'she'Kidesh u'Ba'al l'Altar.')
</p><p>
(b) <b>SHEMA YISHCHOT BEN <b><b>OF</b></b></b>. Another reason to prohibit marrying on certain days of the week is the Gezeirah which prohibits Be'ilas Mitzvah on Friday night and on Motza'i Shabbos. That is, although the Gemara here concludes that one is permitted to perform the first Be'ilah on Shabbos, the Gemara earlier (4a) cites a Beraisa that states that one may <i>not</i> perform the first Be'ilah on Friday night or Shabbos because of the reason of 'Shema Yish'chot Ben Of' -- one might slaughter a bird on Shabbos. It was customary to conduct a festive Se'udah following the Be'ilas Mitzvah, and the Rabanan feared that if the Be'ilas Mitzvah would be performed on Shabbos, the preparation for the Se'udah might take place on Shabbos. Accordingly, getting married on Friday should be prohibited nowadays because of that Gezeirah.
</p><p>
The Rishonim discuss this question and some maintain that the Gezeirah nevertheless does <i>not</i> prohibit marrying on Friday:
</p><p>
1. <b>TOSFOS</b> (7a, DH v'Hilchasa), the <b>RAN</b>, and the <b>ROSH</b> point out that the Gemara rules that the first Be'ilah is permitted on Shabbos, and the Gemara makes no mention of the Gezeirah lest one slaughter a bird on Shabbos. It seems that the Gemara rejects the earlier Beraisa that maintains that the Be'ilas Mitzvah may not be done on Shabbos because of the Gezeirah lest one slaughter a bird on Shabbos.
</p><p>
The <b>RIF</b> does not mention the reason of 'perhaps one might slaughter a young bird on Shabbos' at all. The <b>RAMAH</b> quoted by the <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> (5a, DH Hashta) writes that according to the Rif, the Gemara rejects the Beraisa's reason for prohibiting Be'ilas Mitzvah on Friday night, and certainly it rejects that reasoning with regard to Motza'i Shabbos (since he is not actually involved with the Se'udah on Shabbos).
</p><p>
The <b>RAMBAN</b> (5a) adds another reason for why there is no concern that one might slaughter a bird on Shabbos: Nowadays it is not the practice to make a Se'udah for the Be'ilas Mitzvah, and therefore there is no fear that one might slaughter on Shabbos.
</p><p>
2. The <b>TALMIDEI RABEINU YONAH</b> cited by the <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> (5a, ibid.) argue that this logic only permits marrying on Erev Shabbos but not on Motza'i Shabbos. They explain that it is possible that the Gezeirah which prohibits getting married on Friday because of the fear that one might slaughter a bird on Shabbos will apply to Motza'i Shabbos because one prepares for a nighttime Se'udah during the preceding day. Hence, one prepares on Friday for the Se'udah conducted on Friday night, and thus there is no fear that one will slaughter on Shabbos. 
</p><p>
However, for the Se'udah conducted on Motza'i Shabbos one does not prepare entirely on Friday, because he assumes that he will have time to finish the preparations on Motza'i Shabbos. Therefore, there is a concern that he might slaughter on Shabbos when he sees that there will not be enough time to prepare on Motza'i Shabbos.
</p><p>
3. However, the <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Ishus 10:14) rules that a person 'may <i>not</i> get married on Friday or on Sunday, because one might desecrate Shabbos by preparing for the Se'udah.' 
</p><p>
Although the Gemara here says that one is permitted to perform Be'ilas Mitzvah on Shabbos, the <b>RAN</b> (2a of the pages of the Rif) explains that there is a difference between performing Be'ilas Mitzvah on Shabbos and <i>getting married</i> on Shabbos. That is, the Rambam maintains that the Isur of Be'ilah Rishonah on Friday or Sunday lest one slaughter a bird on Shabbos is a prohibition of <i>getting married</i> on Friday or Sunday, and not a prohibition of <i>Be'ilas Mitzvah</i> on those days. The Se'udah for which one might prepare on Shabbos is the Se'udas Nisu'in.
</p><p>
It is true that <b>TOSFOS</b> (5b, DH Mahu) presents a similar logic to explain why the allowance to perform the first Be'ilah on Friday night is not contradicted by the Mishnah. The Mishnah discusses the day on which the <i>wedding</i> should be held, but it does not require that the first <i>Be'ilah</i> be performed on the same day. However, the Beraisa (4a) which teaches the Gezeirah of 'Shema Yishchot Ben Of' says that 'one should not <i>do Be'ilah</i> on Friday night and Motza'i Shabbos.' How, then, can the Rambam suggest that the Beraisa is teaching a Halachah about the marriage and not about the Be'ilah?
</p><p>
The answer is that the Rambam apparently understands that the Beraisa says that 'one should not do Be'ilah' simply because the Beraisa until now was discussing Be'ilah Rishonah. The Rambam does not want to explain the Beraisa literally because he maintains that there is no source for making a Se'udah on the occasion of the first Be'ilah (on the contrary, doing so would seem to be a lack of Tzeni'us).
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (EH 64:3) writes that if Beis Din convenes on Mondays and Thursdays, then a man is required to get married on Wednesday. If Beis Din does not convene on those days, then one may get married on any day of the week as long as he busies himself with preparing for the Se'udah three days in advance. As far as the concern for 'Ikrurei Da'ata,' Friday is considered the same as any other day. 
</p><p>
With regard to the Isur of 'Shema Yish'chot Ben Of,' the Shulchan Aruch cites the view of the Rambam that one should not get married on Friday or Sunday, and he also cites the view of Tosfos and the other Rishonim who permit one to get married on Friday or Sunday.
</p><p>
The Shulchan Aruch adds that it has become customary to get married on Friday. This is based on the <b>RA'AVYAH</b> (quoted by the <b>MORDECHAI</b> here and by the <b>HAGAHOS MAIMONIYOS</b> in Hilchos Ishus 10:50) who writes that it became customary to get married on Friday to benefit the poor people who could not afford to make a separate Se'udah for both their wedding and for Shabbos, and by getting married on Friday they were able to combine both Se'udos into one.
</p><p>
The Ra'avyah adds that nowadays it is customary that even an Almanah gets married on Friday, even though this will mean that the husband will not have his three-day vacation with his new wife. The Chachamim of the past generations determined that it is more beneficial to marry on Friday for the sake of the poor people than to ensure that the three-day vacation takes place. The Shulchan Aruch, however, writes that an Almanah <i>should</i> get married on Thursday, as the Mishnah says. 
</p><p>
The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> (in Kuntrus Acharon) points out that l'Chatchilah a person still should get married, if possible, on Wednesday or Thursday because of the Berachah given to fish, since one should not take lightly the Berachah mentioned by the Gemara.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> We bless seven days for a virgin, and 
          one day for a widow.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Assumption:</font></b> This applies even to a Bachur who 
               married a widow!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No, it applies only to a widower.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If you hold that for a Bachur we bless seven 
          days, it should say that we bless seven days for a virgin 
          or for a Bachur who married a widow, and one day for a 
          widow (who marries a widower)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Tana taught a clear-cut law, that every 
          virgin has seven days of Berachah, and every widow has no 
          less than one.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>A 'MINYAN' IS NEEDED FOR 'BIRKAS' 'CHASANIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Nachman):</font></b> What is the source that we need 
          10 for Birkas Chasanim?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Nachman):</font></b> We learn from 'He (Boaz) took 10 
          elders'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (R. Avahu):</font></b> We learn from 'In the congregations 
          bless Hash-m from the source of Yisrael'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Nachman uses this latter verse to teach that 
               even fetuses sang at the splitting of the Red Sea.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Avahu disagrees, for if so, the verse should have 
               said 'from the womb'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Avahu learns from the former verse that Boaz assembled 
          10 to teach that the Torah forbids male converts from 
          Amon and Mo'av to marry Yisraelim, but permits female 
          converts;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He holds that if 10 were for a Berachah, elders 
               would not be required.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Nachman):</font></b> If he gathered them to expound, 
          he would not need 10!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He needed 10 to publicize the law;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Shmuel gathered 10 people to teach that if one 
               acquires on behalf of a fetus, the acquisition is 
               valid.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The Halachah does not follow Shmuel.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHERE WE MAKE THE 'BERACHOS' OF 'CHASANIM' AND 'KIDUSHIN'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> We make Birkas Chasanim at the time of Chupah;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah says, we make it even at the time of Kidushin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> This applies in Yehudah, where the Chasan and 
          Kalah are secluded (during Eirusin (engagement).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> We make Birkas Chasanim at the Chupah, and the 
          Berachah of Kidushin at the Kidushin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the Berachah of Kidushin?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rava bar Rav Ada):</font></b> It is '... Who commanded us 
          about incest, and forbade to us Arusos (girls during 
          Eirusin), and permitted Nesu'os through Chupah and 
          Kidushin'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Acha brei d'Rava):</font></b> We Chosem (end the 
          Berachah with a Berachah) 'Baruch Atah Hash-m, who 
          sanctifies Yisrael through Chupah and Kidushin.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rava bar Rav Ada says we do not Chosem, just like we 
               do not Chosem the Berachos over foods and Mitzvos.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Rav Acha says that we Chosem, just like we Chosem 
               the Berachah of Kidush.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> We make Birkas Chasanim all seven days with 10 
          people.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> This is when there are new people at the 
          meal.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) 'BIRKAS ERUSIN' -- THE BLESSING FOR KIDUSHIN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara describes the Berachah of Birkas Erusin recited at the time the Erusin is performed. The Berachah mentions that Hash-m 'prohibited us to [marry] the Arayos,' and that 'He prohibited us to the Arusos,' and 'permitted us to Nesu'os' when they become our full-fledged wives when the Chupah is performed.
</p><p>
Why does the Berachah make mention of the prohibition of Arayos? The Berachah was instituted for the Mitzvah of Kidushin, and not for the prohibition of Arayos!
</p><p>
Moreover, why does the Berachah mention the Chupah (the procedure of Nisu'in), when the Berachah was instituted for the <i>Kidushin</i>?
</p><p>
Also, why is the Chupah mentioned in the Berachah <i>before</i> the Kidushin ('Chupah v'Kidushin'), when, in practice, the Kidushin precedes the Chupah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RASHI</b> seems to learn that Birkas Erusin is not a Berachah on the Mitzvah of Erusin, but rather it is a Berachah on the Mitzvah d'Rabanan of 'Perishah,' separating ourselves from unmarried women. Although a Berachah is usually not recited for a Mitzvah that involves <i>refraining</i> from an action, perhaps the Chachamim saw fit to institute a Berachah for separating from an Arusah because this 'inaction' is more evident than most actions and thus it warrants a Berachah. After the betrothal, everyone expects the woman to move in with her husband, and yet they continue to stay apart. Therefore, at the time that they do Kidushin it is appropriate to recite a Berachah on this conspicuous inaction of separation that they are practicing.
</p><p>
Rashi explains that the Isur of Arayos mentioned in the Berachah refer to the Isur of living with a Penuyah, an unmarried woman. The reason why the Chupah is mentioned in the Berachah is to express that until the Chupah is performed, the Penuyah is forbidden to him. The reason why the Chupah is mentioned before the Kidushin apparently is that the allowance to live with a woman comes at the time of the Chupah. The Berachah, which focuses on the Heter to be with one's wife only after the Chupah, mentions the Kidushin only as a prerequisite to the Chupah.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>ROSH</b> (1:12) explains that no Mitzvah d'Oraisa is fulfilled when one performs Erusin. The Mitzvah is not necessarily to get married, but rather to have children -- 'Piryah v'Rivyah.' The Mitzvah of having children could be fulfilled with a Pilegesh without Kidushin. Kidushin is merely an option which the Torah gives if a person wants to have a wife and fulfill the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah with her. 
</p><p>
In this respect, this Mitzvah seems similar to the Mitzvah of Shechitah, for which one also recites a Berachah even though there is no <i>obligation</i> to perform the Mitzvah of Shechitah (only if one <i>wants</i> to eat meat must he first perform Shechitah). However, Shechitah differs from Kidushin in that there is no other way to eat meat without doing Shechitah, and thus Shechitah is a necessity for one who wants to eat meat. In contrast, one who wants to have children does not necessarily have to perform Kidushin with a woman to do so, but instead can take a Pilegesh and have children with her. The Rosh gives additional reasons why the Chachamim did not institute a Birkas ha'Mitzvah for Erusin.
</p><p>
What, then, is the purpose of the Berachah according to the Rosh? It is a Berachah of praise to Hash-m for granting holiness, Kedushah, to the Jewish people. We praise Hash-m for giving us the laws of Kidushin, including the laws that describe with which women Kidushin takes effect and with which women it does not take effect. The concept of Kidushin does not exist for the people of any other nation. The institution of Kidushin give the Jewish people a degree of holiness which no other people has. For this reason, the prohibition of Arayos is mentioned in the Berachah -- to praise Hash-m for giving Kedushah to the Jewish people through the laws of Arayos.
</p><p>
The reason why the Berachah mentions that an Arusah becomes permitted at the Chupah is so that people should not mistakenly think that the purpose of the Berachah of Kidushin is to permit the Arusah to her husband. The Berachah specifically mentions that she becomes permitted to him only at the Chupah. This also explains why the Chupah is mentioned before the Kidushin. The main point of the Berachah is that only at the time of the Chupah, which follows the Kidushin, does the woman become permitted to her husband. (This last point is similar to the approach of Rashi in (a) above.)
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Ishus 2:23) rules that Birkas Erusin is a Birkas ha'Mitzvah for the Mitzvah of Kidushin. Like any other Berachah recited for the performance of a Mitzvah, it must be recited before the Mitzvah of Kidushin is performed. The <b>RA'AVAD</b> there and the <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>RASHBA</b> here seem to agree that the Berachah is a Birkas ha'Mitzvah. 
</p><p>
The Rambam and Rashba apparently follow their opinion as expressed elsewhere. The Rambam (Hilchos Melachim 4:4; see also Ramban, Bereishis 25:6) and Rashba (Teshuvah 4:314) write that normally one is not permitted to take a Pilegesh, and thus there is no way to fulfill the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah without marrying a woman with Kidushin. Consequently, Kidushin is a Mitzvah just like Shechitah, which warrants a Berachah.
</p><p>
The Rashba writes that there is a different reason for why a Berachah is not recited for the Mitzvah of Kidushin even though it is necessary for the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah. Since Kidushin is only the beginning of the Mitzvah and does not complete it, it does not warrant a Birkas ha'Mitzvah.
</p><p>
However, the Rishonim quote the Yerushalmi which clearly states that a Birkas ha'Mitzvah is recited for Kidushin. (The Yerushalmi says that the Berachah on Kidushei Be'ilah is said <i>after</i> the Kidushin and not before.) It is clear from the Yerushalmi that Kidushin is considered a separate Mitzvah. This is the view of <b>RABEINU YECHIEL</b> of Paris as quoted by the <b>RITVA</b>, who says that since Kidushin is a distinct Mitzvah apart from Nisu'in, as it accomplishes an entirely different purpose than Nisu'in (it creates an Isur l'Olam, while the Nisu'in gives the husband a certain degree of Kinyan over the woman), it warrants its own Berachah. (The Rashba maintains that the Bavli must be arguing with the Yerushalmi since it does not mention that Berachah.)
</p><p>
It is not clear from the Yerushalmi exactly what the text of the Birkas Erusin should be. The Yerushalmi, when it mentions the Berachah, might be referring to the Berachah mentioned in the Gemara here (as the Ramban implies), but it also might be referring to a separate Berachah entirely (such as '... Asher Kidshanu b'Mitzvosav v'Tzivanu Al Mitzvas Kidushin'), as Rabeinu Yechiel seems to interpret it.
</p><p>
According to this approach (that Birkas Erusin is a Berachah on the Mitzvah of Kidushin), it is not clear why the Isur of Arayos and the Chupah are mentioned in the Berachah. Perhaps these Rishonim agree with the Rosh (in (b) above) who says that the point of the Berachah is to remind people that Erusin does not permit the Arusah to her husband.
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (EH 34:1) writes that Birkas Erusin should be recited before the act of Kidushin, implying that it is a Birkas ha'Mitzvah (see Beis Shmuel #4 and Chelkas Mechokek #3 there). (The Poskim do not mention the Berachah of 'Al Mitzvas Kidushin' which Rabeinu Yechiel mentions, but some do mention a special Berachah for the Be'ilas Mitzvah which is recorded by the Ge'onim, and they add that it should be said without 'Shem u'Malchus.')
</p><p>


<font><b>3) 'PANIM CHADASHOS'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara says that all of the seven Berachos of 'Birkas Chasanim' are recited on each of the seven days after the wedding only when 'Panim Chadashos' are present. When no 'Panim Chadashos' are present, only one Berachah ('Asher Bara') is recited (along with 'Borei Pri ha'Gafen').
</p><p>
Why is it necessary to have 'Panim Chadashos' in order to recite all seven Berachos?
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH v'Hu) says that 'Panim Chadashos' increase and enhance the Simchah. The seven Berachos are recited for the added Simchah provided by the 'Panim Chadashos.'
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Berachos 10:2) writes that the seven Berachos are repeated only when there are 'Panim Chadashos' present because the new person present did not yet hear the Berachos, and since he is now participating in the Simchah he has an obligation to say (or hear) the Berachos for the Simchah. Therefore, the seven Berachos are recited again because of the new person's obligation to hear them.
</p><p>
The Rishonim and Acharonim point out that there are a number of practical differences between these two ways of understanding the role of 'Panim Chadashos.'
</p><p>
1. Tosfos writes, based on a Midrash, that on Shabbos it is not necessary to have 'Panim Chadashos' because Shabbos itself is called 'Panim Chadashos.' Tosfos explains that this means that since Shabbos itself causes extra Simchah, the Sheva Berachos may be recited even when there are no new persons present.
</p><p>
In contrast, according to the Rambam, Shabbos alone is not a reason to say the seven Berachos because Shabbos is not a person and has no obligation to recite Berachos. (The <b>RITVA</b>, who requires a person obligated in Berachos for 'Panim Chadashos,' suggests another reason for the custom <i>not</i> to require 'Panim Chadashos' at the Sheva Berachos of Shabbos.)
</p><p>
Similarly, according to Tosfos, if the presence of a woman or a child provides more Simchah to the wedding party, the seven Berachos would be recited even though a woman and a child are not obligated to recite the Berachos themselves. According to the Rambam a woman and a child do not constitute 'Panim Chadashos' since they have no obligation to recite or hear the Berachos. This indeed is the ruling of the <b>RITVA</b>. (The Ritva seems to represent a third opinion, which requires <i>both</i> a person that increases the joy of the occasion <i>and</i> a person who is required to make a Berachah.)
<br> 
<br>2. The <b>RAMACH</b> and the <b>ROSH</b> write that even if all of the people at the Se'udas Nisu'in attended the Chupah and heard the seven Berachos, they still may recite the seven Berachos at the Se'udah because there is a separate obligation for reciting the seven Berachos at the Se'udah. 
</p><p>
The Rambam and Ritva write, however, that the seven Berachos may be recited only if someone is present who did not hear the Berachos at all, including the Berachos at the Chupah. The Ritva apparently follows his opinion in this matter as mentioned above.
</p><p>
3. If a person was not present at the wedding during the meal but only at the recitation of the Sheva Berachos, the Ritva considers him as valid 'Panim Chadashos' (and the Rambam presumably would agree). Tosfos, in contrast, might not consider him as valid 'Panim Chadashos.' (The opposite would be true for a person who was at the wedding during the meal but did not remain for the Sheva Berachos.)
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>'BIRCHOS' 'CHASANIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> The Berachos are:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> '... Who created everything for His honor'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> '... Who forms man'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> '... Who formed man in his image... Baruch Atah 
               Hash-m, Who forms man.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> 'Rejoice and make rejoice... Baruch Atah Hash-m, Who 
               gladdens Tziyon with her children.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> 'Be happy, loving companions... Baruch Atah Hash-m, 
               Who gladdens Chasan and Kalah.'
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> '... Who created happiness... Baruch Atah Hash-m, 
               Who makes the Chasan rejoice with the Kalah.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Levi came to Rebbi's house at the wedding of R. Shimon, 
          Rebbi's son; he blessed five of these Berachos (he 
          omitted 'Yotzer ha'Adam').
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Rav Asi came to Rav Ashi's house at the wedding of Rav 
          Ashi's son Mar; he blessed all six Berachos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Levi said only one Berachah about Yetzirah 
          because he holds that there was one Yetzirah (Hash-m 
          formed Adam and Chavah at once). Rav Asi said both of 
          them because he holds that there were two Yetziros (Adam, 
          and later Chavah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> Both agree that there was only one Yetzirah. 
          Rav Asi makes two Berachos because Hash-m intended to 
          create two people;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  Levi says that we follow the actual Yetzirah, and there 
          was only one.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Contradiction (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> It says 'Hash-m created 
               man in His image', and it says 'He created them male 
               and female'!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> He intended to create two. He actually 
               created one.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN WE MAKE 'BIRKAS' 'CHASANIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  Rav Ashi came to Rav Kahana's house. The first day he 
          made all the Berachos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  After the first day, if there were new faces he would 
          bless all the Berachos. If not, they merely increase 
          Simchah, so he blessed only '...that joy is in His 
          dwelling', and 'Who created joy...'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  From seven days after the wedding until 30, whether or 
          not the guests were invited due to the wedding, he 
          blessed '...that joy is in His dwelling'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  After 30 days, if the guests were invited due to the 
          wedding, he blessed 'that joy is in His dwelling'; if 
          not, not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> For how long does one say this when the guests 
          were invited due to the wedding?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Papi):</font></b> He says it for 12 months.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> From when does one start saying the Berachah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> He starts from when he soaks the 
          barley (to make beer for the Nisu'in. Alternatively, he 
          soaks barley to be an omen that the couple will be 
          fruitful.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rav Papa arranged a match for his son and 
          blessed from the time of the Kidushin!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rav Papa is an exception. He had all needs of the 
          Chupah ready.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  Ravina arranged a match for his son into the family of 
          Rav Chaviva and blessed from the time of the Kidushin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He did so because he was sure that they would not 
               retract. In the end, they retracted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  Rav Tachlifa went to Bavel and blessed six long Berachos 
          (he lengthened the first two and was Chosem 'Baruch Atah 
          Hash-m... )' The Halachah does not follow this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  Rav Chaviva went to a meal celebrating a Bris. He blessed 
          '...that joy is in His dwelling.' The Halachah does not 
          follow this, because people are disturbed that the baby 
          is in pain.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'BERACHAH' OF MOURNERS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> The Chasan counts towards the number (10) needed 
          to say Birkas Chasanim. Mourners do not count towards the 
          number needed to say Birkas Avelim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> Chasanim and mourners count.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rav is a Tana. He may disagree with a Beraisa.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> Chasanim count towards the required 
          number, but mourners do not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> Chasanim and mourners count.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AGADAH: THE BUILDING OF A WOMAN</b></font><b>
<br></b>The Gemara lists the Birchos Chasanim, the special Berachos recited for seven days after the wedding. In the Berachah of 'Asher Yatzar,' we say that Hash-m 'formed Adam in His image... and He established for him, from his own flesh, an everlasting building,' a reference to Chavah.
</p><p>
Rashi explains that Chavah is called a 'Binyan,' a building, based on the verse, 'va'Yiven... Es ha'Tzela' (Bereishis 2:22). The Gemara in Berachos (61a) says that the reason she is called a 'building' is because woman is built differently than man in order for her body to be able to carry a child.
</p><p>
Similarly, the verse in Ruth compares a woman to a Binyan. When Boaz married Ruth the people who witnessed the wedding blessed Boaz with the Berachah that Hash-m should make Ruth 'like Rachel and like Leah, who together <i>built</i> the house of Yisrael...' (Ruth 4:11). (See also Rashi to Shemos 19:3, who explains that ''<i>Beis</i> Yakov' -- the <i>house</i> of Yakov -- refers to the woman.' See also Shabbos 118b and Gitin 52a, where the Gemara says that one's wife is called his 'Bayis.')
</p><p>
The nature of a woman as a Binyan manifests itself only after she is married, when the man has the opportunity to serve as the builder and the woman has the opportunity to serve as the building, so to speak. <b>RAV DOVID COHEN</b>, shlit'a, points out that the roles of man and woman are alluded to in their Hebrew titles. A male child is called a 'Ben,' and a female child is called a 'Bas.' A grown man is called an 'Ish,' and a woman is called an 'Ishah.' The Chachamim teach that what differentiates 'Ish' from 'Ishah' is that the word 'Ish' contains the letter Yud, and 'Ishah' contains the letter Heh (Sotah 17a). When the male child, the 'Ben,' gets married, he acquires the Heh of the woman, the 'Ishah,' making him into a 'Boneh' (spelled Beis, Nun, Heh). He is involved in building the Binyan. When the female child, the 'Bas,' gets married, she acquires the Yud of the man, the 'Ish,' and she becomes the Binyan or 'Bayis,' the foundation of the home. (See also Insights to Gitin 52:2.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) TWO THAT ARE ONE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara teaches that Hash-m originally intended to create two humans, but then He made only one. However, He then made the one into two, Adam and Chavah.
</p><p>
How are we to understand this Gemara? How can we say that Hash-m changed His mind?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RASHBA</b> (<b>TESHUVOS HA'RASHBA</b> 1:60) explains that when the Gemara says that Hash-m 'thought about creating two' and then He created one, it means that He carefully planned and considered with His infinite wisdom whether to create them as one or as two. It does not mean that He changed His mind, but rather that His creation was done with thorough consideration.
</p><p>
Why, then, did He eventually make two humans?
</p><p>
The two that were eventually created were not the same two of His original plan. Originally, Hash-m considered the implications of creating man and woman as two completely <i>separate species</i> that would not propagate together or serve as counterparts to each other. Hash-m decided not to create two types of humans but instead to create one being, meaning one species of human beings, which included both man and woman. 
</p><p>
Alternatively, Hash-m originally considered creating man and woman <i>from the outset</i> as two individual entities (of the same species), but in the end He decided that both man and woman should come from one body. The reason for this decision was that man and woman would feel eternally bonded to each other. When they would later come together, they would feel like a single unit, aware of the common root from which their Neshamah came. Again, Hash-m never changed His mind, so to speak. Rather, His infinite wisdom pondered all of the possible ways to create the human being before He decided to do it one way.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>VILNA GA'ON</b> (Berachos 61a) explains that when the Gemara says that Hash-m initially 'thought to create two,' it means that when He created one, He already had in mind to eventually make two out of that one. The goal and purpose of Hashem's creation is always the first and the beginning of His thoughts. 'Hash-m thought to create two' means that His original thought was actualized later when He took two out of one. (The term 'Alah b'Machshavah' refers to the ultimate purpose of Creation, for 'Sof Ma'aseh, b'Machashavah Techilah'). If man and woman were created as one, it would not have been possible for a person to fulfill his ultimate purpose of toiling in Hashem's Torah and serving Hash-m, because his worldly responsibilities would have been too great. Therefore, Hash-m created man and woman separately so that they could share the responsibilities and enable each other to accomplish their respective goals. The creation of one in the middle was just a step to get to the final two (for the reason given by the Rashba above). (See also Insights to Berachos 61:1 and Eruvin 18:2.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> The Beraisa discusses (Tosfos - Birkas Avelim 
          said in) Birkas ha'Mazon. R. Yochanan's law applies to 
          the line of consolers.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> R. Yochanan said that we bless Birkas Chasanim 
          with 10, and Chasanim count towards the 10. We bless 
          Birkas Avelim with 10, and mourners do not count towards 
          the 10.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> There is no Berachah in the line of consolers!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Rather, R. Yochanan's law applies to the 
          street (where we give to the mourner his first meal).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Yochanan said that we bless Birkas Chasanim 
          with 10 all seven days, and Chasanim count towards the 
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b></b>We bless Birkas Avelim with 10 all seven days, and 
          mourners do not count towards the 10.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Do we bless in the street all seven days?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Yes, we bless when new consolers come.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE CONSOLATION OF REISH LAKISH</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  R. Chiya bar Aba taught the children of Reish Lakish; one 
          of them died. He did not go the first day to console him. 
          He went the second day. He told Yehudah bar Nachmani to 
          say words of consolation.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Yehudah:</font></b> 'From the anger of his children' - when the 
          parents sin, Hash-m is angry at the children, and they 
          die in childhood.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Some say that an older child died. Yehudah cited 'Hash-m 
          will not rejoice on his youths... '
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Chanan bar Rav):</font></b> '... His hand is still 
               stretched' - all know why a Kalah enters the Chupah, 
               but if one fouls his mouth by saying something 
               obscene, even if 70 good years had been decreed for 
               him, they are changed for evil.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This is not consolation. These words provoke 
          pain!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He meant 'you (Reish Lakish) are worthy to bear 
          the punishments fitting to come on the generation.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Chiya bar Aba:</font></b> Discuss the praise of Hash-m.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Yehudah:</font></b> 'The great G-d... Baruch Atah Hash-m, Who 
          revives the dead.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Chiya bar Aba:</font></b> Address the mourners.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Yehudah:</font></b> Our afflicted brothers, put your hearts to 
          investigate this... many drank (the cup of afflictions), 
          and many will drink. The drinking of the later ones will 
          resemble the drinking of the first ones... Blessed is He 
          Who consoles mourners.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> One should say 'many drank', but not 'many will 
          drink.' One should say 'the drinking of the first ones', 
          but not 'the drinking of the later ones'.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Reish Lakish):</font></b> A person should not suggest to the 
               Satan (that he is worthy to be punished).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Yosef):</font></b> He learns from 'We were like Sodom.' 
               Hash-m replied 'Hear the word of Hash-m, officers of 
               Sodom'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Chiya bar Aba:</font></b> Speak about the praise of the 
          consolers.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Yehudah:</font></b> Our brothers, bestowers of Chesed, children of 
          bestowers of Chesed... Baruch Atah Hash-m, Who pays 
          reward.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Chiya bar Aba:</font></b> Speak on behalf of all of Yisrael.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Yehudah:</font></b> Master of the worlds, redeem and save Your 
          nation Yisrael from pestilence, sword,... Baruch Atah 
          Hash-m, Who stops the plague.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE CUPS OF CONSOLATION</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Ula):</font></b> It was enacted that the mourner drink 10 cups of 
          wine: three before the meal, to open his intestines (to 
          help him to eat); three during the meal, to digest the 
          food; and four after the meal, corresponding to the four 
          Berachos of Birkas ha'Mazon.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  They added four more cups, corresponding to community 
          servants, leaders of the city (both of these used to 
          assist in burials), the Beis ha'Mikdash, and R. Gamliel.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  This led to drunkenness, so they returned to the former 
          enactment (10 cups).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why was a Berachah enacted corresponding to R. 
          Gamliel?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Beraisa):</font></b> It used to be that the expense of 
          burial pained the mourners more than the loss (because 
          everyone used to buy expensive shrouds). Mourners would 
          abandon the deceased and flee! R. Gamliel (the Nasi) 
          buried his Mes in simple linen shrouds, and everyone 
          followed his example.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Papa):</font></b> Today the custom is to make shrouds of hemp, 
          which cost only a Zuz.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) HALACHAH: DRINKING WINE IN THE HOUSE OF AN AVEL</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara says that the Chachamim instituted a custom to drink ten cups of wine in the house of an Avel -- three cups to open one's digestive system and arouse his appetite, three cups during the meal to help digest his food, and four cups to represent the four Berachos of Birkas ha'Mazon. They later instituted four additional cups for various reasons. When the Chachamim saw that the people in the house of an Avel started to become intoxicated from so many cups of wine, they 'returned the situation to its original state.'
</p><p>
What is the proper practice according to the Gemara's conclusion, and how is this practice observed today?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> writes that when the Chachamim 'returned the situation to its original state,' they annulled the additional four cups of wine that were instituted and they left the original enactment of drinking ten cups of wine in place.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> (in <b>TORAS HA'ADAM</b>) and other Rishonim write that after the people started to become intoxicated, the Chachamim annulled the custom of giving wine altogether. Only during the meal would they permit giving wine, because wine during a meal helps digest the food and does not make a person intoxicated (Yerushalmi, cited by the Rashbam in Pesachim 117b).
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Avel 13:8) writes that in the house of an Avel 'we do not let anyone drink more than ten cups.' It seems that the Rambam understands that the Gemara is not saying that the people in the house of an Avel <i>should</i> drink ten cups, but that the Chachamim made a <i>limit</i> to how much they may drink and limited the amount to ten cups. That is, although the Gemara says that wine was created only to provide comfort to Avelim (Sanhedrin 70a), nevertheless the Chachamim did not allow the people in the house of an Avel to drink excessively. (See also Rambam, Hilchos Avel 4:6.)
</p><p>

<b>HALACHAH:</b> The <b>SHULCHAN ARUCH</b> (YD 378:8) writes that Avelim should drink wine only during the meal, and they should not drink enough to become intoxicated but only enough to help digest the food (as the Rambam and Ramban rule).
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE CLAIM OF 'PESACH' 'PASU'ACH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> If a Chasan claims Pesach Pasu'ach (there 
          were no Besulim blocking Bi'ah with the Kalah, i.e. she 
          was not a virgin) he is believed, and she becomes 
          forbidden to him (we suspect that she had Bi'ah with 
          someone after Kidushin).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> She should be permitted due a Sefek-Sefeka (two 
          doubts)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Perhaps the Bi'ah was before Kidushin;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Even if the Bi'ah was after Kidushin, perhaps she 
               was forced against her will.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> R. Elazar's law applies to a Kohen's wife, who 
          becomes forbidden to her husband even if she was forced.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> His law applies to a girl who became 
          Mekudeshes (through her father) before the age of three 
          (Bi'ah was definitely after the Kidushin, for otherwise 
          the Besulim would have grown back).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> A Mishnah already teaches this (that if one 
          says that something is forbidden to him, he is forbidden, 
          even if he is contradicted)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If one says to a woman 'I was Mekadesh 
               you to me' and she denies it, he may not marry her 
               relatives, but she may marry his relatives.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> In that Mishnah he certainly knows the truth. We 
          cannot learn from it R. Elazar's law, for one might have 
          thought that a man cannot tell whether or not the Pesach 
          was Pasu'ach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> R. Elazar taught otherwise!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Elazar):</font></b> A woman becomes forbidden to her 
               husband only through Kinuy (warning not to be 
               secluded with a particular man) and seclusion, like 
               the episode (of David and Bas Sheva).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> This cannot be correct. There was no 
               Kinuy and seclusion in that episode! Also, she did 
               not become forbidden!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Correction:</font></b> R. Elazar meant, we learn that a woman 
               becomes forbidden only through Kinuy and seclusion 
               <i>from</i> the episode, in which there was not Kinuy and 
               seclusion, and she did not become forbidden.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Summation of question:</font></b> How can R. Elazar say that a 
               claim of Pesach Pasu'ach forbids? This is not Kinuy 
               and seclusion!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Counter-question:</font></b> Do you think that R. Elazar says (she 
          can become forbidden) only through Kinuy and seclusion, 
          but not through witnesses (of Bi'ah)?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Retraction:</font></b> R. Elazar's other teaching says 'a woman 
          becomes forbidden through two witnesses. If there were 
          (two witnesses about) Kinuy and seclusion, even one 
          witness (of Bi'ah forbids her permanently, and she may 
          not drink the Sotah water);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A claim of Pesach Pasu'ach is like two witnesses.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE EPISODE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why didn't Bas Sheva become forbidden in the 
          episode?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> She was forced.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE SUGYA OF 'PESACH PASU'ACH'</b></font><b>
<br></b>Rebbi Elazar states that if a newly married husband comes to Beis Din with the claim, 'Pesach Pasu'ach Matzasi' -- he claims that he found an 'open aperture' and that his wife is not a Besulah -- he is believed to prohibit her to himself. The Gemara asks why he should be believed if it is a 'Sfek Sfeika' (two doubts): there is a doubt whether she was defiled while betrothed to him (or before her betrothal), and even if she was defiled while betrothed to him, perhaps it was against her will (b'Ones), and therefore we should be lenient and permit her to remain married to him.
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that Rebbi Elazar's ruling refers to the specific case of the wife of a Kohen ('Eshes Kohen'), in which case there is only one Safek -- whether or not she was betrothed to him at the time she was defiled, since the wife of a Kohen becomes prohibited to her husband whenever she has relations with another man, even b'Ones. Alternatively, Rebbi Elazar refers to the specific case of a woman who was betrothed when she was under the age of three ('Pechusah mi'Bas Shalosh'), and thus the only Safek is whether it was b'Ones or b'Ratzon (she was definitely betrothed to him at the time that it took place, though). 
</p><p>
The various points of this Gemara have generated extensive discussion among the Rishonim and the Acharonim. We will briefly discuss a few of these points.
</p><p>
1. <b>SFEK SFEIKA <b><b>IN</b></b> RESHUS HA'YACHID</b>
<br><b>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara states that we are lenient in the case of a Sfek Sfeika which involves a question whether a woman is permitted to live with her husband. There is a principle in the laws of Tum'ah and Taharah that 'Safek Tum'ah b'Reshus ha'Yachid, Tamei' -- any Safek in Reshus ha'Yachid is deemed to be Tamei. The Gemara in Sotah (28a) derives this principle from the Isur of a Safek Sotah -- the woman is prohibited to live with her husband even though there is a doubt whether she defiled herself. When the woman secludes herself ('Stirah') with another man after she was warned not to ('Kinuy'), she becomes a Safek Sotah, since it is not known whether she committed adultery or not. The Torah teaches that in such a case, she is forbidden to her husband out of doubt. The Gemara derives from the verses of Safek Sotah that any Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Yachid is Tamei. (The doubt about the actions of the Safek Sotah arose in a Reshus ha'Yachid, a private place, where she was alone with the suspected adulterer.)
</p><p>
The Mishnah in Taharos (6:4) says that because of this principle, even when there are four or five doubts involved (Sfek-Sfek-Sfeika), the Halachah is stringent in Reshus ha'Yachid and the object or person is deemed Tamei. (That is, each Safek on an individual basis is judged Tamei until no more Sfeikos remain.)
</p><p>
If the source for the Halachah of Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Yachid is the law of Safek Sotah, then why does the Gemara here say that in the case of 'Pesach Pasu'ach' the woman is permitted when there is a Sfek Sfeika? Since all Sfeikos in Reshus ha'Yachid are deemed Tamei, in this case, too, the woman should be prohibited because all of the Sfeikos are judged as Tamei! (<b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> answers that the law that a Sfek Sfeika is Tamei in Reshus ha'Yachid applies only when 'Huchzak Sham Tum'ah' -- when there is (or was) an established source of Tum'ah there. If no certain object that can cause Tum'ah was known to be there in the first place, then a Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Yachid can be Tahor. (See <b>MISHNAH ACHARONAH</b> to Taharos, end of 3:6. Although the Mishnah in Taharos (6:4) counts as one of the Sfeikos a case in which one entered a house and there was a Safek if the Tum'ah was there or not, the Mishnah refers to a case in which there definitely existed an item of Tum'ah and the question is whether that item of Tum'ah was in this house or in another house.)
</p><p>
(b) <b>RABEINU CHAIM HA'LEVI</b> (Hilchos Yibum 6:19) writes that the comparison of the Tum'ah of the woman to the Tum'ah of a Mes applies only in the case of a woman who secluded herself with a man after 'Kinuy.' Any other Safek is treated like a normal Safek Isur, and not like a Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Yachid. This logic is based on the same principle as that proposed by the Shitah Mekubetzes, that only when it is known for certain that there was Tum'ah in a given place is the law stringent when a doubt arises. In the case of a woman who may have committed adultery, the only situation in which definite Tum'ah is considered present is when there was an act of 'Stirah' preceded by 'Kinuy.' Since the woman was specifically warned not to seclude herself with the man and she did so anyway, there are strong grounds to suspect her of disloyalty to her husband, and thus it is considered as though there is Tum'ah present.
</p><p>
2. <b>APPLYING</b> A '<b>ROV</b>' <b><b><b>TO</b></b> TIME</b>
<br><b>QUESTION:</b> The <b>RASHASH</b> asks a basic question about the Safek whether the wife was unfaithful before or during the Erusin ('Tachtav or Eino Tachtav'). Why do we not simply apply the principle of 'Rov' and assume that the Be'ilah occurred during the longer of the two time-periods? Since she was unmarried for most of her life, we should assume that the Be'ilah occurred during the time period when she was unmarried.
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The principle of 'Rov' does not apply to time. There is a general rule in the laws of 'Rov' that states that when the subject of the doubt involved is 'Kavu'a' -- that is, the Safek arises about the status of an object that is immobile and established in its place -- 'Rov' does <i>not</i> apply. Therefore, when the doubt involves a question about the day on which an event occurred, 'Rov' cannot be applied to determine that certain days are in the majority and that the act happened during those days. (In other words, 'Rov' determines only what person or object <i>did</i> an act, but not <i>to whom</i> the act was done or <i>when</i> it was done.)
</p><p>
3. <b>APPLYING</b> '<b>CHAZAKOS</b>'
<br><b>QUESTION:</b> In the two cases of Eshes Kohen and Pechusah mi'Bas Shalosh, why does the Halachah prohibit the woman out of doubt? She should be permitted out of doubt based on the Chazakah that she was permitted to her husband before the doubt arose. Since she was permitted to her husband before the Be'ilah occurred, the rule of 'Chazakah' should enable us to assume that she is presently permitted to him as well. (<b>TOSFOS</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) In the case of the Eshes Kohen, <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that although she has a 'Chazakah d'Me'ikara' that until now she was permitted to her husband (and it may be assumed that she became a Be'ulah before she became betrothed to him), another Chazakah contradicts that Chazakah. She has a 'Chezkas ha'Guf' that states that she was originally a Besulah and that she became a Be'ulah at the latest possible moment. This second Chazakah tells us that she was 'Tachtav,' betrothed to him, when she became a Be'ulah, and thus she should be prohibited to him. Tosfos explains that because of the two contradictory Chazakos, the Safek remains a Safek and she is prohibited to him.
</p><p>
The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> questions the answer of Tosfos. The Gemara in Nidah (2b) teaches that when an object changes from one status to another, the 'Chazakah d'Me'ikara' enables us to assume that the change in status occurred at the latest possible moment <i>only</i> when there are no other Chazakos involved. When, however, there are additional Chazakos involved, such as a Chazakah that tells us that she is <i>permitted</i> to her husband, that Chazakah combines with the Chazakah d'Hashta (in our case, that she <i>no longer</i> is a Besulah) to override the Chazakah d'Me'ikara (that says she was a Besulah until she was betrothed to him). This is known as 'Tartei l'Rei'usa.' Accordingly, when the Chezkas Besulah is challenged by a Chazakah that she was permitted to her husband until now, the latter should override the former and she should be permitted to her husband, the Kohen.
</p><p>
The Rishonim and Acharonim address this problem and offer a number of solutions:
</p><p>
(1) The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> explains that the Gemara in Nidah which says that a 'Chazakah d'Me'ikara' is overruled by a 'Chazakah d'Hashta' combined with another Chazakah ('Tartei l'Rei'usa') refers to a very specific case -- the case of a person who immersed in a Mikvah which was later found to have an insufficient amount of water. Since the water seeps out of the Mikvah slowly, it takes a long time for the water level to fall below the minimum level. Therefore, the 'Chazakah d'Me'ikara' that allows us to assume that since the Mikvah was valid at an earlier it most likely started to lose its water at the most recent time (and thus at the moment the person immersed in it, it had enough water) is a weak Chazakah, since the Mikvah probably started to lose water earlier, as the water seeps out slowly. That is the only reason why the 'Chazakah d'Me'ikara' is overridden in that case. Normally, though, 'Tartei l'Rei'usa' does not override a 'Chazakah d'Me'ikara.'
</p><p>
This approach indeed is cited as one opinion by Tosfos in Nidah (2b) and in Chulin (10a). However, Tosfos cites other opinions that 'Tartei l'Rei'usa' applies in <i>all</i> cases. How will those opinions explain the Sugya here?
</p><p>
(2) The <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> suggest that the Chazakah that the woman is a Besulah does <i>not</i> permit the woman to her husband because there is a 'Sfek Sfeika l'Isur' which conflicts with the Chazakah. That is, this case is not a normal case of a Safek in which a Chazakah may determine the outcome of the ruling, but there is a double reason, so to speak, to prohibit her: even if she became a Be'ulah before the marriage, she still might be prohibited because perhaps she lived with a person who rendered her Pesulah to a Kohen, and even if she lived with the type of person who does not invalidate a Besulah to a Kohen, her act of Be'ilah might have been done <i>after</i> she was married when relations with <i>any</i> other man renders her Pesulah to a Kohen.
</p><p>
(Tosfos does not mention this logic because he wants to show that the wife of the Kohen is prohibited even in a city where most of the people are Kesherim and would not invalidate her to a Kohen. See <b>RITVA</b>.)
</p><p>
(3) <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> suggests that the logic of 'Tartei l'Rei'usa' (a 'Chazakah d'Hashta' combined with another Chazakah) cannot apply in this case. 'Tartei l'Rei'usa' can override the 'Chazakah d'Me'ikara' only when the 'Chazakah d'Hashta' can combine with the second Chazakah by <i>supporting</i> what the other Chazakah proves. For example, in the case of the Mikvah found to be lacking the minimum amount of water, the 'Chazakah d'Hashta' says that the person is Tamei because there is not enough water now in the Mikvah to make him Tahor. That Chazakah supports the 'Chezkas ha'Guf' that the person is Tamei now and that he should remain Tamei since he did not immerse in a valid Mikvah. 
</p><p>
In the case of the Eshes Kohen, however, the additional Chazakah is that she was permitted to a Kohen until now. The 'Chazakah d'Hashta' (which says that the Be'ilah occurred before the Erusin) does <i>not</i> support the Chazakah that she is permitted to a Kohen, because, on the contrary, that Chazakah would be reinforced if she had not had Be'ilah <i>at all</i> before the Erusin! The 'Chazakah d'Hashta' does not make her permitted; it just circumvents the Isur that is created by the 'Chazakah d'Me'ikara.' Since the 'Chazakah d'Hashta' says that the Be'ilah occurred earlier, it avoids the Isur that would have come about had we assumed that the Be'ilah occurred after Erusin because of the 'Chazakah d'Me'ikara.' 
</p><p>
(It may be inferred from Rebbi Akiva Eiger's explanation that 'Tartei l'Rei'usa' can be applied only <i>l'Chumra</i> -- to create an Isur based on an additional Chazakah of Isur, but not to create a Heter based on an additional Chazakah of Heter.)
</p><p>
(b) In the case of Pechusah mi'Bas Shalosh, why do we not rely on the Chazakah that she was permitted to her husband until now, and thus we should rule that she is still permitted (and her Be'ilah was b'Ones)?
</p><p>
<b>TOSFOS</b> cites the Yerushalmi that says that a case of Ones usually becomes widely known. If word did not spread that this woman was raped, it may be assumed that her Be'ilah was done b'Ratzon, willingly. Therefore, it is not just a Safek, but a <i>Rov</i> that she did it b'Ratzon, and the Rov overrides the Chazakah.
</p><p>
4. <b>SAFEK</b> '<b>MUKAS ETZ</b>'
<br><b>QUESTION:</b> Why does the Gemara say that in the cases of the Eshes Kohen and Pechusah mi'Bas Shalosh there is only one Safek (and thus the woman is Asur mi'Safek to her husband)? There is actually a second Safek involved, and thus the case is a Sfek Sfeika (and she should be <i>Mutar</i>) -- there is the possibility that she did not have Be'ilah at all but that she is a <i>Mukas Etz</i>. She might have lost her Besulim some other way besides Be'ilah, and thus she should not be Asur to her husband!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) Tosfos points out that according to <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b>, becoming a Mukas Etz causes only the blood to come out, but the Pesach (opening) remains closed. In the cases of the Gemara here, the husband claims 'Pesach Pasu'ach Matzasi' -- he found the <i>Pesach</i> to be open, and thus obviously she is not only a Mukas Etz but she is actually a Be'ulah.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RE'AH</b> and <b>RASHBA</b> explain that a case of Mukas Etz is so uncommon that it cannot even be considered a possibility.
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that had the woman lost her Besulim merely by being a Mukas Etz, she would have spoken up and admitted it, since she would not have been embarrassed by it. The fact that she did not claim that she was a Mukas Etz proves that she was not a Mukas Etz.
</p><p>
This answer seems problematic. This answer explains why she is not permitted to her husband with a Sfek Sfeika that she might have been a Mukas Etz. However, when she says that she was raped or, in the case of an Eshes Kohen, that the Be'ilah occurred before she was betrothed, she should be believed because of a <i>Migu</i> that <i>she could have said</i> she was a Mukas Etz (and she would have been permitted due to the Sfek Sfeika).
</p><p>
The answer is that Tosfos may understand the case like the <b>ROSH</b> and <b>RAN</b>. The Rosh and Ran explain that she would be believed if she would say that she was raped, since she claims to be certain of the facts ('Bari') while her husband does not claim to know for certain how and when she became a Be'ulah ('Shema'). Since her husband cannot contradict her claim, she would be believed (according to Raban Gamliel, whose opinion is the Halachah; see Mishnah 12b). The Rosh and Ran therefore conclude that the case of the Gemara must be when the wife either says that she is a Besulah (and he can contradict her with certainty), or she says nothing. That is why she becomes prohibited as a result of his claim. 
</p><p>
This also explains why the wife is not permitted to her husband because of the Migu that she could have said she is a Mukas Etz. That Migu will not permit her when she claims she is a Besulah, since her husband claims that she is lying, a claim with which he is 'Shavya a'Nafshei Chatichah d'Isura' -- according to his own word, she is prohibited to him. A claim which is 'Shavya a'Nafshei Chatichah d'Isura' overrides even the testimony of a pair of valid witnesses, and it certainly overrides a simple Migu (<b>MAHARSHA</b>).
</p><p>
(d) Other Rishonim (see <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b>) say that this is a Sfek Sfeika that 'cannot be reversed' ('she'Einah Mis'hapeches'). (For example, in the case of Pechusah mi'Bas Shalosh, the Sfek Sfeika cannot be said the other way around: perhaps her Be'ilah was b'Ones, and even if it was b'Ratzon, perhaps she was Mukas Etz -- there is no such thing as Mukas Etz being b'Ratzon. Consequently, the two possibilities of how the loss of her Besulim was not b'Ratzon -- either because of Ones or because of Mukas Etz -- are one and the same Safek.)
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani):</font></b> Everyone who went to 
          war in David's army wrote a Get (document of divorce) to 
          his wife.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Yosef):</font></b> 'Take Arubasam' - these are things 
               between man and wife (i.e. marriage, which is taken 
               (removed) through a Get).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE CLAIM OF 'PESACH' 'PASU'ACH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (for R. Elazar - Abaye - Mishnah):</font></b> A virgin is 
          married on Wednesday.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> She is not married on Thursday. We are 
               concerned lest the Chasan calm down (and not come to 
               Beis Din).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If we are concerned lest he pay a Kesuvah 
               (which she does not deserve), let him pay it! (It is 
               his fault for calming down!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Rather, the enactment was in order that 
               he come to Beis Din and we will rule that she is 
               forbidden to him.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> The case is, he claims Pesach Pasu'ach!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, he claims that there was no blood. (Only 
          this claim forbids, for one does not err about this.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> One who claims Pesach Pasu'ach is believed 
          to deprive her of her Kesuvah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Yosef):</font></b> We already know this from a 
          Mishnah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> One who eats by his father-in-law in 
               Yehudah without witnesses cannot claim later that 
               the Kalah is not a virgin, since he was secluded 
               with her.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> In Galil (where they are not secluded) he 
               may make such a claim.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If the claim is to forbid her to him, it should 
                    apply also in Yehudah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Rather, the claim is to deprive her of her Kesuvah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> He claims Pesach Pasu'ach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No, the claim is that there was no blood.
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>IS 'KESUVAH' 'MID'ORAISA' OR 'MID'RABANAN'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Nachman):</font></b> Chachamim enacted that a virgin gets a 
          Kesuvah of 200 Zuz and a widow gets a Kesuvah of 100. 
          They also enacted that if he claims Pesach Pasu'ach, he 
          is believed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, the enactment does not help! (Every 
          Chasan can exempt himself.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> We have a Chazakah (a law of human nature) 
          that a person does not toil to make a feast and spoil it 
          (i.e. make a false claim and divorce her immediately).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa #1):</font></b> Since it is a fine of the Chachamim, she 
          collects only from Ziburis (lowest quality land).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> The Kesuvah is not a fine!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Retraction:</font></b> Rather, since it is an enactment of the 
          Chachamim, she collects only from Ziburis.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Seifa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> The Kesuvah is a Torah 
          concept.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This contradicts what he said in a Beraisa!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa #2):</font></b> 'Money... like the Mohar of virgins' 
               teaches that the Mohar (Kesuvah) of a virgin should 
               be like the fine for a seducer, 50 Shekalim. This 
               was Chachamim's source in the Torah for the Kesuvah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, the Kesuvah is only 
               mid'Rabanan.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> We must switch the opinions in Beraisa #2.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why don't we switch the opinions in 
               Beraisa #1?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Elsewhere, we find that R. Shimon ben 
               Gamliel says that the Kesuvah is mid'Oraisa.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Shimon ben Gamliel):</font></b> One pays the 
                    Kesuvah with coins of Keputkiya (which are 
                    larger).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> The entire second Beraisa is R. Shimon ben 
          Gamliel. It reads as follows:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is the support that Kesuvah is mid'Oraisa. The 
               Kesuvah of a widow is only mid'Rabanan, like R. 
               Shimon ben Gamliel says.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>CASES OF CLAIMS OF 'PESACH' 'PASU'ACH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  A man came to Rav Nachman and claimed Pesach Pasu'ach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Nachman:</font></b> Lash him with date branches! If he knows 
          this, he must be regular with the harlots of the city!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> But Rav Nachman said that a man is believed to 
          say that the opening was open!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> He is believed, and he is lashed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> If he was previously married he is 
          believed. If not, he is lashed..
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  A man came to R. Gamliel and claimed Pesach Pasu'ach.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 - R. Gamliel:</font></b> Perhaps you did Hatiyah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is comparable to a man walking in the dark (and 
               he came to his door. There was an obstruction that 
               did not allow the door to open.) If he tilted the 
               obstruction to the side, he will find the door open. 
               If not, he will find it locked.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 - R. Gamliel:</font></b> Perhaps you intentionally did 
          Hatiyah and uprooted the door and the bolt!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is comparable to a man walking in the dark. If 
               he intentionally aside the obstruction, he will find 
               the door open. If not, he will find it locked.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>CASES WHERE NO BLOOD WAS FOUND</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  A man came to R. Gamliel and said that he had Bi'ah 
          Rishonah, and there was no blood.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  The Kalah:</font></b> I was a virgin!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Gamliel inspected the cloth, soaked and washed it, and 
          founds drops of blood. He told the man that she was a 
          virgin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion (Huna Mar brei d'Rava mi'Parzika):</font></b> We 
               should do similarly!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE KESUVAH: D'ORAISA OR D'RABANAN?</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara teaches that a man is believed to make his wife lose her Kesuvah when he claims that he found her to be a Be'ulah ('Pesach Pasu'ach Matzasi'). The Gemara explains that since the institution of Kesuvah is only mid'Rabanan, the Rabanan trust the husband when he says that he found her to be a Be'ulah. They rely on the logic that a man would not put so much effort into preparing the wedding feast only to lose it all by falsely claiming that his marriage was a mistake -- unless he is telling the truth. This implies that if the institution of Kesuvah would have been mid'Oraisa, he would <i>not</i> have been believed.
</p><p>
The Gemara cites a Machlokes Tana'im regarding whether the Kesuvah is d'Oraisa or d'Rabanan. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says that it is d'Oraisa. Rav Nachman in the name of Shmuel rules that when the husband claims 'Pesach Pasu'ach Matzasi,' he is believed to make her lose her Kesuvah because the Kesuvah is only d'Rabanan. What is the Halachah regarding the status of the Kesuvah, and is the husband believed to make his wife lose it? (See also Insights to Kesuvos 39:2.)
</p><p>
(a) <b>RABEINU TAM</b> (cited by Tosfos) rules like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel who says that the Kesuvah is d'Oraisa. He follows the general rule that whenever Raban Shimon ben Gamliel is mentioned in a Mishnah, the Halachah follows his view.
</p><p>
Rabeinu Tam further proves that this is the Halachah from the wording of the Kesuvah in which it was customary to write, 'I obligate myself to give you two hundred Zuz to which you are entitled <i>by the Torah</i>.' Therefore, he rules that the husband is <i>not</i> believed to cause her to lose her Kesuvah with his claim of 'Pesach Pasu'ach Matzasi.'
</p><p>
(b) The <b>ROSH</b> (1:19) does not rule like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel. Rather, he rules that the Kesuvah is d'Rabanan since that is the view of Rav Nachman. Regarding the custom to write in the Kesuvah that she is entitled to the money 'Min ha'Torah,' the Rosh cites Rishonim who write that this phrase is intended merely to denote that the type of money that he obligates himself to pay for the Kesuvah is the type of money that the Torah discusses. This is called 'Kesef Tzuri,' a currency in which the Dinar was worth eight times more than the local currency commonly in use at the time, which was known as 'Kesef Medinah.' The Kesuvah must be paid with the larger sum.
</p><p>
Similarly, the Ritva writes in the name of <b>RABEINU PINCHAS</b> (brother of the <b>RE'AH</b>) that although the Kesuvah is normally paid in the currency of Kesef Medinah, if one writes the words 'to which you are entitled by the Torah' in the Kesuvah he must pay with Kesef Tzuri.
</p><p>
(c) <b>RABEINU CHANANEL</b> (cited by the Rosh) and the <b>GE'ONIM</b> rule like Rav Nachman, that the Kesuvah is d'Rabanan and is paid with in the currency of Kesef Medinah. The <b>HAGAHOS MAIMONIYOS</b> (Hilchos Ishus 10:6) writes in the name of the <b>MAHARAM</b> (see also <b>RITVA</b>) that because the Kesuvah is d'Rabanan, one should <i>not</i> write in the Kesuvah 'to which you are entitled <i>by the Torah</i>,' as writing so might even invalidate the Kesuvah since the Kesuvah is not d'Oraisa.
</p><p>
The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Ishus 10:7, 11:14) apparently follows the opinion of the Ge'onim and rules that the Kesuvah is d'Rabanan. However, when the Rambam lists the Mitzvos d'Oraisa that pertain to marriage and Ishus in the beginning of Hilchos Ishus, he writes that it is a Mitzvah 'to marry a woman with a Kesuvah and Kidushin,' and he also writes that 'one may not have relations without a Kesuvah and Kidushin.' He repeats this in Sefer ha'Mitzvos (Lo Ta'aseh #355) where he writes that there is an Isur against having relations with a woman without a Kesuvah and Kidushin. The <b>RAMBAN</b> there asks that since the institution of Kesuvah is d'Rabanan (as the Rambam himself rules in chapters 10 and 11 of Hilchos Ishus), how can there be an Isur d'Oraisa to have relations without a Kesuvah?
</p><p>
This question is compounded by the fact that even according to those who say that the Kesuvah is d'Oraisa, it certainly is not part of the Kidushin. The Kesuvah is a monetary obligation; not having a Kesuvah cannot create an Isur Be'ilah! (The Isur Be'ilah without a Kesuvah is certainly only an Isur d'Rabanan; see Kesuvos 54b.)
</p><p>
The answer seems to be that the Rambam uses the term 'Kesuvah' as a sign of the <i>type of relationship</i> between a man and woman. 'Kesuvah' represents a permanent, committed relationship, as opposed to a transient relationship of Z'nus (since the expense of divorce makes a person think twice before sending away his wife). When a Kesuvah is written, it shows that the man and woman are living together as husband and wife with a relationship of Ishus, and not a union of Z'nus.
</p><p>
When the Rambam writes that there is an Isur against having relations without a Kesuvah and without Kidushin, he means that the Isur (the Lo Ta'aseh) applies only when there is no Kidushin <i>and</i> the act is performed in the manner of Z'nus (that is, as a temporary, transient relationship). When a man lives with a woman in the manner of Ishus (that is, 'with a Kesuvah,' in the Rambam's words) but without Kidushin, he transgresses only a Mitzvas Aseh (of 'Ki Yikach Ish Ishah...') and not the Lo Ta'aseh. This Isur Aseh is the source for the Isur against living with a Pilegesh according to the Rambam (as mentioned earlier in Insights to 8:2:b). (See Rambam, Hilchos Ishus 1:4. The Girsa of the Rambam in Sanhedrin 21a seems to have been that a Pilegesh is betrothed <i>without</i> Kidushin, but <i>with</i> a Kesuvah; see Ramban, Bereishis 25:6.)
</p><p>
When the Rambam writes that the Mitzvas Aseh is to marry a woman with a Kesuvah and Kidushin, he means that one does not transgress the Mitzvas Aseh by having Be'ilas <i>Z'nus</i> without Kidushin (he does transgress the Lo Ta'aseh, though). The Mitzvas Aseh is to 'marry' a woman, which means to initiate the permanent relationship of husband and wife through Kidushin. (M. Kornfeld. See the similar explanation of ha'Gaon Rav Aharon Kotler on this matter in the Sefer Zikaron printed in his memory.)
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Our ironing (in Bavel) is like 
               their washing (in Eretz Yisrael, but our washing is 
               inferior to theirs. Perhaps the blood will not be 
               found.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> We can iron the cloth (this is like 
               washing in Eretz Yisrael)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> This will remove the blood.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  A man came to R. Gamliel bar Rebbi and said that he had 
          Bi'ah Rishonah, and there was no blood.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  The Kalah:</font></b> I am still a virgin!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Gamliel bar Rebbi brought two slaves, a virgin and a 
          non-virgin. He put them on top of a barrel of wine. One 
          could smell the wine through the mouth of the non-virgin, 
          but not from the mouth of the virgin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Kalah went on top of the barrel. The wine could 
               not be smelled through her mouth. R. Gamliel told 
               the man that she is a virgin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why didn't he test only the Kalah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He had heard about the test, but had never seen 
          it done, and was unsure if he properly understood it. It 
          is not proper to disgrace Benos Yisrael.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  A man came to R. Gamliel the elder and said that he had 
          Bi'ah Rishonah, and there was no blood.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  The Kalah:</font></b> I am from the family of Dorketi. We do not 
          have menstrual or virginal blood!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  R. Gamliel found that this was true. He told the man that 
          he was fortunate to get a girl from the family of 
          Dorketi.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why is the family called 'Dorketi'?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It is a Dor Katu'a (cut off).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Chanina:</font></b> R. Gamliel gave the man false consolation!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Chiya):</font></b> Just like sourdough is good for 
               (fermenting) a dough, so blood is good for a woman.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Meir):</font></b> A woman with much blood will have many 
               children.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yirmiyah bar Aba):</font></b> R. Gamliel said 'acquire your 
          (good) purchase'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yosi bar Avin):</font></b> he said 'you made a bad purchase'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We understand why he would say that it was a 
          bad purchase, for she is not fitting for children. But 
          according to R. Yirmiyah, why did he consider it a good 
          acquisition?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He will not be in doubt whether or not his wife 
          is a Nidah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b></b>  A man came to Rebbi and said that there was no blood from 
          Bi'ah Rishonah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  The Kalah:</font></b> I am still a virgin!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b></b>  It was a time of famine. Rebbi bathed them and gave them 
          to eat and drink. They had Bi'ah again, and there was 
          blood. 'Their skin stuck to their bones, it was as dry as 
          wood'.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE 'KESUVAH' OF A WIDOW</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Kesuvah of a virgin is 200 Zuz. That of a 
          widow is 100. If a virgin was widowed, divorced or did 
          Chalitzah from Eirusin, her Kesuvah is 200, and there is 
          Ta'anas Besulim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Rav Chana Bagdata'ah):</font></b> A widow is called an 
          <i>Almanah</i> because her Kesuvah is a Manah (100 Zuz).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Kesuvah of a widow from Eirusin is 200!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Since we call a widow from Nisu'in Almanah, also 
          a widow from Eirusin is called Almanah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why does it say 'Almanah' in the Torah? 
          (Mid'Oraisa, a widow has no Kesuvah!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is because Chachamim would later make this 
          enactment.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Would the Torah give a name based on the 
          future?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  Yes! Rav Yosef taught a Beraisa that says that 'The 
          Chidekel River... to the east of <i>Ashur</i>' refers to the 
          city of Slika, which was built later.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chana Bagdata'ah):</font></b> Rain does the following: waters, 
          satiates, fertilizes, rejuvenates, and extends;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  (Rava bar R. Yishmael):	He learns from 'Telameha Rave 
          Naches...' (David requested that Hash-m send rain, which 
          does all of these).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> The MiZBe'aCH is MeZi'aCH, MeZin, MeCHaVev, 
          and MeCHaper (diverts (sins), feeds, endears, and 
          atones).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Diverting (sins) is the same as atoning!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> It diverts harsh decrees.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chana Bagdata'ah):</font></b> Dates warm (people), satiate, 
          promote bowel movement, invigorate, but do not make one 
          finicky.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav):</font></b> One who ate dates may not give Hora'ah (a Halachic 
          ruling, for dates befuddle).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> Dates are good in the morning and 
          evening. They are bad in the afternoon. They are 
          unmatched at noon. They overcome three things: bad 
          thoughts (worry), and sicknesses of the intestines and 
          abdomen.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Rav did not say that dates are not good. They 
          are good, just they temporarily befuddle, just like wine;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> One who drinks a Revi'is of wine may not give 
               Hora'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> Dates are bad before eating bread, but good 
          after bread.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Abaye):</font></b> My (surrogate) mother told me that dates 
               before bread are like an axe to a date tree. After 
               bread they are like a bolt to a door.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> DaSHa (door) is an acronym for Derech SHam (there 
          is the way). DaRGa (ladder) is an acronym for DeRech Gag 
          (a way to the roof).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Papa):</font></b> PuRiya (bed) is an acronym for Parim u'Ravim 
          (people procreate) on it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak):</font></b> Ailonis (a girl who does not 
          develop like a normal female) is based on Ayil (a male 
          ram, that does not bear children).
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>CHILDREN WHO CONVERT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a girl converted, was redeemed from 
          captivity, or (was a Kena'ani slave and) was freed, if 
          she was at most three years old at the time, (when she 
          marries) her Kesuvah is 200. There is Ta'anas Besulim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Rav Huna):</font></b> If a minor wants to convert, we 
          immerse him (in a Mikvah to convert him) on the volition 
          of Beis Din.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Does Rav Huna come to teach that Zachin l'Adam 
          she'Lo b'Fanav (we may do something purely beneficial for 
          a person in his absence)? A Mishnah explicitly teaches 
          this!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> Zachin l'Adam she'Lo b'Fanav, but we 
               cannot do something detrimental to a person in his 
               absence.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We might have thought that conversion is not 
          Zechus for a Nochri, for he prefers immorality. We hold 
          that a slave prefers immorality!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Rav Huna teaches that this applies only to an adult, 
               who has tasted immorality. A child has not, so 
               conversion is Zechus for him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Mishnah):</font></b> If a girl converted... when she was at 
          most three...
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> She was converted on the volition of 
               Beis Din!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> No, she converted with her father. Children 
          are happy with what their father does.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>A CHILD CONVERT CAN RENOUNCE THE CONVERSION</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> When a child convert grows up, he can 
          renounce the conversion.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye - Mishnah):</font></b> If a girl converted before 
          three years, her Kesuvah is 200.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If she can renounce the conversion, would we give to 
               her a Kesuvah?! She might return to being a Nochris 
               and keep the money!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We do not give to her the Kesuvah until she grows 
          up.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Still, she may renounce the conversion after 
          she receives the Kesuvah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If she does not renounce it the moment she 
          matures, she cannot renounce it later.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rava - Mishnah):</font></b> If a man rapes a girl who 
          converted before the age of three, he pays her a fine.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If she can renounce the conversion, would we give to 
               her a fine?! She might return to being a Nochris and 
               keep the money!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We do not give to her the fine until she grows 
          up.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Still, she may renounce the conversion after 
          she receives the fine!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If she does not renounce it the moment she grows 
          up, she cannot renounce it later.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  Abaye did not ask Rava's question. He understood that we 
          fine a rapist (even though she may renounce the 
          conversion) to punish him for his sin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b></b>  Rava did not ask Abaye's question. He understood that she 
          has a Kesuvah (even though she may renounce the 
          conversion) lest it be light in her husband's eyes to 
          divorce her.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>'MUKAS ETZ'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Meir):</font></b> The Kesuvah of the following is 200:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> A girl less than three years old who had Bi'ah with 
               a boy above nine, a girl above three who had Bi'ah 
               with a boy below nine, and a Mukas Etz;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, the Kesuvah of a Mukas Etz is 100.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  If a Besulah was widowed, divorced, or had Chalitzah 
          after Nisu'in, her Kesuvah is 100. There is no Ta'anas 
          Besulim.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE PRACTICAL RAMIFICATIONS OF THE CONVERSION OF A KATAN</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara teaches that Beis Din may immerse a Katan in a Mikvah for the sake of Gerus, conversion. <b>RASHI</b> writes that once they convert the Katan, he is considered a full-fledged Ger, and, consequently, when he touches wine he does not make it prohibited like a Nochri. Why does Rashi mention this particular practical implication of the Gerus of the Katan, instead of the fact that the Ger's Kidushin will take effect as he writes later (DH Yecholin Limchos)? Rashi writes that the Katan's touch does not render wine prohibited because he wants to give a practical implication that applies even when the Ger is still a Katan.
</p><p>
However, why does Rashi not write simply that the practical implication of the Gerus is that Beis Din must see to it that the Katan observes the Mitzvos because of Chinuch? Although Chinuch is only a Chiyuv d'Rabanan, the Isur of wine touched by a Nochri is also only d'Rabanan. Why does Rashi not mention this more obvious practical implication?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWER:</b> The answer is that Rashi apparently follows the opinion of those Rishonim (see Insights to Yevamos 114:1) who say that the obligation of Chinuch applies only to the child's father and not to the mother or to Beis Din. Whether Beis Din has to stop a Katan from transgressing an Isur is a question discussed by the Gemara in Yevamos (114a). Therefore, there is no obligation of Chinuch and Beis Din does not have to stop him if he does an Isur, and therefore the only practical implication of his Gerus taking effect is that if he touches wine it does not become prohibited.
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE AGE AT WHICH A 'GER KATAN' MAY RENOUNCE HIS CONVERSION</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara says that at the moment the Ger Katan becomes an adult, he has the option of renouncing his conversion by formally protesting ('Mocheh') and saying that he does not accept the Gerus. If he does so, the Gerus becomes annulled retroactively. However, if he becomes an adult and delays protesting his conversion even for one moment, he may no longer protest since he accepted his Gerus for one moment as an adult.
</p><p>
When exactly is the Ger Katan supposed to protest his Gerus? He reaches adulthood when two pubic hairs grow in, but the exact moment is not known. Before that moment he cannot be Mocheh because he is a Katan, and after that moment passes it is too late for him to be Mocheh. How is it possible to know the moment at which he becomes an adult? (<b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b>)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH l'Chi) writes that until the Ger grows up <i>and acts like a Jew</i> by doing something Jewish, he may still be Mocheh. 
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TOSFOS YESHANIM</b> suggests that he may be Mocheh by acting like a Nochri before he reaches adulthood, and continuing to act like that until after he reaches adulthood. That is considered one long act of Macha'ah which was in effect at the moment he became an adult.
</p><p>
Tosfos and the Tosfos Yeshanim seem to disagree about what is necessary for the conversion to take effect when the Katan reaches adulthood. Is it necessary to have an <i>act of acceptance</i> in order for his Gerus to take effect, or is he a Ger as long as there is no <i>act of rejection</i>, and the lack of rejection is considered an acceptance of the Gerus ('Shetikah k'Hoda'ah')? Tosfos maintains that an act that shows acceptance is necessary, and therefore the Ger must act like a Jew in order for the Gerus to take effect. The Tosfos Yeshanim maintains that as long as the Ger does not perform an act of rejection, the Gerus is valid.
</p><p>
Alternatively, they may disagree about the mechanics of how the Macha'ah itself functions. The Tosfos Yeshanim follows the view of the <b>RASHBA</b> in Kidushin (23a) who explains that although Gerus is a Zechus (merit) for the Katan, it nevertheless is not a 'Zechus Gamur,' a complete benefit to him, since it carries with it an element of Chov (such as the restrictions from the hedonism of living as a Nochri). Because it is not a total Zechus, the Ger may be Mocheh and say that he considers the Gerus a Chov, and thereby annul the Gerus retroactively. In order to do this, however, he must issue an active Macha'ah. In lieu of anything active to stop the Gerus (such as an announcement that it is a Chov to him), it will take effect. 
</p><p>
Tosfos, on the other hand, may understand that although Beis Din performs Gerus for him when he is a Katan, and Gerus works for a Katan without his consent, when he reaches adulthood and has intellectual maturity, his consent is required to consummate the Gerus. (This seems to be the view expressed by Tosfos in Sanhedrin 68b.) Accordingly, what is necessary for the Gerus to take effect is a positive act that will finalize the Gerus, and what is necessary for the Gerus <i>not</i> to take effect is a <i>lack of a positive act</i> to leave the Gerus unfinished and ineffective, rather than an active Macha'ah which will annul the Gerus.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>TOSFOS RID</b> proposes a novel solution. He explains that as soon as the Ger develops a mature mind, even if he is not yet thirteen years old and does not have two hairs, he is able to be Mocheh. He may be Mocheh at any point from the time that he has a mature mind until he has two hairs.
</p><p>
The logic behind the Tosfos Rid's explanation may be understood based on the words of the <b>CHASAM SOFER</b> (YD 314). The Chasam Sofer writes that the age of adulthood of a Nochri may not be the same as that of a Jew. The Halachah that a Jew is considered an adult when he has two hairs is a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai; it is one of the Shi'urim, measures, that was taught through a Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai (Teshuvos ha'Rosh 16:1). The <b>RADVAZ</b> (Hilchos Melachim 9:9) writes that all of the Halachos l'Moshe mi'Sinai apply only to Jews who received the Torah at Sinai, and they do not apply to Nochrim.
</p><p>
It follows that the adulthood of a Nochri should not depend on the age of thirteen years or on the arrival of two hairs. Rather, it depends on mental maturity; a Nochri is considered an adult at the moment he reaches mental maturity, even if he reaches mental maturity before the age of thirteen. According to this approach, the Tosfos Rid's logic is clear. If the Ger Katan chooses to be Mocheh, that means he wants to remain a Nochri. As a Nochri, he is considered an adult whenever he reaches mental maturity, even before the age of thirteen. That is why he may be Mocheh from the time his mind matures. The limit of Macha'ah -- when he no longer has the option to be Mocheh -- is when he reaches the age of thirteen and has two hairs, because at that point he is considered an adult and is able to accept the Gerus (for at that time he becomes an adult if the Gerus takes effect). (See also Insights to Nazir 62a.)
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  If a girl above three converted, was redeemed from 
          captivity, or was freed, her Kesuvah is 100. There is no 
          Ta'anas Besulim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 (Gemara - Rav Yehudah citing Rav):</font></b> If a Katan 
          (less than nine) had Bi'ah with a girl above three, she 
          becomes a Mukas Etz.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel):</font></b> Whatever is not considered 
          Bi'ah does not give her the status of Mukas Etz.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2:</font></b> The opinions of Rav and Shmuel were taught 
          Stam (Rav Yehudah did not cite them). (end of Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Oshaya):</font></b> Our Mishnah lists separately a boy 
          below nine who had Bi'ah with a girl above three and a 
          Mukas Etz!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rava):</font></b> Read the Mishnah thusly: if a boy above 
          nine years that had Bi'ah with a girl less than three 
          does not affect anything;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is like sticking a finger in the eye - it 
               causes it to tear, and the tears are replaced;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If a boy below nine had Bi'ah with a girl above 
               three, he makes her a Mukas Etz:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Meir and Chachamim argue about the Kesuvah of a 
               Mukas Etz.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE ARGUMENT IN THE 'MISHNAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rami bar Chama):</font></b> If the Chasan did not know at the time 
          of Chupah that she is a Mukas Etz, the Tana'im agree that 
          she does not get any Kesuvah. The Tana'im argue about 
          only when he knew that she is a Mukas Etz;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Meir considers a Mukas Etz to be like a Bogeres 
               (a girl who became a Na'arah more than six months 
               ago; her Besulim can fall out by themselves). 
               Chachamim consider her to be like a non-virgin.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Meir does not consider her to be a non-virgin, 
               since no action was done to her by man.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Chachamim do not consider her to be a Bogeres, since 
               an action was done to her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Nachman - Mishnah - R. Gamliel and R. 
          Eliezer):</font></b> If she claims that she is a Mukas Etz, and he 
          claims that she had Bi'ah, she is believed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> (Even though he did not know, she receives a 
               Kesuvah. Rami bar Chama is refuted.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rava):</font></b> R. Meir says that whether or not he knew that she 
          is a Mukas Etz, her Kesuvah is 200. Chachamim say that if 
          he knew, she receives 100; if not, she receives nothing.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  Rava retracted from this, as we will explain.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> The case of Motzi Shem Ra is that he comes to 
          Beis Din and says 'Ploni, I did not find Besulim in your 
          daughter.' If witnesses say that she had Bi'ah during 
          Eirusin, her Kesuvah is 100.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> If there are witnesses, she is stoned for 
          adultery!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, if there are witnesses that she had 
          Bi'ah during Eirusin, she is stoned. If she had Bi'ah 
          before Eirusin, her Kesuvah is 100.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chiya bar Avin):</font></b> This shows that if a Kalah claimed 
          to be a virgin and was found not to be a virgin, her 
          Kesuvah is 100.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Nachman - Mishnah):</font></b> A Chasan did not find 
          Besulim. She claims that she was raped after Kidushin, 
          i.e. his field was flooded (it is his bad fortune). He 
          claims that (perhaps) it happened before Kidushin, so it 
          was a Mekach (Kidushei) Ta'us ...
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> (If his claim is true,) his Kidushin was a mistake 
               so she has no Kesuvah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Chiya bar Avin citing Rav Amram and the 
          greatest sages of the generation):</font></b> It was a Mekach Ta'us, 
          i.e. the Kesuvah is not 200, rather it is 100!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection (Rava):</font></b> This is not a proper answer. Mekach 
          Ta'us connotes that it is totally invalid!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, this contradicts the Beraisa, which says 
          that (if there are witnesses) she receives 100!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We needed to correct the Beraisa. We can correct 
          it to read 'If there are witnesses that she had Bi'ah 
          during Eirusin, she is stoned. If she had Bi'ah before 
          Eirusin, she receives nothing. If she is a Mukas Etz, she 
          receives 100.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rava said that if she is found to be a Mukas 
          Etz, Chachamim say that she receives nothing!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rava retracted from that.
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>3) THE STATUS OF A WOMAN WHO HAD RELATIONS WITH A MINOR</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> Rav and Shmuel disagree about whether an adult woman who has relations with a minor becomes a 'Mukas Etz' or not. Rav says that she is a Mukas Etz. Shmuel argues and says 'Ein Mukas Etz b'Basar,' that human flesh cannot make her into a Mukas Etz.
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> explains that according to Rav, she is a Mukas Etz because '[the Katan's Be'ilah] is not worse than a stick.' It seems that Rashi understands that the Gemara is discussing a situation in which the Be'ilah of the Katan removed the woman's Besulim, and that is why Rav equates it to a Mukas Etz (since the Besulim of a Mukas Etz is also removed). This explains why Rashi writes that another practical difference between Rav and Shmuel (besides the sum of money that is written in her Kesuvah) is whether this woman who lived with a Katan is permitted to marry a Kohen Gadol (who may marry only a Besulah). According to Shmuel, she is permitted to marry a Kohen Gadol even though a Mukas Etz may not marry a Kohen Gadol.
</p><p>
Rashi may have derived this understanding from the wording of Shmuel. When Shmuel expresses his opposing opinion, he does not say simply the inverse of Rav's statement, that the Katan does <i>not</i> make her a Mukas Etz. Rather, he says instead that 'flesh cannot make her a Mukas Etz.' This statement implies a general rule which applies not only with regard to her Kesuvah but with regard to other Halachos as well.
</p><p>
The <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b> adds that Rashi disagrees with the way that Tosfos and the other Rishonim understand the Sugya (see below). 
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH u'Shmuel) writes that the Gemara is discussing a case in which the Katan did <i>not</i> remove her Besulim. Tosfos asks that if the Katan removed the Besulim, how can Shmuel say that she is not a Mukas Etz? She would be exactly like a Mukas Etz, a woman who lost her Besulim through a means other than Be'ilah. According to Tosfos, it is clear that a Kohen Gadol would be permitted to this woman even according to Rav.
</p><p>
Tosfos' question on Rashi is very strong. There seems to be no way to justify allowing this woman to marry a Kohen Gadol. Similarly, she should receive a Kesuvah of only 100 Zuz and not 200.
</p><p>
The <b>TOSFOS RID</b> explains that Rashi maintains that even though the Katan removed the Besulim, it is as if the woman removed it with her finger. In such a case, she still receives 200 Zuz for her Kesuvah. A Mukas Etz, though, is different, and it causes her to lose 100 Zuz from the Kesuvah (according to the Rabanan) because it is an unintended occurrence which causes her to lose her appeal and grace ('Chen') in the eyes of her husband. The <b>SHITAH YESHANAH</b> cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes explains the Gemara in a similar manner.
</p><p>
However, this explanation does not suffice to explain the words of Rashi, who says that she is permitted to marry a Kohen Gadol. How can she be permitted to a Kohen Gadol if she no longer has her Besulim?
</p><p>
It is possible that Rashi agrees with Tosfos that the case of the Gemara involves a Katan who did not remove the woman's Besulim. When Rashi writes that the Be'ilah of a Katan is no different than a stick, his intention is to explain why Rav compares a Be'ilas Katan to a Mukas Etz. If a Be'ilas Katan does not remove the Besulim, in what way is it similar to a Mukas Etz? Rashi answers that the reason a Mukas Etz does not have a Kesuvah of 200 Zuz is because she has less 'Chen' in the eyes of her husband, since he was not privileged to remove her Besulim (see <b>TOSFOS</b> to 4a, DH Be'ilas); the husband prefers to be the one to remove her Besulim since it creates a stronger bond between them. Similarly, after a Be'ilas Katan, even though the act did not remove the Besulim, the bond between the woman and her husband whom she will marry will not be as strong, and thus she receives a Kesuvah of only 100 Zuz.
</p><p>
Why, though, is she disqualified from marrying a Kohen Gadol? Perhaps the Be'ilas Katan leaves a Pesach Pasu'ach, an opening, even though it does not remove any blood. Since she now has a Pesach Pasu'ach as a result of the act, she may not marry a Kohen Gadol. (See also the words of <b>RAV ELYASHIV</b> as cited in He'oros b'Maseches Kesuvos.)
</p><p>


<font><b>4) 'EIN ADAM TOREI'ACH B'SE'UDAH U'MAFSIDAH' -- THE REASON A MAN IS BELIEVED TO CLAIM 'PESACH PASU'ACH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara cites the Mishnah (12b) which states that if a man finds his wife to be a Be'ulah, he may claim that the marriage was a 'Mekach Ta'us,' an error, and he may refuse to give her the entire Kesuvah, according to Rebbi Yehoshua. One opinion in the Gemara explains that 'Mekach Ta'us' does not mean that the entire marriage is annulled, but that she loses 100 of the 200 Zuz of the Kesuvah, but she receives the remaining 100. Although she was not a Besulah, she does not lose the entire Kesuvah but only 100 Zuz.
</p><p>
The Gemara earlier (10a) says that a man is believed to say that he found his wife to be a Be'ulah ('Pesach Pasu'ach Matzasi') because of the Chazakah that he would not put forth so much effort to arrange the wedding feast and then get rid of his wife so quickly unless he is telling the truth. However, if his claim of 'Pesach Pasu'ach' will only cause her to lose 100 Zuz from the Kesuvah and he will remain married to her, he will not be losing anything! Why, then, is he believed? (<b>TOSFOS</b> 10a, DH Chazakah)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> answers that, indeed, if he does not divorce her he will not be believed. The Gemara refers only to a case in which he wants to divorce her right away and give her a Kesuvah of 100 Zuz. In such a situation, he is believed because of the Chazakah that 'Ein Adam Torei'ach....'
</p><p>
(b) The <b>RAMBAN</b> and <b>RE'AH</b> explain that we assume that he is going to divorce her because once he has created an unpleasant atmosphere in the marriage by claiming she was not a Besulah and making her lose part of her Kesuvah, they are not going to remain married to each other. ('A person does not spit into a cup and then drink it.')
</p><p>
(c) The <b>RAMBAN</b> cites a different answer in the name of <b>TOSFOS</b>. The benefit the man experiences from toiling to prepare the wedding feast is that he feels good when people see that he married a Besulah. If, afterwards, he claims that she was a Be'ulah, he will lose the pleasure of people knowing that he married a Besulah.
</p><p>
(d) The <b>RAMBAM</b> (Hilchos Ishus 11:14) explains that the Chazakah is that a man does not want to turn 'his day of joy into a day of mourning.' He does not want to ruin the joy of the moment by commencing legal action against his wife at this moment, even if he does not end up divorcing her. He still does not want to lose the joy of the moment. (See <b>SHEV SHEMAITSA</b> 2:10.)
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A 'KALAH' WHO WAS FOUND TO BE A NON-VIRGIN</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 (Beraisa):</font></b> If Leah had Chupah with Levi, and 
          she has witnesses that they were not secluded long enough 
          to have Bi'ah, her next husband has no Ta'anas Besulim, 
          since she already had Chupah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference (Rabah):</font></b> (Even though witnesses say that she is 
          a Besulah, even if she is not her Kesuvah is not reduced. 
          It follows that) if the Kalah claimed to be a virgin at 
          the time of Chupah and she was found to be a non-virgin, 
          her Kesuvah is 100.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection (Rav Ashi):</font></b> Normally, she receives nothing. The 
          Beraisa is different, for she already had Chupah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We should be concerned lest she was Mezanah 
          (had Znus) after Kidushin! (We should say that there is 
          Ta'anas Besulim so that if she was Mezanah witnesses will 
          come to testify!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Sharbiya):</font></b> The case is, the Chasan had Bi'ah 
          with her (and found that she is not a virgin) right after 
          Kidushin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 (Mishnah):</font></b> If a Besulah was widowed, divorced, 
          or had Chalitzah after Nisu'in, her Kesuvah is 100. There 
          is no Ta'anas Besulim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the case of a Besulah from Nisu'in?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> She went to Chupah but there was no Bi'ah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference (Rabah):</font></b> This teaches that if the Kalah claimed 
          to be a virgin at the time of Chupah and she is found to 
          be a non-virgin, she receives a Kesuvah of 100.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection (Rav Ashi):</font></b> We can say that in a normal case, 
          she receives nothing. The case of the Mishnah is 
          different, since she already had Chupah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We should be concerned lest she had Bi'ah after 
          Kidushin!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Sharbiya):</font></b> The case is, the Chasan had Bi'ah 
          with her right after Kidushin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b></b>  Version #1 holds that this discussion was concerning the 
          Beraisa. All the more so it applies to the Mishnah (Rav 
          Ashi's response, that the Chasan <i>cannot</i> claim that he 
          married only her because he thought that she was a 
          virgin).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b></b>  Version #2 holds that this discussion was concerning the 
          Mishnah. It holds that Rav Ashi's response would not 
          apply to the Beraisa. The Chasan could claim that he 
          relied on the witnesses (and married only her because he 
          thought that she was a virgin).
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>'TA'ANAS' 'BESULIM' IN 'YEHUDAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> In Yehudah, one who eats by his father-in-law 
          (during Eirusin) without witnesses (that he was not 
          secluded with the Kalah) has no Ta'anas Besulim, since 
          (we suspect) that he was secluded (and had Bi'ah) with 
          her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara):</font></b> 'One who eats' suggests that in some places in 
          Yehudah, the Chasan does not eat (by his father-in-law).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Inference (Abaye):</font></b> Even in Yehudah the custom applies 
          only in certain places.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> In Yehudah, at first they 
          would isolate the Chasan with the Kalah for a short 
          period before the Chupah in order that he should be 
          intimate with her. They did not do so in Galil;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  In Yehudah, at the time of Chupah they would prepare two 
          Shushbinim (friends), one for (overseeing) him (lest 
          there will be blood on the sheet and he dispose of it) 
          and one for her (lest she bring blood and feign that it 
          is her Dam Besulim). This was not done in Galil.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  In Yehudah, Shushbinim used to sleep in the house with 
          them, but not in Galil.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Anyone who did not do this has no Ta'anas Besulim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> About which clause was this said?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If it refers to the Reisha, it should have said that 
               anyone who <i>did</i> do this (has no claim)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If it refers to the Seifa, it should say that anyone 
               who was not overseen has no claim! (If he did not 
               'do this', i.e. appoint a friend to oversee her, but 
               he was overseen by her father's friend, all the more 
               so he has Ta'anas Besulim if there is no blood on 
               the sheet!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Abaye):</font></b> It refers to the Reisha. The Beraisa 
          should say that anyone who <i>did</i> do this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> The Beraisa says 'anyone who did <i>not</i> 
          do this'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> It means that anyone in Galil who did 
          not follow the Galil custom, rather the Yehudah custom 
          (i.e. he was secluded with her during Eirusin) has no 
          Ta'anas Besulim .
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Rav Ashi):</font></b> It refers to the Seifa. The Beraisa 
          should say 'anyone who was not overseen'.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE LARGER 'KESUVAH' OF 'KOHANIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> The Kesuvah of a widow is 100, whether her 
          father is a Kohen or Yisrael;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Kohanim conducted that the Kesuvah of a virgin Kohenes is 
          400. Chachamim did not protest.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Beraisa):</font></b> The Kesuvah of a Kohenes widow is 
          200.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Our Mishnah says that it is 100!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Ashi):</font></b> There were two enactments (for 
          Kohanos). First it was enacted to collect 400 for a 
          virgin and 100 for a widow;
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) ALLOWING A WOMAN TO COLLECT HER KESUVAH WHEN THERE IS A DOUBT THAT SHE WAS UNFAITHFUL</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Mishnah states that if a man finds his wife to be a Be'ulah and claims that the marriage was an error ('Mekach Ta'us'), and the woman claims that she was raped after she became betrothed to him (and thus the marriage was not a Mekach Ta'us), Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer rule that she is believed, and Rebbi Yehoshua rules that she is not believed. The Gemara (11b) cites an opinion that when Rebbi Yehoshua says that she is not believed (and thus the marriage <i>was</i> a Mekach Ta'us), she does not lose her entire Kesuvah but only 100 Zuz. Why does she not lose the entire Kesuvah? There is a Safek that she willfully committed Z'nus, and thus she should not receive anything!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (9b, DH Iy) explains that she gets part of the Kesuvah because of a Sfek Sfeika: there is a doubt that perhaps she had Z'nus before the Erusin, and even if she was unfaithful after the Erusin, perhaps it was b'Ones (against her will). Since there is a Sfek Sfeika in her favor to collect 100 Zuz for her Kesuvah, she may collect. Regarding the other hundred, however, there is a Sfek Sfeika <i>against</i> her: perhaps she had Z'nus willfully, and even if it was b'Ones, perhaps it was before the Erusin.
</p><p>
The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> (9b) asks why should she be able to collect money with a Sfek Sfeika? There is a rule that 'Ein Holchin b'Mamon Achar ha'Rov' -- we do not follow a 'Rov' when it comes to monetary matters. A Sfek Sfeika should not be any better than a Rov, as a Sfek Sfeika works by creating a situation of a majority (Rov) of possibilities in one's favor. The Pnei Yehoshua explains that Tosfos means that she may collect money through a Sfek Sfeika only because she also has a 'Ta'anas Bari' -- she is certain of the truth of her claim. (See <b>REBBI AKIVA EIGER</b> and <b>SHEV SHEMAITSA</b> 1:23.)
</p><p>
(b) The <b>SHEV SHEMAITSA</b> (1:23) cites the <b>MAHARI BEN LEV</b> who says that a Sfek Sfeika indeed <i>cannot</i> be used to collect money. He gives a different explanation for why she collects 100 Zuz of the Kesuvah. He says that the reason she collects the money is because when it comes to the Isur, she will be permitted to her husband because of the Sfek Sfeika. If she is permitted to him, then her entire Kesuvah cannot be taken away from her; since she is allowed to remain married to him, he must assume some responsibility towards her, and thus he may not revoke her entire Kesuvah. The Shev Shemaitsa suggests that this is the intention of Tosfos. The Pnei Yehoshua says the same logic but uses it as an argument against Tosfos.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>SHEV SHEMAITSA</b> himself (1:24) writes that perhaps a Sfek Sfeika may be used to collect money only in the case of a Kesuvah. The <b>HAGAHOS MORDECHAI</b> (in Yevamos) writes that since the Kesuvah is already written in a contract, Beis Din may follow a Rov to collect the money, since it is 'k'Man d'Gabuy Dami' -- it is as though it has already been collected since the woman is holding the contract of the Kesuvah. Therefore, the money of the Kesuvah may be collected through a 'Rov' since she is not considered as though she is taking money out of someone else's possession. He adds that since the Kesuvah is an act of Beis Din, it is considered as though the woman is already holding the money, and thus she is not taking it away from him with a Rov, but rather the Rov merely allows her to hold on to the money that is already in her possession.
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  When Chachamim saw that this caused Kohanos widows to be 
          disgraced, they enacted that their Kesuvah should be 200.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Men stopped marrying them, since for the same amount one 
          can marry a virgin Yisraelis.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  Chachamim returned to the initial law, that a Kohenes 
          widow receives 100.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Also families of good lineage in Yisrael 
          may enact that the Kesuvah of their daughters be larger.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> One who wants to do like the Kohanim, 
          such as a Yisraelis to a Kohen or a Kohenes to a Yisrael, 
          may do so.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Inference:</font></b> This is only allowed when one of the 
               parties is a Kohen!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No, the Beraisa teaches a Chidush. Not only when 
          a Yisraelis marries a Yisrael, but even when a Yisraelis 
          marries a Kohen, whose lineage is better than hers, the 
          Kesuvah may be increased.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>A DISPUTE OVER THE CAUSE OF NON-VIRGINITY</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer):</font></b> A Chasan found 
          that she is not a virgin. She says that she was raped 
          after Kidushin, and it is his bad fortune. He says that 
          (perhaps) she had Bi'ah before the Kidushin, and it is a 
          Mekach Ta'us (a mistaken Kidushin, because he was 
          deceived). She is believed;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yehoshua says, she is not believed unless she brings 
          proof.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Rav Yehudah and Rav Huna):</font></b> If Reuven claims 
          that Shimon owes to him 100 Zuz and Shimon says that he 
          does not know, Shimon must pay. Reuven's Vadai (definite) 
          claim is better than Shimon's doubtful claim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rav Nachman and R. Yochanan:</font></b> Shimon is exempt. When in 
          doubt, we leave money in its Chazakah (status quo; we do 
          not force one to pay).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Abaye):</font></b> Rav Yehudah and Rav Huna hold like Shmuel;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah (13a) - R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer):</font></b> If a 
               single girl is pregnant and she claims that the 
               father has proper lineage, she is believed;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. 
               Gamliel.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah (to Rav Yehudah):</font></b> You said 
               that Shmuel rules like R. Gamliel even in the Reisha 
               (our Mishnah)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Why did he say <i>even</i> in the Reisha (why 
               is this a bigger Chidush)?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Even though one might have thought that we 
               leave the money in its Chazakah, R. Gamliel says 
               that the Vadai claim wins.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Rav Yehudah and Rav Huna hold like R. Gamliel 
          (like Abaye taught), and Rav Nachman and R. Yochanan hold 
          like R. Yehoshua.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> Rav Nachman can hold like R. Gamliel;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Reason #1:</font></b> R. Gamliel believes her only because she 
               has a Migo (if she was lying, she would have made a 
               better claim, that she became a Mukas Etz after 
               Kidushin, and she would remain permitted to Kohanim. 
               Since she did not claim this, we assume she is 
               telling the truth.) In our case (you owe to me 100), 
               there is no Migo.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Reason #2:</font></b> R. Gamliel said his law only when we 
               leave her in her Chazakah (she was born a virgin. We 
               assume that she was still a virgin at the time of 
               Kidushin). This does not apply in our case.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support:</font></b> Presumably this is correct, that Rav Nachman 
          holds like R. Gamliel. If not, we are left with a 
          contradiction!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Halachah follows Rav Nachman in monetary 
               matters.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> The Halachah follows R. Gamliel in our Mishnah!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Conclusion:</font></b> We must say like above, that Rav Nachman 
               holds like R. Gamliel.
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>A DISPUTE OVER WHAT REMOVED THE 'BESULIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer):</font></b> If she says that 
          she is a Mukas Etz and he says that (perhaps) she had 
          Bi'ah with a man, she is believed;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yehoshua says, she is not believed unless she brings 
          proof.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What are their claims?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> She claims that her Kesuvah is 
          200 and he claims that it is 100;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Tana holds like R. Meir, that the Kesuvah of a 
               Mukas Etz is 200 even if he did not know that she is 
               a Mukas Etz.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (R. Elazar):</font></b> She claims that her Kesuvah is 100 
          and he claims that she has no Kesuvah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Tana holds like Chachamim, that the Kesuvah of a 
               Mukas Etz is 100, whether or not he knew that she 
               was a Mukas Etz.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Granted, R. Elazar did not answer like R. 
          Yochanan because it is better to establish the Mishnah to 
          be like Chachamim;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> But why didn't R. Yochanan answer like R. Elazar?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He holds that if a man finds that she is not a 
          virgin, her Kesuvah is 100;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the Mishnah were like Chachamim, he and she would 
               agree that her Kesuvah is 100!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  According to R. Elazar, both our Mishnah and the Reisha 
          (the previous Mishnah) are needed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The Reisha teaches unlike Rami bar Chama (who says 
               that one found to be a Mukas Etz has no Kesuvah. 
               Rather, it is 100);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Our Mishnah teaches unlike R. Chiya bar Aba (who 
               says that one was found to have had Bi'ah has no 
               Kesuvah. Rather, she gets 100.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  According to R. Yochanan, the Reisha teaches the 
          extremity of R. Yehoshua's opinion. Even when there is a 
          Migo, she is not believed;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Our Mishnah teaches the extremity of R. Gamliel's 
               opinion. She is believed even without a Migo.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHEN DO WE SUSPECT THAT A WOMAN BECAME DISQUALIFIED TO 'KEHUNAH'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer):</font></b> If we saw a woman 
          talking with a man and she says that it was Ploni, a 
          Kohen (i.e. one with proper lineage), she is believed;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yehoshua says, we do not rely on her. The Chazakah is 
          that she had Bi'ah with a Nasin or Mamzer (and she is 
          forbidden to Kehunah) unless she brings proof.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer say, if a single girl is 
          pregnant and she claims that the father is Ploni, a 
          Kohen, she is believed;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  R. Yehoshua says, we do not rely on her. The Chazakah is 
          that she is pregnant from a Nasin or Mamzer, unless she 
          brings proof.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Question):</font></b> What does 'she was talking' mean?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Ze'iri):</font></b> She was secluded with him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Asi):</font></b> She had Bi'ah with him. The Mishnah 
          uses a clean, euphemistic language, like the verse 'She 
          ate... and said that I did not sin'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> According to Ze'iri, the two clauses of the 
          Mishnah are very different cases. According to Rav Asi, 
          why are both clauses needed?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> In the Reisha, the Tana'im argue about whether or 
          not she is believed about herself. In the Seifa, they 
          argue about whether or not she is believed to say that 
          her daughter (the fetus) is Kosher.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This is like the opinion that R. Gamliel 
          believes her even regarding the daughter. According to 
          the opinion that he believes her only about herself, how 
          can he answer?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rav Asi must hold that he believes her even about 
          her child.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Papa):</font></b> According to Ze'iri, R. Yehoshua 
          forbids her to a Kohen for being secluded. Rav says that 
          we lash for seclusion, but we do not forbid due to 
          seclusion. Is Rav's law unlike R. Yehoshua?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> No. R. Yehoshua's law is a stringency 
          regarding lineage (we forbid her to Kohanim. Rav teaches 
          that we do not forbid a woman to her husband.)
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) THE VIEW OF RABAN GAMLIEL THAT THE WOMAN IS BELIEVED</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Raban Gamliel teaches in two different cases (in the Mishnah on 12b and in the Mishnah here) that 'Bari v'Shema, Bari Adif' -- when two people make claims against each other, and one person is doubtful ('Shema') about his claim and the other is certain ('Bari') about his, the one with the certain claim prevails. Rebbi Yochanan explains why Raban Gamliel needs to teach this law in two different Mishnayos. In the case of the second Mishnah, where the man claims that his wife had relations with another man before they were married and his wife claims that she is a Mukas Etz, Raban Gamliel teaches that the woman is believed to say she is a Mukas Etz even though she has no Migu. In the previous Mishnah, however, where the man claims that his wife had relations with another man before they were married and she claims that she was raped after they were married, it is obvious (according to Raban Gamliel) that she is believed because she has a Migu that she could have said that she was a Mukas Etz.
</p><p>
Why does Rebbi Yochanan mention that the only Chidush of the second Mishnah is that she is believed even though there is no Migu? The Gemara (12b) gives two reasons for why Raban Gamliel says that the woman is believed in the case of the Mishnah there: the first is that she has a Migu (that she could have said she was a Mukas Etz), and the second is that she has a Chazakah (that she was a Besulah). In the second Mishnah, not only is there no Migu, there is also no Chazakah! Why, then, does Rebbi Yochanan not say that the second Mishnah is needed to teach that Raban Gamliel accepts the claim of the woman even when there is no Migu <i>and</i> no Chazakah?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The <b>RAN</b> explains that in the case of the second Mishnah, there <i>is</i> a Chazakah. The Chazakah is that Jewish women do not commit Z'nus, and thus Beis Din may assume that she was a Mukas Etz and did not have relations with another man.
</p><p>
This also seems to be the intention of <b>TOSFOS</b> (12b, DH Ela) who implies that there is a Chazakah in the case of the Mishnah here.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> (12b, DH Ela d'Ika Migu) seems to say that there is no Chazakah in this Mishnah. When Rebbi Yochanan says that the Mishnah teaches that she is believed ('Bari v'Shema, Bari Adif') without a Migu, it also means to say that she is believed without a Chazakah.
</p><p>
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa - R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer):</font></b> If a girl 
          was secluded or in a ruin with a man and she says that he 
          has proper lineage, she is believed;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b></b>  R. Yehoshua says, we do not rely on her. The Chazakah is 
          that she had Bi'ah with a Nasin or Mamzer unless she 
          brings proof.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> According to Ze'iri, the two clauses are needed 
          (the case of the ruin teaches about when there was surely 
          Bi'ah). According to Rav Asi, why are both needed (in 
          both cases we must know that there was Bi'ah)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> It is all one case. They were secluded in a 
          ruin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> It says that they were secluded <i>or</i> in a 
          ruin!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> The Beraisa discusses a ruin in the city and a 
          ruin in the Midbar. Both must be taught:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Had it taught only about a ruin in the city, we 
               would have thought that R. Gamliel believes her only 
               because most men in the area have proper lineage;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Had it taught only about a ruin in the Midbar, we 
               would have thought that R. Yehoshua disqualifies her 
               only because the man could come from anywhere, and 
               most men in the world are not Yisraelim and 
               disqualify her to a Kohen.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>SOURCE OF THE DISPUTE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  (We understand the following Beraisa according to Ze'iri, 
          who says that in the Mishnah 'talking' means seclusion. 
          It is difficult for Rav Asi, who says that it means that 
          she had Bi'ah.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Beraisa):</font></b> A woman may give this testimony (to 
          say that the Bo'el was Kosher);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehoshua argues.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yehoshua (to Chachamim):</font></b> Don't you agree that if 
               witnesses say that a woman was taken captive, she is 
               not believed to say that she was not defiled?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Chachamim:</font></b> The cases are different. In our case (she 
               spoke with a man), there are no witnesses.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yehoshua:</font></b> Her pregnancy is like witnesses!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Chachamim:</font></b> Most Nochrim are immoral (this will be 
               explained).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> R. Yehoshua:</font></b> There are no guardians regarding Bi'ah.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> This applies to the woman herself. All agree that 
               the child is a Shtuki (this will be explained).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>8.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> How do we understand this dialogue?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>9.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Chachamim accepted R. Yehoshua's opinion 
               when she is pregnant, but challenged his opinion 
               about a girl who was talking;
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Yehoshua:</font></b> Talking is like being taken 
                    captive.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Chachamim:</font></b> A captive is different, since most 
                    Nochrim are immoral.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>R. Yehoshua:</font></b> It is no different. When a man is 
                    secluded with a woman, there is no guardian 
                    against Bi'ah.
<br>        <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>10. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Summation of question:</font></b> The Beraisa considers talking 
               and being pregnant to be two different cases (in 
               both cases the subject was the girl, not the child).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  Rav Asi is refuted.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> (How does R. Yehoshua compare seclusion to a 
          captive?) There, most captors disqualify her, but here 
          (in the city) most do not!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This supports R. Yehoshua ben Levi (who says that 
          the Tana'im are not concerned for the majority):
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yehoshua ben Levi):</font></b> R. Gamliel believes her even 
               when most men would disqualify her. R. Yehoshua is 
               stringent even when most men do not disqualify her.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE STATUS OF THE CHILD</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Yochanan):</font></b> R. Gamliel, who permits her (to Kehunah), 
          also permits her daughter. R. Yehoshua, who forbids her, 
          also forbids her daughter.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Elazar):</font></b> (Even) R. Gamliel forbids her daughter.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rabah):</font></b> R. Elazar holds that she has a Chazakah of being 
          permitted, but her daughter does not.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Elazar - Beraisa):</font></b> They argue about her, but 
          all agree that the child is a Shtuki (one who does not 
          know his father. His mother tells him Shtok (be quiet) 
          when he sees a man and calls him 'father'.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> The Shtuki is forbidden (to marry a 
               Kosher Yisrael)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (R. Yochanan):</font></b> No, the Shtuki is Kosher.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Would we call someone Kosher a Shtuki?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Yes! Shmuel does!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Shmuel):</font></b> If 10 Kohanim were together, and one 
               separated and had Bi'ah with a woman, the resulting 
               child is a Shtuki (even though he is surely Kosher).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Shmuel would not need to teach that we Mashtik 
               (silence) him from inheriting his father, since we 
               do not know which is his father!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> Rather, we silence him from privileges of Kehunah. 
               'An eternal covenant of Kehunah to him and his seed 
               after him' - Kehunah passes to a Kohen's children 
               only if they trace their lineage to him (this child 
               does not).
<br>

sjt:
<p>
<font><b>2) BELIEVING A WOMAN IN A CASE WHERE 'ROV PESULIM ETZLAH'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTIONS:</b> Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Yehoshua argue in a case where a woman secluded herself with another man and it is not known whether he was Pasul (that is, his Be'ilah invalidates her from marrying a Kohen) or not. She claims that he was not Pasul . Raban Gamliel says that she is believed and she is not Pesulah l'Kehunah, while Rebbi Yehoshua says that she is not believed and there is a concern that she had relations with a Nasin or a Mamzer and thus she may not marry a Kohen.
</p><p>
A Beraisa expands on the Machlokes and says that Rebbi Yehoshua proves that she should not be believed, and thus is Pesulah l'Kehunah, from the case of a Shevuyah (captive) who is not believed to say that she was not defiled by her captors. Rebbi Yehoshua says that the case of a Shevuyah demonstrates that although the woman says that she is Tehorah, it is assumed that she was defiled by her captors. Similarly, the woman should not be believed in the case of the Mishnah here. Raban Gamliel admits that the case of Shevuyah is a valid proof for a case in which the woman is pregnant, in which case it is obvious that she had relations and thus she is not believed to say that she had relations with a man who does not invalidate her to Kehunah, since she has no Migu that she could have said that she did not have relations. In such a case, Raban Gamliel agrees that she is not believed to say that the child is not Pasul. However, in a case in which she is not pregnant, Raban Gamliel contends that no proof may be adduced from the case of Shevuyah because that case is different; there, she was captured by Ovdei Kochavim who are steeped in licentiousness, and thus Beis Din must assume that she was defiled. In contrast, in the case of the Mishnah here -- which is not discussing Ovdei Kochavim -- she was not necessarily defiled. Rebbi Yehoshua replies that even in the case here where there are no Ovdei Kochavim, there was no one watching to make sure that Z'nus did not occur ('Ein Apotropos l'Arayos'), and thus Beis Din must suspect that she willfully had relations with the man with whom she secluded herself.
</p><p>
The Gemara questions ('v'Teipuk Lei...') this interchange between Rebbi Yehoshua and Raban Gamliel: 'Why did he not say that there (in the case of Shevuyah), most of the men around her are Pesulim (Rov Pesulim Etzlah),' and that is why Beis Din must assume that she was defiled, 'while here (in the case of the Mishnah in which she secluded herself with an unidentified man), most of the men around her are Kesherim (Rov Kesherim Etzlah),' for she is in a Jewish city where most of the men in the city will not invalidate her to Kehunah. These are the words of the Gemara's question.
</p><p>
The Gemara answers that the Beraisa is support for the assertion of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, because it does not differentiate between cases of 'Rov Pesulim Etzlah' and 'Rov Kesherim Etzlah.' Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi asserts that Raban Gamliel believes the woman and permits her even where 'Rov Pesulim Etzlah,' while Rebbi Yehoshua does not believe her and prohibits her even where 'Rov Kesherim Etzlah.'
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> explains that the Gemara is asking a question on Rebbi Yehoshua: why does Rebbi Yehoshua say that in a case of 'Rov Kesherim' that 'Ein Apotropos l'Arayos' and that is why Beis Din suspects her of Z'nus and rules that she is Pesulah? Beis Din should believe her and permit her to a Kohen, since most of the people around her are Kesherim ('Rov Kesherim Etzlah')! Accordingly, Rashi understands that the question of the Gemara is a question on Rebbi Yehoshua's opinion.
</p><p>
Rashi's words are very difficult to understand for a number of reasons.
</p><p>
(a) The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> points out that this is not how the words 'v'Teipuk Lei' are normally used. Those words normally mean that instead of using one line of reasoning to arrive at this conclusion, the Beraisa should have used another line of reasoning to arrive at the same conclusion. Rashi, though, interprets those words as a direct challenge on the view of Rebbi Yehoshua: instead of saying that the woman is Pesulah, he should use this logic (of 'Rov Kesherim Etzlah') to say that she is permitted to a Kohen.
</p><p>
Why does Rashi not explain the question of 'v'Teipuk Lei' like the Tosfos ha'Rosh, which is the straightforward understanding of the Gemara? The Tosfos ha'Rosh explains that 'v'Teipuk Lei' means that Raban Gamliel does not need to answer Rebbi Yehoshua's question by saying that Ovdei Kochavim are immersed in licentiousness, for he could answer simply that in the case of Shevuyah most of the men around her are Pesulim ('Rov Pesulim Etzlah'), while in the case of the Mishnah most of the men are Kesherim ('Rov Kesherim Etzlah')!
</p><p>
(b) According to Rashi's explanation, the Gemara should have asked another basic question. In the Beraisa, Raban Gamliel agrees with Rebbi Yehoshua in the case of a woman who secluded herself with a man, and now she is pregnant. Why does he concede to Rebbi Yehoshua in the case of a pregnant woman? Raban Gamliel should concede only in a case in which the woman is pregnant <i>and</i> 'Rov Pesulim Etzlah,' but in the case of a pregnant woman where 'Rov Kesherim Etzlah' there is no proof from Shevuyah that she is not believed!
</p><p>
(c) What is Rebbi Yehoshua's proof to argue with Raban Gamliel in a case of 'Rov Kesherim'? His proof is only from a case of Shevuyah, where there are 'Rov <i>Pesulim</i> Etzlah'! How does Rebbi Yehoshua know that the woman is not believed even in a case where there are 'Rov Kesherim Etzlah'? (<b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b>)
</p><p>
(d) According to Rashi, the Gemara proves that Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Yehoshua argue even in a case of 'Rov Kesherim' and not just in a case of 'Rov Pesulim,' since Rebbi Yehoshua does not say that he agrees that she is believed in a case of 'Rov Kesherim.'
</p><p>
Why would we have thought that Rebbi Yehoshua agrees in a case of 'Rov Kesherim'? The Mishnah is discussing a case of 'Rov Kesherim,' and yet Rebbi Yehoshua clearly states that she is not believed and she is Pesulah to Kehunah! It is clear that the Mishnah is discussing a case of 'Rov Kesherim' because Rebbi Yehoshua is quoted as prohibiting her because of a fear that she had relations with a Nasin or a Mamzer. If the Mishnah's case is one of 'Rov Pesulim,' Rebbi Yehoshua would have said that we fear she had relations with a Nochri, and not with a Nasin or a Mamzer who certainly are a minority. (It must be that a Nasin and Mamzer are the minority, and the Mishnah cannot be referring to a case in which most men around her are Nesinim and Mamzerim, because when Rebbi Yehoshua says that 'Ein Apotropos l'Arayos,' how do we know that he applies it even in a case of 'Rov Kesherim'? Perhaps he applies it only in a case where 'Rov <i>Pesulim</i>' (such as where most men are Nesinim and Mamzerim), where they are not Ovdei Kochavim (for if there were Ovdei Kochavim, he would not have to say 'Ein Apotropos...' because even Raban Gamliel agrees that Ovdei Kochavim are steeped in licentiousness). It must be that the only type of man who is Pasul (who is considered to create a 'Rov Pesulim') is a <i>Nochri</i>, who creates a Rov of Ovdei Kochavim. Thus, since Rebbi Yehoshua says 'Ein Apotropos l'Arayos' in a case in which there are no Ovdei Kochavim, it must be that it applies in a case where 'Rov Kesherim.')
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>AN 'ARUSAH' WHO BECAME PREGNANT</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b></b>  An Arus and his Arusah came in front of Rav Yosef. Both 
          said that she is pregnant from him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Yosef):</font></b> There is no reason to be concerned. Firstly, 
          the husband admits. Also, Shmuel taught that the Halachah 
          follows R. Gamliel!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> Your connote that the second reason 
          suffices by itself. Does R. Gamliel believe her when the 
          husband does not admit?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shmuel (to Rav Yehudah):</font></b> Even though the Halachah 
               follows R. Gamliel, do not rule leniently unless 
               most people in the area do not disqualify her.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> Here, everyone except for the husband disqualifies 
               her!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Counter-question (Rav Yosef against Abaye):</font></b> How do 
               you understand? If the Halachah follows R. Gamliel, 
               why did Shmuel require a Kosher majority?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> You must say that the Halachah follows R. 
               Gamliel b'Di'eved. L'Chatchilah, we require a Kosher 
               majority.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Our case is also like b'Di'eved. (If we are 
          stringent, the child cannot marry (even one of improper 
          lineage. Some explain, if we are stringent the husband 
          will not want to stay married to her.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>A WIDOW WHO MAY HAVE BECOME DEFILED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Abaye):</font></b> Did R. Yehoshua really say that she is 
          not believed?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> R. Yehoshua and R. Yehudah ben Beseira 
               testified that a widow of an Isah (Tosfos - a family 
               in which someone of doubtful lineage became mixed 
               in) is permitted to a Kohen!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rabah):</font></b> That is because a woman checks before 
          she gets married. Here, a woman does not check before 
          having Znus!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rava:</font></b> Why did Abaye ask a contradiction only in R. 
          Yehoshua? There is also a contradiction in R. Gamliel!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Contradiction (Seifa of Beraisa - R. Gamliel):</font></b> We 
               accept your testimony, but R. Yochanan ben Zakai 
               decreed not to check such families. Kohanim listen 
               only to avoid such women, but they will not marry 
               such women, even if we permit them!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rava):</font></b> R. Gamliel is stringent there, since 
               the woman herself is unsure whether or not she is 
               Kosher. He is lenient in our Mishnah, since she is 
               sure that she is Kosher. (Since we must say that the 
               widow had not checked her first husband, we cannot 
               use Rabah's answer to Question (a).)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rava):</font></b> R. Yehoshua is lenient about a widow of 
          an Isah because there are two doubts (perhaps her husband 
          was not the Safek, and even if he was, perhaps he was 
          Kosher). He is stringent in the Mishnah, since there is 
          only one doubt.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b></b>  R. Gamliel gives great credence to a Vadai claim. He is 
          lenient even regarding one doubt. He is stringent about a 
          doubtful claim, even when there are two doubts;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  R. Yehoshua is strict about one doubt, and forbids even 
          when there is a Vadai claim. He is lenient about two 
          doubts, and permits even when there is a doubtful claim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa #1):</font></b> What is a widow of an Isah? A family with 
          no doubtful Mamzerim (bastards), Nesinim (Giv'onim, one 
          of the seven Kena'ani nations. Mid'Rabanan they are like 
          Mamzerim and may never marry Yisraelim), or slaves of 
          kings (who married into Yisrael by might);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  R. Meir says, if a family has none of these, its women 
          may marry Kohanim;
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) AN ARUSAH WHO CLAIMS THAT THE GROOM IS THE FATHER OF HER CHILD</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> Rav Yosef rules that when an Arusah is found to be pregnant and both she and the Arus (groom) claim that the Arus is the father, Beis Din accepts her word and does not assume that she committed Z'nus. She is permitted to marry a Kohen (such as when the Arus is a Kohen) and the child is not Pasul. Rav Yosef says that there are two reasons for this ruling. The first is that the Arus agrees with her claim. The second is that the Halachah follows the view of Raban Gamliel who says that the woman is believed when she makes a claim of certainty ('Ta'anas Bari') that she lived with a man who is not Pasul (in this case, her Arus).
</p><p>
Abaye challenges Rav Yosef and asks that Rav Yosef's second reason is not valid. Rav Yosef implies that even when the Arus does not agree that he is the father of the child, Beis Din still believes the Arusah's claim, based on Raban Gamliel's ruling that the woman is believed. Abaye asks that, on the contrary, we do <i>not</i> rely on Raban Gamliel's ruling in a case where there are 'Rov Pesulim Etzlah,' where most of the men around her will invalidate her to Kehunah (such as in this case, where having relations with any man other than her Arus will invalidate her to Kehunah). Rav Yosef answers that in a situation of b'Di'eved, the Halachah is like Raban Gamliel even in a case of 'Rov Pesulim.' Here, it is a situation of b'Di'eved because the woman is already betrothed to her Arus and wants to marry him, and thus we do not prohibit her to him.
</p><p>
What is the meaning of Rav Yosef's response? Raban Gamliel permits the woman in the case of the Mishnah only because the husband's claim does not contradict the woman's claim; the woman's claim is a 'Ta'anas Bari' and her husband's claim is a 'Ta'anas Shema' (a claim of uncertainty), and 'Bari' prevails over 'Shema.' When, however, the Arus does not agree that he is the father and the Arusah claims that he is, their claims contradict each other (both are claims of certainty) and she should not be believed!
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>TOSFOS</b>, the <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b>, and other Rishonim answer that the case Rav Yosef and Abaye argue about (where the Arus does not agree that he is the father) is not a case where the Arus <i>denies</i> being the father, but rather where the Arus is not available to testify (for example, he died or is abroad), and therefore Beis Din cannot ask him for his view and does not know what he would claim. That is why the case is one of 'Bari v'Shema,' where Raban Gamliel says that she (with her claim of 'Bari') is believed.
</p><p>
(b) The <b><b><b>RI</b></b></b> (cited by Tosfos) explains that according to Abaye in Yevamos (69b), when an Arusah is suspected of being promiscuous with her Arus she is also suspected of being promiscuous with other men. Rav Yosef here is saying that according to this logic the confession of the Arus is meaningless, because once we know that she lived with her Arus (as she admits) we must assume that she lived with other men as well. Therefore, regardless of what the Arus claims, his claim is always treated like a 'Shema' (and her claim is a 'Bari'), and that is why Raban Gamliel permits her in this case.
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  R. Shimon ben R. Elazar says in the name of R. Meir, a 
          widow of an Isah is when a doubtful Chalal (Pasul Kohen) 
          was mixed into a family. Yisraelim recognize the Mamzerim 
          in their midst, but not the Chalalim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #1:</font></b> The first Tana says that Mamzerim, Nesinim 
          or slaves may not be mixed in. This implies that Chalalim 
          may be mixed in!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Why is there a distinction? The Isur of Chalalim 
               (for their daughters or widows to marry Kohanim) is 
               also mid'Oraisa!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #2:</font></b> R. Meir agrees with the first Tana!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #3:</font></b> R. Shimon ben R. Elazar permits even if 
          Chalalim were mixed in. Why does he say that Yisraelim do 
          not recognize Chalalim in their midst?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (to all questions - R. Yochanan):</font></b> They argue about 
          a man who protests if he is called a Mamzer, but is 
          silent if called a Chalal;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> The first Tana says that if someone in the family is 
               silent to any of these accusations (including 
               Chalal), a widow of the family may not marry a 
               Kohen.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Meir agrees, if he is called a Mamzer, Nasin or 
               slave; but if he is called a Chalal, his silence 
               just shows that he doesn't care, and the widow may 
               marry a Kohen.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Shimon ben R. Elazar says that R. Meir is 
               Machshir a man who is silent when he is called a 
               Mamzer. Since Yisraelim recognize Mamzerim, he knows 
               that people will not believe it, since there has 
               been no talk about him.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If he protests when he is called a Mamzer, but 
                    is silent if called a Chalal, we assume that he 
                    is a Chalal. He is silent because he can still 
                    marry into Yisrael.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa #2 - R. Yosi):</font></b> One who is silent when he is 
          called a Mamzer is Kosher. One who is silent if called a 
          Chalal is a Chalal.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa #3):</font></b> One who is silent when he is called a 
          Chalal is Kosher. One who is silent when he is called a 
          Mamzer is a Mamzer.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b></b>  R. Yosi holds like R. Shimon ben R. Elazar. Beraisa #2 
          holds like the first version of R. Meir in Beraisa #1.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE GIRL WHO WAS RAPED</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah - R. Yosi):</font></b> A case occurred in which a girl went 
          to the spring and was raped. R. Yochanan ben Nuri ruled 
          that if most men of the city have proper lineage, she may 
          marry a Kohen.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Rava) Question:</font></b> Like whom does R. Yochanan ben 
          Nuri hold?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he holds like R. Gamliel, a majority is not 
               needed!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If he holds like R. Yehoshua, even if a majority is 
               Kosher, she is disqualified!
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WE REQUIRE TWO MAJORITIES FOR LINEAGE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Nachman):</font></b> He holds like R. Yehoshua. He was 
          lenient for the following reasons.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Yehudah):</font></b> The episode happened on the market 
               day in Tzipori.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav Asi):</font></b> Many Kosher people passed by.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Yanai):</font></b> If Bi'ah took place in the wagons, she 
               may marry a Kohen.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> Surely he does not mean in the wagons!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Correction:</font></b> Rather, if Bi'ah was at the time when 
               caravans are frequent, she may marry a Kohen.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If a man of Tzipori separated and had Bi'ah, the child 
          would be a Shtuki, like Ze'iri taught:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Ze'iri):</font></b> We follow the majority of the city, but 
               not the majority of passers-by.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Objection:</font></b> It is more reasonable to say the 
               opposite! Passers-by are transient (so we may assume 
               one came from the majority), but people of the city 
               are Kavu'a (fixed)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Retraction:</font></b> Rather, we follow the (Kosher) majority 
               of the city, but only if there is also a (Kosher) 
               majority of passers-by.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> A single majority is insufficient. If we would rely 
               on a majority of passers-by, we would come to rely 
               on a majority of city people.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> A majority of city dwellers is enough, if he 
          separated and went to her!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Sometimes, she goes to him, and he is Kavu'a;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (R. Zeira):</font></b> Any doubt about an Isur Kavu'a is 
               considered an even doubt.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We do not require two majorities!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa):</font></b> If nine stores sell Kosher meat and one 
               sells Neveilah meat and one bought from one of the 
               stores and does not know from which, the meat is 
               forbidden.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If meat is found (in the market), we follow the 
               majority.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps this is only if the doors of the 
               city are open and a majority of passers-by sell 
               Kosher meat (there are two majorities).
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> R. Zeira said that found meat is 
               permitted, even if the city doors are locked!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is a stringency of lineage to require two 
          majorities.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>FIXED 'ISURIM'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Zeira):</font></b> A Kavu'a Isur is always considered an even 
          doubt, whether this is a leniency or a stringency.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What it his source for this law?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Beraisa):</font></b> If nine stores sell slaughtered meat 
          and one sells Neveilah, and one bought from one of the 
          stores and does not know from which, the meat is 
          forbidden. If meat is found, we follow the majority.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> There we are stringent. (We cannot learn from 
          there to be lenient.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Beraisa):</font></b> If one Tamei Sheretz (reptile) is 
          among nine frogs (they are Tehorim) and someone touched 
          one of the 10 and does not know which, he is Tamei.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> Also there we are stringent.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Beraisa):</font></b> If one frog is among nine Sheratzim 
          and someone touched one of the 10 and does not know 
          which:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If this was in a private domain, he is Tamei. If it 
               was in a public domain, he is Tahor.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is the source from the Torah?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> 'He waits in hiding' - a murderer is killed only 
          if he intended to kill his victim (this is like R. 
          Shimon. Our source is according to Chachamim who 
          disagree);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (D'Vei R. Yanai):</font></b> Chachamim say that this excludes 
               one who throws a rock into a crowd.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> Who is in the crowd?
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If there are nine Nochrim and one Yisrael, even 
                    if we follow the majority we cannot kill the 
                    murderer!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b></b> If half of them are Yisraelim, we are always 
                    lenient about a Safek in capital cases (we 
                    would not need a verse to teach the law)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> There are nine Yisraelim and one Nochri.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Summation of answer:</font></b> Since they are Kevu'im, we 
               considered it to be an even doubt.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>HOW DO WE ESTABLISH OUR 'MISHNAH'?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Chiya bar Ashi):</font></b> The Halachah follows R. Yosi (in our 
          Mishnah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Chanan bar Rava):</font></b> The case of our Mishnah was a 
          Hora'as Sha'ah (a special temporary ruling for an urgent 
          need).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (R. Yirmiyah):</font></b> We always require two majorities 
          for lineage!
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) PERMITTING A WOMAN WHEN THERE ARE TWO 'ROV'S'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> In the Mishnah, Rebbi Yosi quotes Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri who rules that if a girl was raped and the identity of the offender is unknown, and most (Rov) men in the area are not Pesulim, she remains permitted to marry a Kohen. The Gemara says that the Mishnah refers to a case in which there are two Rov's -- most (Rov) of the men in the city are Kesherim, and most (Rov) of the men who travel to the city from outside of the city to on the day of the market are Kesherim. The two Rov's are valid grounds to permit her to marry a Kohen.
</p><p>
<b>RASHI</b> (end of 14b, DH Amar Lei) explains that according to this explanation of the Mishnah, the Mishnah follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua who says that with a single Rov she would not be permitted to a Kohen, but with two Rov's she is permitted. 
</p><p>
The Gemara (end of 15a) says that the Halachah follows Rebbi Yosi in this Mishnah. Earlier, however, the Gemara (14a) says that the Halachah follows Raban Gamliel, who says that a woman is believed when she says that she had relations with a person who does not invalidate her to Kehunah. If the Halachah follows the Mishnah here, and the Mishnah here is the view of Rebbi Yehoshua (as Rashi says), how can the Halachah also follow Raban Gamliel who argues with Rebbi Yehoshua?
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) The Mishnah discusses a case in which the girl <i>makes no claim</i> about who had relations with her, and thus she has no 'Ta'anas Bari.' The Gemara earlier (14a) says that Raban Gamliel does <i>not</i> permit a woman when she has no 'Ta'anas Bari' (even when there are two Sfeikos, such as in the case of 'Almanas Isah'). Since the woman is not permitted in the case where she is silent and makes no claim, even according to Raban Gamliel, the two rulings (that the Halachah follows Raban Gamliel and that the Halachah follows the Mishnah here) do not contradict each other.
</p><p>
However, if Raban Gamliel agrees that the woman is not permitted when she makes no claim, why does Rashi write that the Mishnah here follows the view of Rebbi Yehoshua who says that she is permitted when there are two Rov's in her favor? The two Rov's should permit her according to Raban Gamliel as well!
</p><p>
The <b>RASHBA</b> answers that Raban Gamliel maintains that just as two Sfeikos do not permit the woman when she has no 'Ta'anas Bari,' so, too, two Rov's also do not permit her.
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (14b, DH k'Man) explains that we rely on Raban Gamliel only when a Rov supports the woman's claim of 'Bari.' When the Gemara here rules like Rebbi Yosi, it means that l'Chatchilah we should be stringent to require not just one Rov, but two, as Rebbi Yehoshua rules. The Halachah follows Raban Gamliel only in a situation of <i>b'Di'eved</i>. The Halachah as stated here, on the other hand, is the ruling <i>l'Chatchilah</i>. 
</p><p>
(c) The <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> gives a different explanation of the Gemara. He explains that according to Raban Gamliel, even one Rov should be enough to permit her, and even without a 'Ta'anas Bari,' because the Rov takes the place of a 'Ta'anas Bari' (see the Gemara at the beginning of 16a). Why, then, does the Gemara say that the Mishnah refers to a case in which there are two Rov's (and it follows the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua)? It should say that the Mishnah refers to a case in which there is a single Rov and it follows the opinion of Raban Gamliel!
</p><p>
The Ba'al ha'Me'or answers that the Gemara understands the Mishnah in the context of the rest of the Mishnayos in this Perek, which discuss a woman who has a 'Ta'anas Bari.' When she has a 'Ta'anas Bari,' Raban Gamliel does not require even one Rov. The Mishnah, which explicitly states that she is permitted only when there is a Rov, must therefore follow the view of Rebbi Yehoshua (and is discussing a case in which there are <i>two</i> Rov's). Even though Rav Chiya bar Ashi rules like Rebbi Yosi, <i>we</i> do <i>not</i> rule like Rebbi Yosi because we rule like Raban Gamliel who says that a single Rov is enough when there is no 'Ta'anas Bari' and <i>no</i> Rov is needed when there <i>is</i> a 'Ta'anas Bari.' We rule like Rav Chanan bar Rava who says that the ruling in the Mishnah was a Hora'as Sha'ah that required two Rov's, but normally a single Rov suffices where she has no 'Ta'anas Bari.' (This is also the way Rabeinu Chananel learns as quoted by Tosfos, DH Man.)
</p><p>


<font><b>2) THE GROUNDS FOR LENIENCY IN A CASE OF 'SAFEK NEFASHOS'</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara discusses a case of 'Palga u'Palga' in which the perpetrator cannot be punished because of the principle of 'Safek Nefashos l'Hakel.' <b>RASHI</b> (DH Safek Nefashos) explains that the basis for this principle is the verse, 'v'Hitzilu ha'Edah' (Bamidbar 35:25). The <b>RASHBAM</b> (Bava Basra 50b) also cites this verse as the source for ruling leniently in a case of Safek Nefashos.
</p><p>
Although this verse indeed is used to acquit a person suspected of murder in a case in which there is a possible way to vindicate him, the verse should <i>not</i> be necessary to exempt a person from a Chiyuv Misah in the case of a Safek. In the case of a Safek the reason why the person cannot be punished is simply that Beis Din does not know for certain that he is a murderer! This is the reason for leniency in all cases of Safek Nefashos. Even in cases of monetary matters, Beis Din does not make a person pay money when there is a doubt. Certainly Beis Din may not execute a person when there is a doubt in a case of Dinei Nefashos! Why does Rashi not give this simple reason? (<b>TOSFOS</b> to Bava Basra 50b, DH Safek) 
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RAV ELCHANAN WASSERMAN</b>, Hy'd, in <b>KOVETZ SHI'URIM</b> (Bava Basra #223) answers that the Rashbam there (and Rashi here) do not mean to say that the person is exempt <i>mi'Safek</i>, out of doubt, merely because Beis Din is unsure whether he deserves punishment. Rather, he is <i>Vadai Patur</i> -- he is <i>definitely</i> exempt, as if there were no Safek, because the Torah says that in a case of doubt in Dinei Nefashos the person is <i>definitely</i> exempt from Misah. This is what the verse, 'v'Hitzilu ha'Edah,' teaches. (This is similar to the Torah's Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that a Safek Tum'ah in Reshus ha'Rabim is deemed definitely Tahor.)
</p><p>
Why is it necessary for the Torah to give the person a definite exemption from Misah? Even without a definite exemption from Misah, he would be Patur from Misah because of the general principle that a person cannot be executed out of doubt!
</p><p>
Rav Elchanan says that there are several ramifications of whether he is Patur mi'Safek or Patur b'Vadai. In the case of a Shor ha'Niskal, an ox that must be put to death because it killed a person, the rule (based on a Hekesh) is that the ox is put to death only in a situation in which a person would have been put to death had he committed the same act. In a case where there is a Safek whether the Shor needs to be killed, does Beis Din kill it or not? If a person, in a case of a Safek Dinei Nefashos, is exempt from Misah only because Beis Din cannot administer the Chiyuv Misah out of doubt, then Beis Din <i>could</i> kill the Shor out of doubt because -- in contrast to executing an innocent person -- there is no prohibition of murder per se involved in killing an innocent Shor if the Shor is not deserving of death. If, however, the Torah teaches that a person is exempt <i>b'Vadai</i> in a case of Safek Nefashos, the Shor should also be exempt because of the Hekesh.
</p><p>
Another difference whether a person is Patur mi'Safek or Patur b'Vadai is whether the principle of 'Kam Lei bid'Rabah Minei' applies in a case of Safek. The principle of 'Kam Lei' states that when a person becomes liable for two punishments (such as Misah and a monetary payment) at one time, he receives only the larger, more severe punishment. If a person becomes Chayav to pay money at the same time he becomes <i>Safek</i> Chayav Misah, if his exemption from Misah is only because of a Safek, he remains exempt from paying money because mi'Safek Beis Din cannot make him pay (because perhaps in truth he is really Chayav Misah, which would exempt him from the payment, and thus the person to whom he owes the money must bring proof that the alleged perpetrator is <i>definitely</i> exempt from Misah). A Safek Chiyuv Misah is enough to exempt him from payment. If, however, he is <i>definitely</i> exempt from Misah, then he should have to pay the money because there is no punishment of Misah, not even mi'Safek, to exempt him.
</p><p>
Perhaps Rashi finds it necessary to mention the verse, 'v'Hitzilu ha'Edah,' here because of the question of Tosfos. Tosfos (DH v'Safek) asks that according to the opinion that holds 'Hasra'as Safek Shmah Hasra'ah' -- a Hasra'ah given to a person when what he is about to do is a Safek Aveirah is nevertheless a valid Hasra'ah (to make him liable to punishment) -- the person should be Chayav in this case (since it is clear that a Jew actually was killed, even though the perpetrator was in doubt about who would be killed at the time that he threw the rock).
</p><p>
Rashi may intend to answer this question when he says that since there is a definite exemption of 'v'Hitzilu ha'Edah,' the Hasra'ah here is not considered a Hasra'ah at all since no Aveirah was done, even according to the opinion that says Hasra'as Safek normally is a valid Hasra'ah. 
</p><p>
(b) This approach, however, is problematic. First, this approach does not explain why the Rashbam in Bava Basra needs to mention the verse of 'v'Hitzilu ha'Edah' in that Sugya. There it would suffice to say that Beis Din may not punish a person with Misah out of doubt.
</p><p>
Second, in the case of Shor ha'Niskal, why would Beis Din kill the Shor mi'Safek? The owner of the ox has a Chezkas Mamon which should tell Beis Din not to kill the ox mi'Safek, and since it is not killed it should not be prohibited to derive benefit from it. Moreover, even if a man's exemption from Misah is mi'Safek, there is still reason to say that the Hekesh exempts the Shor from Misah in a similar case of Safek, because the Hekesh says that whenever a person is exempt, a Shor is also exempt!
</p><p>
Third, the case of 'Kam Lei' also should not be affected by whether the person is exempt mi'Safek or whether he is exempt b'Vadai. According to those who say that one who killed inadvertently (and is thus not Chayav Misah) is nevertheless exempt from monetary payments because of 'Kam Lei,' why is the Gemara's case of a Safek Chiyuv Misah different from a case of one who killed inadvertently? This case also should be treated like a Safek; although he is definitely Patur from Misah, the very fact that he killed should exempt him from paying!
</p><p>
According to the opinion that one who killed inadvertently is <i>not</i> exempt from paying (because that opinion maintains that 'Kam Lei' does not apply when the Aveirah was done b'Shogeg), it is obvious that he should be <i>Chayav</i> to pay even if the Petur from Misah is only mi'Safek because 'Kam Lei' exempts a person from paying only when Beis Din <i>applies</i> a punishment of Misah; it does not exempt him from payment if the Chiyuv Misah cannot be applied in practice.
</p><p>
In the case of the Gemara here, the verse of 'v'Hitzilu ha'Edah' cannot be applied to exempt a person from Misah according to the opinion that Hasra'as Safek is a valid Hasra'ah. 'V'Hitzilu ha'Edah' is only a Petur from punishment when Beis Din is unsure that the person killed someone; it does <i>not</i> make the Aveirah of throwing a rock into a crowd of people any less of an Aveirah if it turns out that it caused someone's death. The Aveirah is the same Aveirah; the perpetrator is just exempt from Misah. Since, in this case, Beis Din knows that his act eventually killed someone, 'v'Hitzilu ha'Edah' cannot exempt him from Misah because the Hasra'ah was a valid Hasra'ah according to the opinion that Hasra'as Safek is a valid Hasra'ah!
</p><p>
Rashi in other places makes similar statements concerning the reason why a person is exempt in a case of Safek. Rashi in Yevamos (99b, DH Ein Sofgin) writes that if a Safek Kohen becomes Tamei for a Mes, he does not receive Malkus because the Hasra'ah was a Hasra'as Safek. Why does Rashi there not say that the reason the person is exempt from Malkus is because Beis Din cannot punish a person when it is not known for certain that he committed a sin?
</p><p>
Rashi makes the same statement about Chiyuv Malkus in a number of places in Chulin (23b, end of DH Ela d'Rebbi Yehudah; 80a, DH Hasra'as Safek; 86b, DH she'Eino Sofeg).
</p><p>
Apparently, Rashi learns that the principle that 'Safek d'Oraisa l'Chumra' (in a case of a doubt regarding a Torah law one must act stringently), is a rule <i>d'Oraisa</i>, as many other Rishonim explain (see Rashba to Chulin 9b, and Shev Shemaitsa 1:1). (This is in contrast to the view of the Rambam, who maintains that 'Safek d'Oraisa l'Chumra' is <i>d'Rabanan</i>.) In a case of a Safek in a monetary case the law does not require that the person pay mi'Safek, because it is not known for certain that he owes money. The same law should apply in a case of Dinei Nefashos when it is not known for certain that the person killed (for example, there is a doubt whether this person killed or another person killed). The person is exempt from Misah because Beis Din does not know for certain that he is guilty. However, when the person committed an act which he knew was an act of a Safek Aveirah, perhaps he is considered to have committed a <i>definite</i> Aveirah; the law that a <i>Safek</i> Aveirah mid'Oraisa is forbidden <i>mid'Oraisa</i> may mean that <i>it has the same status as a definite Aveirah.</i> The Mitzvah in the Torah which tells him not to do an Aveirah when it is Vadai is the same Mitzvah that tells him not to do an Aveirah when it is a Safek. Consequently, he should be punished for the Safek Aveirah that he committed (even though it was a Safek at the time he did the act), since he committed an act which he knew was prohibited by the Torah. This is why Rashi writes that in the case of Malkus, the person is exempt from punishment because of Hasra'as Safek, while in the case of Safek Nefashos (the case of the Gemara here) he is exempt because of the verse, 'v'Hitzilu ha'Edah.'
</p><p>
One question is left unanswered. Why does Rashi here need to write the new reason of 'v'Hitzilu ha'Edah' and it does not suffice to say that the reason is because of Hasra'as Safek? The answer cannot be that there is an opinion that says Hasra'as Safek is <i>not</i> a Hasra'ah, because <i>this</i> type of Hasra'as Safek is not a Hasra'ah according to <i>everyone</i> (even Reish Lakish, who says that a normal case of Hasra'as Safek is a valid Hasra'ah). Why, then, does Rashi give a new reason ('v'Hitzilu') and not the reason of Hasra'as Safek?
</p><p>
It seems that Rashi learns from the wording of the Gemara, 'Safek Nefashos l'Hakel,' that the Petur here is a specific exemption in the laws of Dinei Nefashos (and does not apply elsewhere, such as to exempt a person in a case of Malkus). Why, though, does the <i>Gemara</i> itself give a new reason to exempt a person from Misah in the case of a Safek Aveirah? Why does the normal reason of Hasra'as Safek, which exempts a person in a case of Malkus, not suffice to exempt him here as well?
</p><p>
Apparently, the reason of Hasra'as Safek cannot exempt a person from <i>Misah</i> because there is a difference in the nature of the Hasra'os for <i>Misah</i> and for <i>Malkus</i>. Rashi in Shevuos (20b, DH v'Azharasei) writes that the witness who gives the Hasra'ah must mention the verse in the Torah which the sinner is about to transgress. When the witness gives Hasra'ah for Misah, does he also need to mention the prohibition in the Torah which prohibits the act that the person is about to commit? The Gemara in Sanhedrin (8b) says that he must mention only what the <i>punishment</i> for the act is; it does not say that he must mention the specific verse in the Torah which prohibits the act. It could be that when it comes to a punishment of Misah, the purpose of the Hasra'ah is only to relate what the punishment is, but not the verse that describes the prohibition. The only reason he must mention the prohibition when he gives Hasra'ah for Malkus is that he needs to show <i>where</i> the punishment of Malkus is written in the Torah for the act that the sinner is about to commit. (The Malkus for every Lo Ta'aseh is derived from 'Lo Tachsom.' By mentioning the verse of the Lo Ta'aseh that the person is about to commit, one thereby shows that its Malkus is derived from the Lo Ta'aseh of 'Lo Tachsom.') Since he must mention the verse of the prohibition in the case of a Lo Ta'aseh, and the Aveirah that the person is doing is only a Safek, the verse (which prohibits a Vadai Aveirah) that he mentions for the Hasra'ah does <i>not</i> refer to the act that the sinner is doing (which is a Safek Aveirah). Hence, it is a Hasra'as Safek and the sinner cannot be punished for it. In contrast, when one gives Hasra'ah for a Chiyuv Misah, in which he does not mention the prohibition in the Torah but only the punishment, it is not a Hasra'as Safek because he will certainly get the punishment if he commits the Aveirah! That is why it needs a separate Petur of 'v'Hitzilu ha'Edah.'
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Mishnah):</font></b> If a baby was found deserted:
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b></b>  If the majority of the city is Nochrim, the 
                    child is a Nochri. If most are Yisraelim, he is 
                    a Yisrael. If half the city is Yisrael, he is a 
                    Yisrael.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav):</font></b> We follow the majority to support him, but 
               not for lineage.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shmuel:</font></b> ...To unearth him on Shabbos (e.g. if a 
               house collapsed on him).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Rav Yirmiyah had not heard that Rav established 
          our Mishnah to be on the market day, and there were two 
          majorities.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> This is difficult for Rav Chanan! (He said that 
          it was a Hora'as Sha'ah to require two majorities in our 
          Mishnah. Rav (normally) does not follow one majority for 
          lineage!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> He holds that Rav did not establish our Mishnah 
          to be on the market day.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>A DESERTED BABY</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a baby was found deserted:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If the majority of the city is Nochrim, the child is 
               a Nochri. If most are Yisraelim, he is a Yisrael. If 
               half the city is Yisrael, he is a Yisrael.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Rav):</font></b> We follow the majority to support him, but 
               not for lineage.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Shmuel:</font></b> ...To unearth him on Shabbos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Elsewhere, Shmuel taught that we do not follow 
          the majority when there is mortal danger!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> Shmuel refers to the Reisha. If the majority 
          is Nochrim the child is a Nochri, but <i>not</i> regarding 
          unearth him. (We Mechalel Shabbos, for perhaps he is a 
          Yisrael.).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> To what does Shmuel apply 'if most are Nochrim, 
          he is a Nochri'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> We may feed him Neveilos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> To what do we apply 'if most are Yisraelim, he 
          is a Yisrael'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> We return a lost item to him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> To what do we apply 'if half are Yisraelim, he 
          is a Yisrael'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Reish Lakish):</font></b> This applies to damages.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> If a Yisrael's ox gored his ox he should be 
          exempt until the victim proves that he is a Yisrael!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> Rather, the case is that his ox gored the ox 
          of a Yisrael. He pays half damage, like a Yisrael;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> He is exempt from paying the other half unless the 
               victim proves that he is not a Yisrael.
<br>
<br><center><font color='ff0000' size='+1'><b>*****<b>PEREK HA'ISHAH SHE'NIS'ARMELAH</b>*****
</b></font></center><p><b>
<br><b></b><b><b><font color='blue'>5) </font></b><font color='blue'>IS A WOMAN BELIEVED TO SAY THAT SHE WAS A VIRGIN?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If a widow or divorcee claims that she was a 
          virgin when she was married, and he says that she was a 
          widow, if witnesses say that she had a Hinuma (a dome of 
          myrtle or a veil) and uncovered hair at the Chupah, her 
          Kesuvah is 200;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  R. Yochanan ben Berokah says, even if they distributed 
          parched grain (at the Chupah), this proves that she was a 
          virgin;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  R. Yehoshua agrees that if Reuven says to Shimon 'this 
          field belonged to your father and I bought it from him', 
          Reuven is believed. The one who forbids is believed to 
          permit (without his admission Shimon had no claim);
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b></b>  If witnesses testify that the field belonged to Shimon's 
          father, and Reuven says 'I bought it from him', he is not 
          believed.
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>AUTHORSHIP OF THE 'MISHNAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara):</font></b> (In the Reisha) she is believed only because 
          there are witnesses. If there were no witnesses, he would 
          be believed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Suggestion:</font></b> Our Mishnah is unlike R. Gamliel, who says 
          (12b and 13a) that she is believed (to say that she was 
          raped after Kidushin or is a Mukas Etz).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> It is even like R. Gamliel. R. Gamliel said 
          that she is believed only when her claim is Vadai and his 
          claim is doubtful. Here, both make Vadai claims!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The rejection is obvious! Why didn't the one 
          who made the suggestion realize that here, both are 
          Vadai!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Since most women are virgins when they marry, her 
          claim is more Vadai than his.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Support (Seifa):</font></b> And R. Yehoshua admits...
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If R. Gamliel admits in the Reisha, it is proper to 
               say 'and R. Yehoshua (who argued with R. Gamliel on 
               12b and 13a) admits...' But if R. Gamliel does not 
               admit, to whom does R. Yehoshua admit?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Rejection:</font></b> R. Yehoshua's admission does not refer to what 
          was taught in our Mishnah. Rather, it refers to the Migo 
          taught in the first chapter.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> To which Mishnah does he refer?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 - (Mishnah -	R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer):</font></b> If 
          a single girl is pregnant and she claims that the father 
          has proper lineage, she is believed;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehoshua says, we do not rely on her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> There, she has no Migo (better possible 
          claim). We see that she is pregnant!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 - (Mishnah - R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer):</font></b> If we 
          saw a woman talking with a man and she says that he has 
          proper lineage, she is believed;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehoshua says, we do not rely on her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What Migo does she have?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is not difficult for Ze'iri, who said that 
               'talking' means seclusion. She could have said there 
               was no Bi'ah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> But according to Rav Asi, who said that 'talking' 
               means Bi'ah, she has no Migo!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Mishnah - R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer):</font></b> If she 
          says that she is a Mukas Etz and he says that (perhaps) 
          she had Bi'ah with a man, she is believed;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehoshua says, she is not believed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What Migo does she have?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is not difficult for R. Elazar. He says that 
               she claims a Kesuvah of 100, and he claims she has 
               no Kesuvah. She could have said that she became a 
               Mukas Etz after Kidushin, and her Kesuvah is 200.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> But R. Yochanan says that she claims a Kesuvah of 
               200, and he claims that her Kesuvah is 100. If so, 
               she has no Migo!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #4 (Mishnah - R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer):</font></b> A Chasan 
          found that his Kalah was not a virgin. She says that she 
          was raped after Kidushin, and it is his bad luck. He says 
          that (perhaps) she had Bi'ah before the Kidushin, and it 
          is a Mekach Ta'us. She is believed;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> R. Yehoshua says, she is not believed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> She has a Migo. The claim she made forbade her to 
               Kohanim. She could have said that she is a Mukas Etz 
               and remained permitted to Kohanim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> R. Yehoshua does not believe her with that Migo, but 
               does believe the Migo in our Mishnah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why is the Migo of our Mishnah better?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Here, the ox is not slaughtered in front of you; 
          there, it is. (Rashi - here, Shimon had no claim until 
          Reuven said that the field used to belong to Shimon's 
          father. There, the Chasan saw that she was not a virgin 
          and had a claim before she spoke up. Tosfos - there she 
          has no Besulim, so she cannot claim that she is a 
          Besulah. Here, he could have said that the field never 
          belonged to Shimon's father.)
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>MOST GIRLS ARE VIRGINS WHEN THEY MARRY</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Mishnah implies that if she cannot prove 
          that she was married as a virgin, her Kesuvah is only 
          100. What is the reason?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Most girls are virgins when they marry. Why don't we 
               assume that she is from the majority?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Ravina):</font></b> Most girls are virgins when they marry, 
          and a minority are widows. Every time a virgin is 
          married, there is a Kol (talk);
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) REBBI YEHOSHUA'S 'MIGU'</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Mishnah states that Rebbi Yehoshua agrees that a Migu may be used to support a claim in court in a case where the present owner of a field says to the original owner's son, 'This field belonged to your father, and I purchased it from him' (he is believed because he could have remained silent and never said that the field belonged to the other man's father).
</p><p>
The Gemara explains the difference between this case and the cases in the other Mishnayos (12b, 13a) in which Rebbi Yehoshua says that a Migu <i>cannot</i> be used to support a person's claim in court (12b and 13a). The Gemara says that the difference between the cases is that in the case in the Mishnah here, 'there is no slaughtered ox in front of you,' while in the cases in which Rebbi Yehoshua does not agree that Migu works, 'there is a slaughtered ox in front of you.' What is the meaning of the allegory of a slaughtered ox, and how does it reflect a logical distinction between the different cases?
</p><p>
(a) <b>TOSFOS</b> (DH Hasam; 15b, DH u'Modeh; 18a, DH Iy) and other Rishonim give the most straightforward approach. Tosfos points out that there are two cases in which Rebbi Yehoshua does not apply a Migu. One case (in the Mishnah on 12b) is where the husband finds his newly married wife to be a Be'ulah, and she claims that she was not a Be'ulah at the time of the Erusin but that she was raped after the Erusin. The woman is not believed even though she could have said that she was a Mukas Etz (which would have been a better claim than saying that she was raped, because with the claim of 'Mukas Etz' she would have been permitted to marry a Kohen). The second case is that of 'Nistarah' (in the Mishnah on 13a) in which a woman secluded herself with an unidentified man and, when questioned, she said that although she had relations with the man he was Kasher and was not the type of person who would make her Pesulah to Kohanim. Rebbi Yehoshua says that she is not believed and we assume that she is Pesulah to Kohanim even though she has a Migu; she could have made a better claim and said that she did not have relations at all with the man. Had she made that claim, she would have benefited by retaining her status of a Besulah and getting 200 Zuz for her Kesuvah.
</p><p>
In both of those cases, even if she had claimed the better claim (which would have benefited her in some way more than her present claim), she would <i>not</i> have prevailed in court! In the case where the woman claims, 'I was raped after the Erusin,' if she would have said that she was a Mukas Etz she would still have not been believed according to Rebbi Yehoshua, because the only advantage of that claim is that it is 'Bari' and her husband's claim is 'Shema' (and, also, that she has a Chezkas ha'Guf to say that it happened after the Erusin). Rebbi Yehoshua, however, maintains that 'Bari v'Shema' is not a reason to prevail in court (12b; Tosfos 13a, DH Rav Asi)!
</p><p>
Similarly, in the case of Nistarah, had the woman said that she did not have relations with the man, she would not have been believed, because Rebbi Yehoshua maintains, 'Ein Apotropos l'Arayos' -- it is assumed that she had relations because no one watches to make sure that Z'nus does not occur (13b; <b>RAMBAN</b> here).
</p><p>
Rebbi Yehoshua rules that in these two cases, since the Migu is not a true Migu (since the woman would not have actually been believed with the claim of the Migu), we must suspect that the woman might be intentionally lying in order to win her case. She knows that had she said the better claim she would have lost the case, and therefore she says the weaker claim in order to win the case. This is unlike any Migu anywhere else in the Gemara (Ramban). In the case of every other Migu, there is nothing that the person gains with the weaker claim which he would not have gained with the stronger claim. It is only this type of Migu that Rebbi Yehoshua does not accept. This type of Migu is referred to as, 'Shor Shachut Lefanecha,' a 'slaughtered ox in front of you,' meaning that there was an act that was done which cannot be denied (and thus no claim will help the woman prevail in court).
</p><p>
In the case where the woman claims, 'I was raped after the Erusin,' the fact that she is a Be'ulah cannot be denied (it is like a slaughtered ox that cannot be revived). She has no way of winning her case by claiming that she is a Besulah; no claim she makes could win the case for her. Since it is known that she is a Be'ulah, there is no other claim that could win the case for her, and therefore it is not a real Migu.
</p><p>
Similarly, in the case of Nistarah, no claim that she could make could undo the fact that she secluded herself. Her seclusion is an undeniable fact. Therefore, she has no real Migu to deny that fact and to help her be believed in court.
</p><p>
In contrast, in the case of the Mishnah here in which the present owner of a field says to the son of the original owner, 'This field belonged to your father, and I purchased it from him,' the present owner could deny that the field ever belonged to the other person's father. By denying it, he certainly would win the case and be permitted to keep the field. Therefore, he has a full-fledged Migu when he says that he bought it. This is what is meant by 'Ein Shor Shachut Lefanecha' -- 'there is no slaughtered ox in front of you'; that is, there is no obvious fact here that cannot be denied.
</p><p>
(b) <b>RASHI</b> takes another approach to the Sugya (16a, DH she'ha'Peh she'Asar and DH Hacha; 17b, DH v'Lisni;, 18a, DH v'Nisni and DH Aliba d'Man). He explains that Rebbi Yehoshua accepts only a certain type of Migu -- a 'Migu d'Iy Ba'i Shasik.' Such a Migu exists when there is no claim being made against the person, but it is the person himself who initiates the claim against himself, while at the same time he dismisses it. In the case of the Mishnah here, nobody challenged the owner of the field, saying that it belongs to someone else. Rather, the owner himself informed the son of the previous owner that the field once belonged to his father and that he bought it from his father. 
</p><p>
This is what the Gemara means when it says that in this case 'there is no slaughtered ox' -- there is no claimant, there is nothing in front of Beis Din to provoke a response from the person who has the Migu. (Tosfos learns that the 'slaughtered ox' represents a claim with a proof, and 'no slaughtered ox' refers to a claim without a proof. In contrast, Rashi learns that the 'slaughtered ox' represents a claim without a proof, and 'no slaughtered ox' refers to when there is no claim at all.)
<br> 
<br>According to Rashi, it appears that whenever a claim is presented in court, Rebbi Yehoshua maintains that a Migu can <i>never</i> cause a claim to win. 
</p><p>
There are difficulties with Rashi's explanation.
</p><p>
1. Tosfos disproves Rashi's explanation from the Mishnah which says that 'if there are witnesses that the field once belonged to the father,' the present owner cannot claim, without proof, that he bought it from the father. If, as Rashi says, Rebbi Yehoshua maintains that a claim alone suffices to refute the Migu, then why does the Mishnah need to say that if the son of the original owner of the field <i>brings witnesses</i> he is believed? He would be believed even without witnesses, as long as he comes with an independant claim!
</p><p>
Rashi might understand that this part of the Mishnah is not expressing solely the view of Rebbi Yehoshua. Rather, it is expressing a Halachah with which everyone agrees, even Raban Gamliel. Raban Gamliel, however, agrees that the original owner of the land is believed <i>only</i> when he has witnesses and not when he has merely a claim that the land belongs to him. (See also <b>SHITAH MEKUBETZES</b>, 15b, DH v'Li Divrei Rashi.)
</p><p>
2. The <b>PNEI YEHOSHUA</b> records another proof for the explanation of Tosfos from the Gemara earlier. The Gemara (13a) says that according to Rav Asi, Rebbi Yehoshua maintains that the woman <i>is</i> believed in a case of Nistarah, when she secluded herself with a man and she claims that he was Kasher, because she has a Migu that she could have said that she did not have relations at all. (According to Rav Asi, Rebbi Yehoshua does not maintain 'Ein Apotropos l'Arayos,' and that is why she would be believed had she claimed that she did not have relations.) According to Rav Asi, at least, it is clear that Rebbi Yehoshua <i>does</i> maintain that a Migu works to support one's claim even though there is a claim against her (there is a 'slaughtered ox' in that case -- there is something present that provokes her response, and that is the fact that she secluded herself with a man). It must be, as Tosfos says, that Rebbi Yehoshua <i>does</i> accept a Migu whenever it is a true Migu and is not merely a better claim.
</p><p>
To uphold Rashi's explanation, the Pnei Yehoshua answers that perhaps Rashi would concede that according to Rav Asi, Rebbi Yehoshua accepts a Migu.
</p><p>
Another answer for Rashi may be that even Rashi agrees that Rebbi Yehoshua accepts a Migu for a woman who has a 'Chezkas Heter' to permit her to marry a Kohen. Since she is not taking anything away from anyone and she is not making a claim that counters the Chazakah, she is believed. However, to take away money from another person, which involves overriding a Chazakah (i.e. that the other person, who is presently in possession of the money, is the owner), a Migu will not work.
</p><p>
In summary, according to Rashi it seems that Rebbi Yehoshua does not accept any of the Migus commonly found throughout the Gemara. (The <b>RAMBAN</b> rejects such an approach. He suggests an answer (which he admits is a very forced answer) to explain that even according to Rashi, Rebbi Yehoshua accepts an ordinary Migu, and only in this case does he not accept the Migu.)
</p><p>
Why does Rashi not accept the straightforward explanation of Tosfos? Rashi gives this explanation because of his reading of the Sugya later (18a; see Rashi there). Rashi infers from the Gemara later that Rebbi Yehoshua does not maintain that any normal Migu works. However, the question remains: how does the Gemara there know that this is Rebbi Yehoshua's opinion?
</p><p>
Apparently, the Gemara understands that this is the simplest understanding of the wording of Rebbi Yehoshua. In the Mishnah, Rebbi Yehoshua presents the case as, 'One who says this field belonged to your father...,' where the present owner initiates the question (and gives the answer) about the possession of the field. The Mishnah clearly implies that the Migu is accepted only when the person who has the Migu is the one who informs us that the field once belonged to the other's father. The simple reading of the Mishnah seems to support Rashi's explanation.
</p><p>
(c) The <b>BA'AL HA'ME'OR</b> has the opposite Girsa in the Gemara. In the case of the Mishnah here, there is a 'slaughtered ox' in front of him and that is why he is believed. The Ba'al ha'Me'or explains that the 'slaughtered ox' simply means that the 'Chezkas Mamon' that one person used to have on the property has come to an end, and now the property is in the hands of someone else -- the person who says that he bought it. The Halachah states that in the case of a slaughtered ox, once a proper Shechitah has been performed it no longer has a 'Chezkas Isur' (a Chazakah that it was forbidden either because of 'Ever Min ha'Chai' or because it was lacking Shechitah). In contrast, the case where the woman claims, 'I was raped after the Erusin,' is compared to an ox that is not slaughtered; just as the ox is still in its original state of a 'Chezkas Isur' (until we prove that it was slaughtered properly), the husband, too, still has a Chazakah on the money of the Kesuvah.
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Since this girl had no Kol, this suggests that she 
               is not from the majority.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> If <i>every</i> virgin has a Kol, how can we 
          believe witnesses who say that she was married as a 
          virgin, even though there is no Kol? We should say that 
          the witnesses are lying!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> Ravina said that <i>most</i> virgins have a Kol. 
          Since this girl had no Kol, we do not say that she 
          probably was a virgin.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>DO WE WRITE RECEIPTS?</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 (Mishnah):</font></b> If witnesses say that she had a 
          Hinuma...(her Kesuvah is 200).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We should be concerned lest she bring witnesses 
          and collect in Beis Din, and later show her Kesuvah and 
          collect again in another Beis Din!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Avahu):</font></b> This shows that we write a receipt 
          (when a creditor says that he lost his document. He 
          collects, and the debtor keeps the receipt to prove that 
          he paid.)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Papa):</font></b> Our Mishnah discusses a place where 
          they do not write Kesuvos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2 (Beraisa):</font></b> If a woman lost, hid or burned her 
          Kesuvah, and witnesses say that at the wedding, in front 
          of her people danced, frolicked, passed a cup of tidings 
          (this will be explained) or a cloth (for Dam Besulim), 
          she collects 200.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We should be concerned lest she bring witnesses 
          and collect in Beis Din, and show her Kesuvah and collect 
          again in another Beis Din!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (R. Avahu):</font></b> This shows that we write a receipt.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Rav Papa):</font></b> The Beraisa discusses a place where 
          they do not write Kesuvos.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Beraisa says that the Kesuvah was lost!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> This man happened to write it.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Why may she collect? Perhaps later she will 
          collect again with the Kesuvah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> 'Lost' in the Beraisa means that it was 
          burned.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection #1:</font></b> The Beraisa lists 'burned' separately!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection #2:</font></b> This answer does not help for the case when 
          she hid it!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question #3:</font></b> Why must we teach the case of being lost? 
          (If it was burned, the Halachah is obvious!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> The Beraisa means: If she lost the Kesuvah, it 
          is as if we saw her hide it. She does not collect unless 
          witnesses saw that it was burned.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b></b>  Version #2 says that R. Avahu and Rav Papa explained the 
          Beraisa. All the more so their answers apply to the 
          Mishnah;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Version #1 says that they explained the Mishnah. It 
               holds that Rav Papa would not say so about the 
               Beraisa, due to Question (i) (the answer given is 
               weak).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If witnesses say (that she had a Hinuma...her 
          Kesuvah is 200).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(s)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We should be concerned lest she bring witnesses 
          and collect in Beis Din, and bring witnesses and collect 
          again in another Beis Din!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(t)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Certainly, where there is no alternative, we 
          write a receipt.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE CUP OF TIDINGS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> ...Or they passed in front of her a cup of 
          tidings...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is a cup of tidings?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah):</font></b> It is a cup of Terumah 
          wine. This symbolizes that she was fitting to marry a 
          Kohen and eat Terumah.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Papa):</font></b> Also a widow may marry a Kohen and 
          eat Terumah!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Papa):</font></b> Rather, it symbolizes 'Reishis' (she 
          will have her first Bi'ah), just like Terumah is called 
          'Reishis Deganecha'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Beraisa - R. Yehudah):</font></b> We pass a barrel of 
          wine in front of her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Ada bar Ahavah):</font></b> We pass a closed barrel in front of 
          a virgin, and an open barrel in front of a non-virgin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> It should suffice to pass a barrel in front of 
          a virgin, and nothing in front of a non-virgin!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If so, she might seize 200 and claim that she was 
          a virgin, just they were unable to pass a barrel in front 
          of her. (Since she cannot be disproved, she would keep 
          the money.)
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>DANCING IN FRONT OF THE 'KALAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - Beis Shamai):</font></b> When dancing in front of the 
          Kalah, praise her like she is;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  Beis Hillel say, we say 'she is pretty and has grace.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Shamai:</font></b> If she is lame or blind, do we say that she 
          is pretty and has grace?! 'Stay far from a false matter'!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Beis Hillel:</font></b> Don't you agree that when someone buys 
          something, we praise what he bought?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> From here we learn that a person should always be 
               amiable.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Rav Dimi):</font></b> In Eretz Yisrael, they sing in front of a 
          Kalah 'Without eye-color, rouge or braiding, she bears 
          grace!'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b></b>  When R. Zeira was ordained, they sang 'Without eye-color, 
          mascara or braiding, he bears grace!'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  When R. Ami and R. Asi were ordained, they sang 'Like 
          these two we consider ordained, but not Sarmisin (people 
          who mix up Halachos) or Sarmitin (rags);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Some say, they said '...but not Chamisin (those who 
               do not say the reason or only a fifth of it, or only 
               learn a fifth of the Masechta) or Turmisin (empty 
               people).'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b></b>  When R. Avahu would come from the Beis Medrash to the 
          Kaiser's house, the maidservant would come out to greet 
          him and sing 'A prince of his people, a leader of his 
          nation, a radiant countenance, blessed is your coming in 
          peace.'
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b></b>  R. Yehudah used to take a myrtle branch and dance in 
          front of the Kalah, saying 'A pretty, graceful Kalah'.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b></b>  Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak used to juggle three 
          branches.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  R. Zeira:</font></b> The elder is embarrassing us (he belittles the 
          honor of Chachamim)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b></b>  When Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak died, a pillar of fire 
          separated him from the people.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We have a tradition - this only happens to one or 
               two people in a generation.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(m)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #1 (R. Zeira):</font></b> The myrtle branch helped him merit 
          this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(n)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2:</font></b> His acting like a fool helped him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(o)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #3:</font></b> His view about how to behave helped him.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(p)</font></b></b>  Rav Acha would carry the Kalah on his shoulders and 
          dance.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rabanan:</font></b> May we do similarly?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rav Acha:</font></b> You may, only if she is like a log to you.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(q)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani):</font></b> One may look at the Kalah all 
          seven days, to endear her to the Chasan.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(r)</font></b></b>  The Halachah does not follow him.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE HONOR GIVEN TO THE DECEASED AND TO A 'KALAH'</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> We divert a funeral procession to allow the 
          procession of a Kalah to pass first;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  We divert both of these to allow a Melech Yisrael to pass 
          first.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b></b>  King Agripas allowed a Kalah to pass first. Chachamim 
          praised him for this.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Rav Ashi taught that even the opinion that 
          holds that a Nasi may forego his honor agrees that a king 
          may not!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> 'Put a king upon you' - his fear should be upon you!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> There was a fork in the road (so it was not 
          evident that he deferred to the Kalah).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> We cease learning Torah to escort a Mes or a 
          Kalah. R. Yehudah used to do so.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  If enough people are at the funeral, we remain learning.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is considered enough?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 - Version #1 (Rav Shmuel bar Ini):</font></b> We need 
          12,000 men and 6,000 Shofar blowers (to announce the 
          funeral).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Version #2:</font></b> We need 12,000 men, of whom 6,000 blow 
          Shofaros. (end of Version #2)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (Ula):</font></b> We need enough people to reach from the 
          gate of the city to the gravesite.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(l)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #3 (Rav Sheshes):</font></b> The taking of Torah is like its 
          giving, with 600,000 people.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This applies to one who learned written and oral 
               Torah.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) MAKING THE CHASAN AND KALAH REJOICE</b></font><b>
<br>QUESTION:</b> The Gemara records a dispute between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel about how we are to praise the Kalah when we dance before her ('Keitzad Merakdim Lifnei ha'Kalah'). The simple understanding of the Gemara is that the Mitzvah is to make the Kalah happy. However, the Gemara in Berachos (6b) says that anyone who benefits from the Se'udah of a Chasan but does not increase <i>his</i> joy is considered to have transgressed the five 'Kolos' (see there). The Gemara in Berachos implies that the Mitzvah is to make the Chasan rejoice, and not the Kalah.
</p><p>
What is the Mitzvah -- to make the Kalah rejoice or to make the Chasan rejoice? (<b>KOVETZ SHI'URIM</b> #46)
</p><p>
<b>ANSWERS:</b>
<br>(a) <b>RAV ELCHANAN WASSERMAN</b>, Hy'd, in Kovetz Shi'urim explains that the Mitzvah is to make the <i>Chasan</i> rejoice, as the Gemara in Berachos says. This is logical, he explains, because the Mitzvah to get married is part of the fulfillment of the Mitzvah of Piryah v'Rivyah, an obligation of the man and not of the woman (Yevamos 61a). That might be why Rashi (DH Keitzad) explains that the Gemara here is discussing, 'Mah Omrim Lefaneha' -- 'what do we <i>say</i> before the Kalah,' implying that the objective is not to make the Kalah rejoice, but rather to say praises of her in front of her so that the Chasan will hear and will rejoice in his wife.
</p><p>
The <b>DIVREI SHALOM</b> (5:22) finds support for this explanation in the words of Rashi in Berachos (6b) where the Gemara says that the reward received for attending a wedding is 'the words [that are spoken].' Rashi there explains that this refers to 'the words that we say to make the Chasan rejoice.' When we praise the Kalah, we cause the Chasan to rejoice. This is also how the <b>MENORAS HA'ME'OR</b> (3:8:1:2) understands the Gemara, and this is the implication of the <b>TESHUVOS BE'ER SHEVA</b> (#50). 
</p><p>
The Divrei Shalom brings further support from Pirkei d'Rebbi Eliezer (ch. 16), which states that a Chasan is similar to a king: just as a king is praised by all, so, too, a Chasan is praised by all. Moreover, it says there (ch. 17) that Izevel was rewarded for her act of walking in front of every Chasan who passed by and clapping her hands and expressing praise. This clearly shows that the Mitzvah is to make the Chasan rejoice.
</p><p>
(b) The <b>TUR</b> (EH 65), however, writes that 'it is a Mitzvah to make the Chasan <i>and</i> the Kalah rejoice.' When the Tur quotes the Midrash about Izevel, he writes that she used to clap before the Chasan <i>and</i> the Kalah. The <b>RADAL</b> (Rav David Luriah) in his commentary to Pirkei d'Rebbi Eliezer concludes that the Tur's rendering of the text of the Midrash is more accurate, and that the praise is to be directed towards the Kalah, and the Mitzvah is to make both the Chasan and the Kalah rejoice.
</p><p>
According to this view, why does the Gemara in Berachos mention only making the Chasan rejoice? The reason might be as follows. The <b>HAMIKNEH</b> (in Kuntrus Acharon, beginning of EH 65) points out that when the Gemara in Berachos says that 'one who benefits from the Se'udah of a Chasan but does not make him rejoice' is punished, it specifically means that the person <i>benefits</i> from the Se'udah. If the person does not benefit from the Se'udah, he is not punished for not making the Chasan rejoice. (The logic for this is that one who partakes of the Se'udah is expected to pay the Chasan back by making him rejoice. Thus, if he does not pay back by making the Chasan rejoice, it is as if he ate the Chasan's food without paying for it. Moreover, his presence there takes the place of someone else who would have caused more Simchah for the Chasan, and thus he is causing less Simchah at the wedding.) The Gemara here in Kesuvos (2a) teaches that it is the Chasan who prepares the Se'udah, and therefore the obligation to reciprocate for the Se'udah is to pay back to the Chasan. However, the Mitzvah to make them rejoice requires that one make both the Chasan and the Kalah rejoice.
</p><p>
When Rashi here interprets the Beraisa's question, 'Keitzad Merakdim Lifnei ha'Kalah,' to mean, 'what do we say before the Kalah,' he does not mean to exclude making <i>her</i> rejoice. Rather, he means that in addition to the <i>dance</i> that adds to her joy, what <i>words</i> should one say to help her rejoice.
</p><p>
When Rashi in Berachos writes that the words for which one receives reward are the words that one says for the Chasan to cause him to rejoice, it could be that he focuses on the Chasan only because the men coming to the wedding should not be talking with the Kalah (see Avos 1:5). Hence, it is the Chasan to whom one should speak and not the Kalah. 
</p><p>
The reasoning of Rav Elchanan clarifies this view. According to Rav Elchanan, the main point is to cause more joy for the Chasan, and by causing joy for the Kalah one also causes joy for the Chasan. As a result of the mutual joy, they become closer to each other. However, the men, of course, must be Mesame'ach the Chasan, and the women must be Mesame'ach the Kalah. 
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> For one who taught, there is no limit.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>CUSTOMS AT THE WEDDINGS OF VIRGINS</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If witnesses say that she went to Chupah with 
          Hinuma...
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is Hinuma?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1 (Surchav bar Papa):</font></b> It is a dome of myrtle 
          above her.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (R. Yochanan):</font></b> It is a veil in which she dozes.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa):</font></b> In Yehudah, these customs (cited in the 
          Mishnah) prove that she was a virgin.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What constitutes a proof in Bavel?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav):</font></b> (Women put) oil on the heads of the 
          Chachamim.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question (Rav Papa):</font></b> Do Chachamim for have warts, for 
          which they need oil?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Abaye):</font></b> You are an orphan with respect to this 
          custom! Did your mother never do it for you?!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #1:</font></b> Once, a Chacham married his son into the 
               family of Rabah bar Ula. They anointed the 
               Chachamim's heads with oil.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Version #2:</font></b> This was done when Rabah bar Ula married 
               his son into the family of a Chacham.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> What is done at the wedding of a non-virgin?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(k)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav Yosef):</font></b> They do not throw parched grain.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>4) </font></b><font color='blue'>ONE WHO CLAIMS THAT HE BOUGHT A FIELD FROM SHIMON'S FATHER</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> R. Yehoshua agrees that if Reuven says to 
          Shimon ('this field belonged to your father and I bought 
          it from him', he is believed).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> (Since this is because 'the ox is not 
          slaughtered in front of you'), why didn't the Tana teach 
          that R. Yehoshua agrees that Reuven is believed to say 
          'this field was <i>yours</i>, and I bought it from <i>you</i>'?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> If so, the Seifa would have to say 'if there are 
          witnesses that it used to belong to <i>Shimon</i>, Reuven is 
          not believed.' We cannot teach this if it used to be 
          Shimon's!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Reuven has a Chazakah on the field (he used it 
               for three years and no one protested, which proves 
               that it is his), he should be believed!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If Reuven has no Chazakah on the field, of course he 
               is not believed!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The same applies to our Mishnah (when he says 
          'I bought this field from your father')!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If Reuven has a Chazakah on the field, he should be 
               believed!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If he has no Chazakah on the field, of course he is 
               not believed!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> Our Mishnah teaches about when Reuven used the 
          field for two years in the life of Shimon's father, and 
          one year after he died and it passed to Shimon (who was a 
          minor. If there are witnesses that it used to belong to 
          Shimon's father, Reuven is not believed.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is like Rav Huna, who taught that one cannot 
               make a Chazakah on the field of a child, even after 
               the child grows up.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Did Rav Huna merely teach the law of our 
          Mishnah?!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> This law is not explicit in the Mishnah, so 
          Rav Huna taught it explicitly.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2:</font></b> His Chidush is that one cannot make a 
          Chazakah, even after the child grows up.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(i)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Mishnah should teach that Reuven bought the 
          field from Shimon, and used the field two years in 
          Shimon's presence, and one year when Shimon was away, 
          e.g. he fled!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(j)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> No matter why he fled, there is no Chidush!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> If he feared for his life, obviously Reuven is not 
               believed! (Since Shimon was afraid to protest, 
               uncontested use of the field is not a Chazakah.)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> If he fled for monetary concerns, he should have 
               protested! We hold that a protest not in front of 
               the Machazik (the one who claims that he bought it) 
               is a good protest. (Shimon has a Chazakah, so 
               obviously, he is believed!)
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>i. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> There are three regions in Eretz 
                    Yisrael regarding Chazakah: Yehudah, the other 
                    (east) side of the Jordan River, and Galil. A 
                    Chazakah is valid only if the Machazik was in 
                    the same region.
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>ii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If the Tana does not require a 
                    protest to be in front of the Machazik, a 
                    Chazakah should be valid even if they are in 
                    different regions! If he requires a protest to 
                    be in front of the Machazik, even if the 
                    Machazik is in the same region, it should not 
                    be a Chazakah if he is in a different city!
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iii. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'>Answer (R. Aba bar Mamal):</font></b> (Normally) he does 
                    not require a protest to be in front of the 
                    Machazik. The Mishnah discusses when there is a 
                    Cherem (people are not allowed to travel from 
                    one region to the other, so word does not 
                    spread).
<br>             <b>  <b><font color='darkgreen'>iv. </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question:</font></b> If so, why does the Mishnah discuss 
                    Yehudah and Galil? (It should discuss regions 
                    with a Cherem between them!)
<br>            <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>v.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer:</font></b> Our Mishnah teaches that we assume that 
                    there is a Cherem between Yehudah and Galil.
<br>


lvr: 32
dfh: a
trd:
<b><font color='blue'>1) </font></b><font color='blue'>WHY THE MISHNAH DID NOT TEACH A DIFFERENT CASE</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Mishnah should teach that R. Yehoshua 
          agrees that if Reuven tells Shimon 'I borrowed 100 from 
          you and repaid you', he is believed!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> The Tana wanted to teach in the Seifa that if 
          there are witnesses about the matter Reuven admitted to, 
          he is not believed. Regarding the suggested case, this is 
          not true!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> We hold that if one borrowed money with witnesses 
               (without a document), he may return the money 
               <i>without</i> witnesses (so Reuven <i>would</i> be believed!)
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> The Mishnah should teach that R. Yehoshua 
          agrees that if Reuven tells Shimon 'I borrowed 100 from 
          your father and repaid half', he is believed (without an 
          oath)!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> We cannot teach this according to either Tana (in 
          the coming Beraisa)!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say that Reuven is like a Meshiv Aveidah 
               (one who returns a lost object. Rashi - he need not 
               swear when Shimon claims from him. Tosfos - he need 
               not swear even if witnesses knew about the loan!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer ben Yakov holds that Reuven must swear!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> (Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yakov):</font></b> Sometimes a person 
               must swear due to his own claim, e.g. if Reuven told 
               Shimon 'I borrowed 100 from your father and repaid 
               half';
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say that he is like a Meshiv Aveidah, and 
               he need not swear.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>2) </font></b><font color='blue'>THE OATH FOR PARTIAL ADMISSION</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> Doesn't R. Eliezer ben Yakov agree that a 
          Meshiv Aveidah need not swear?
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer (Rav):</font></b> (He agrees when there is no claim against 
          him.) The case is, a child claims that he owes the full 
          100.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We learned that one does not swear in response 
          to the claim of a child, deaf person or lunatic!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #1:</font></b> Rav meant that an adult claims the full 100. 
          He calls him a child, because an adult is like a child 
          regarding his father's affairs.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> If so, why is this called swearing due to his 
          own claim? It is someone else's claim!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer:</font></b> It is someone else's claim, and Reuven's own 
          admission.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection:</font></b> Every case (of the oath for partial admission) 
          is due to someone else's claim and a person's own 
          admission!
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Answer #2 (to Question (c)):</font></b> (Really, a child claims. One 
          does not swear due to a child's claim of his own money, 
          but one swears due to a child's claim of his father's 
          money.) The argument is based on Rabah's teaching:
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Question (Rabah):</font></b> Why did the Torah impose an oath 
               for a partial admission? (The person should be 
               believed, Migo (since) he could have denied the 
               entire claim!)
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Answer (Rabah):</font></b> We have a Chazakah (a rule of human 
               nature) that a person lacks the audacity to deny the 
               claim of his creditor.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> He would like to deny it entirely, but he cannot be 
               so brazen.
<br>
<br>

sjt:
<font><b>1) WHY IS A PERSON NOT BRAZEN TO ONE WHO LENT HIM MONEY?</b></font><b>
<br>OPINIONS:</b> The Gemara discusses the law of 'Shevu'as Modeh b'Miktzas.' When a person admits that he owes a portion of the money claimed by the lender, the Torah requires that he swear that he does not owe the rest of the money. Once he swears, he is believed. The Gemara explains that the borrower is believed in such a case because a borrower does not brazenly deny the claim of his creditor whom he admits lent him some money. Accordingly, the possibility exists that the borrower really did not return <i>any</i> money to the lender. Since the borrower would not be so brazen as to lie and deny the entire debt, it is assumed that he may be stating a partial admission in order to push off the lender and gain more time to pay back the loan. The Torah therefore mandates that he support his claim with an oath that he does not owe any money. (In contrast, when he outright denies having taken a loan in the first place, the Torah does not require that he take an oath.)
</p><p>
What does the Gemara mean when it says that a borrow does not brazenly lie in the face of the person who lent him money?
</p><p>
(a) <b>RASHI</b> in Bava Kama (107a, DH ked'Rabah) explains that the borrower recognizes that the lender did him a favor by lending him money. The borrower's gratitude prevents him from being brazen towards the lender. (The Gemara in Bava Kama (107a) discusses a case in which the opposite is true: when a person entrusted with an object to guard claims that the object was stolen, he must take a Torah oath to this effect (according to Rav Chiya bar Yosef) in order to exempt himself from liability. Since the person with whom the object was entrusted was doing a favor for the owner of the object, he is not beholden to him and has no reservations about being brazen to the owner of the object. He must take an oath because he is suspected of fabricating the claim that the object was stolen.
</p><p>
The <b>TOSFOS HA'ROSH</b> (DH Mipnei) asks that it is apparent from a number of Mishnayos that one is not required to take an oath if he claims that he owes nothing to the person whose object he watched (see Shevuos 42b, 43a, and <b>TOSFOS</b> DH Chazakah), just as one is exempt from an oath in the case of a loan (when he denies everything he is exempt from an oath, and when he admits to part of the loan he must take an oath). 
</p><p>
(b) <b>TOSFOS</b> (ibid.) quotes <b>RABEINU TAM</b> who explains that the Gemara's statement that a borrower does not brazenly lie to his creditor means that people in general are reluctant to lie (in front of Beis Din) and entirely deny that an event ever occurred.
</p><p>
(c) <b>TOSFOS</b> (ibid.) quotes the <b>RIVA</b> who explains that a person does not lie so much in front of a person who clearly knows that he is lying. (The Tosfos ha'Rosh seems to combine the explanations of Rabeinu Tam and the Riva into a single explanation.) 
</p><p>


lvr: 32
dfh: b
trd:
<p>
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>4.  </font></b></b> To avoid being so brazen, he would like to admit to 
               the full claim. He denies part, in order to evade 
               the rest of his debt until he can pay it.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>5.  </font></b></b> The Torah imposes an oath on him, so that he will 
               admit to the full claim.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>6.  </font></b></b> R. Eliezer ben Yakov says that a borrower could not 
               be brazen to the lender, and not to the lender's 
               son. Therefore, he is not like a Meshiv Aveidah, and 
               he must swear against the son's claim;
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>7.  </font></b></b> Chachamim say that he could be brazen to the 
               lender's son. Since he chooses not to be brazen and 
               to admit, he is like a Meshiv Aveidah, so he need 
               not swear.
<br><b>
<br></b><b><b><font color='blue'>3) </font></b><font color='blue'>WITNESSES WHO SAY THAT THEY SIGNED IMPROPERLY</font></b>
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(a)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Mishnah):</font></b> If witnesses say 'these are our signatures, 
          but we were forced to sign', or 'at the time we were 
          minors or invalid witnesses', they are believed;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(b)</font></b></b>  If other witnesses recognize their signatures, or if we 
          can match their signatures to an authenticated document 
          that they signed, they are not believed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(c)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Gemara - Rami bar Chama):</font></b> They are not believed only 
          when they claim that they signed due to a monetary 
          threat. If they say that they signed to save their lives, 
          they are believed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(d)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Objection (Rava):</font></b> No! Once they have testified (by 
          signing), they cannot retract their testimony!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Suggestion:</font></b> Perhaps this principal refers only to 
               oral testimony, but not to written testimony.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b><font color='darkgreen'> Rejection:</font></b> Reish Lakish taught that witnesses signed 
               on a document are treated like testimony that was 
               investigated (and accepted) by Beis Din.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(e)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Correction:</font></b> Rami bar Chama's law applies to the Reisha. 
          They are believed only when they claim that they signed 
          because of a mortal threat. If they say that they signed 
          to save their money, they are not believed.
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> This is because a person cannot establish himself to 
               be a Rasha (to invalidate his testimony).
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(f)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  (Beraisa - R. Meir):</font></b> (If witnesses say 'these are our 
          signatures, but we were forced to sign',) they are not 
          believed to invalidate the document;
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(g)</font></b></b>  Chachamim say, they are believed.
<br> <b>    <b><font color='darkgreen'>(h)</font></b><font color='darkgreen'>  Question:</font></b> We understand the Chachamim. Ha'Peh she'Asar Hu 
          ha'Peh she'Hitir (the one who forbade is believed to 
          permit. Since we cannot verify the document without them, 
          they are believed to invalidate it);
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>1.  </font></b></b> But what is the reason of R. Meir?
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>2.  </font></b></b> We understand why they are not believed to say that 
               they were invalid witnesses. Surely, the lender 
               checked that his witnesses are valid!
<br>       <b>   <b><font color='darkgreen'>3.  </font></b></b> We also understand why they are not believed to say 
               that they were children. Reish Lakish taught that 
               there is a Chazakah that witnesses sign a document 
               only if all the parties are adults!
<br>


