POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Kesuvos 13
KESUVOS 11-14 - have been anonymously dedicated by a unique Ohev Torah and
Marbitz Torah living in Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.
1) DISPUTE ON THE CAUSE OF NON-VIRGINITY
(a) If we do not say thusly, we are left with a
2) WHEN DO WE SUSPECT THAT A WOMAN BECAME UNFIT TO MARRY A KOHEN
1. The law is as Rav Nachman in monetary matters.
(b) (Mishnah): The Kalah says that she is a Mukas Etz. The
Chasan says, (perhaps) she had relations with a man.
2. The law is as R. Gamliel in our Mishnah!
3. We must say as above, Rav Nachman holds as R.
(c) R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer: She is believed; R. Yehoshua
says she is not believed unless she can bring proof.
(d) Question: What are the claims of the Chasan and Kalah?
(e) Answer#1 (R. Yochanan): She claims that her Kesuvah is
200; he claims that it is only 100.
1. The Tana holds as R. Meir, that the Kesuvah of a
Mukas Etz is 200, even if he did not know that she
is a Mukas Etz.
(f) Answer#2 (R. Elazar): She claims that her Kesuvah is 100;
he claims, she has no Kesuvah.
1. He holds as Chachamim, the Kesuvah of a Mukas Etz is
100, whether or not he knew that she was a Mukas
(g) R. Elazar learns his way, because it is better to say
that the Mishnah is as Chachamim.
(h) R. Yochanan learned as he did, because he holds that if a
man finds that his Kalah is not a virgin, her Kesuvah is
1. If the Mishnah was as Chachamim - she would be
agreeing to his claim that her Kesuvah is 100!
(i) According to R. Elazar, it was needed to teach both our
Mishnah and the previous one.
1. The previous one teaches (according to Chachamim)
that if she is found to be Mukas Etz, her Kesuvah is
(j) According to R. Yochanan, the 1st Mishnah teaches how
extreme is the opinion of R. Yehoshua - even when there
is a Migo, she is not believed.
2. Our Mishnah teaches that if she is found to have
had relations, she has no Kesuvah.
1. Our Mishnah teaches how extreme is R. Gamliel's
opinion - she is believed even without a Migo.
(a) (Mishnah): A woman is seen speaking with a man. She says
that he has proper lineage.
(b) R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer: She is believed; R. Yehoshua
says that we suspect that he is of improper lineage, and
disqualified her from marrying a Kohen by having
relations with her unless she can bring proof.
(c) A single girl is pregnant; she claims that the father has
(d) R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer: She is believed; R. Yehoshua
says she is not believed unless she can bring proof.
(e) (Gemara - Question): What does it mean, 'she was
(f) Answer#1 (Ze'iri): She was in seclusion.
(g) Answer#2 (Rav Asi): She had relations.
The Mishnah uses a clean, euphemistic language, as in the verse
"She ate ... and said, I did not sin"
(h) According to Ze'iri, the 2 clauses of the Mishnah are
very different cases.
(i) Question: According to Rav Asi, why must we teach both
clauses of the Mishnah?
(j) Answer: In the first clause, the dispute is if she is
believed about herself. In the 2nd, the dispute is if she
is believed to say that the child has proper lineage.
1. This answer fits the opinion that R. Gamliel
believes her even regarding the child.
(k) (Rav Papa): According to Ze'iri, R. Yehoshua prohibits
her to a Kohen for being in seclusion.
2. Question: The opinion that says that even R. Gamliel
believes her only regarding herself - how can he
3. Answer: Rav Asi must learn as the former opinion.
1. Suggestion: Rav says that we give lashes for being
in seclusion, but we do not prohibit a girl that was
in seclusion - is Rav's law unlike R. Yehoshua?
(l) Answer (Abaye): Not necessarily - R. Yehoshua's law is
only a stringency regarding lineage (to marry a Kohen;
Rav said that we do not prohibit a woman on her husband).
(m) Question (Beraisa): A girl was seen in seclusion or in a
ruin with a man; she says that he has proper lineage.
3) SOURCE OF THE DISPUTE
(n) R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer: She is believed; R. Yehoshua
disqualifies her from marrying a Kohen unless she can
1. According to Ze'iri, we need to hear both cases.
(o) Answer#1: It is all one case - they were in seclusion in
2. According to Rav Asi, why do we need both cases
(since we must know that there were relations in
(p) Objection: But it says, in seclusion *or* in a ruin!
(q) Answer#2: One case is a ruin in the city, the other, a
ruin in the wilderness.
1. Both must be taught - if we only taught a ruin in
the city, we would think that R. Gamliel only
believes her because most men in the area have
2. If we only taught a ruin in the wilderness, we would
think that R. Yehoshua only disqualifies her because
the man could come from anywhere, and most men in
the world are not Jewish, and disqualify her to a
(a) Question: The following Beraisa is understandable
according to Ze'iri, that 'talking' in the Mishnah means
seclusion; it does not fit Rav Asi, who says that it
means that she had relations.
4) THE STATUS OF THE CHILD
(b) (Beraisa): A woman may give this testimony (to say that
she is still fit for a Kohen); R. Yehoshua argues.
1. R. Yehoshua: Don't you admit to me, that if
witnesses say that a woman was taken captive, she is
not believed to say that she was not defiled?
(c) This applies to the woman herself - all agree that the
child is a Shtuki (to be explained soon).
2. Chachamim: The cases are different - in our case
(she spoke with a man), there are no witnesses.
3. R. Yehoshua: There are also witnesses here, we see
that she is pregnant!
4. Chachamim: Most Nachrim are immoral.
5. R. Yehoshua: There are no guardians regarding
1. Question *on* the Beraisa: How does the answer of
Chachamim fit R. Yehoshua's question?
(d) The Beraisa considers talking and being pregnant as 2
different cases (and the subject was always the girl, not
the child) - this refutes Rav Asi.
2. Answer: Chachamim: We accept your position regarding
the pregnant girl. How do you defend your position
by the girl that was talking?
3. R. Yehoshua: Talking is like being taken captive.
4. Chachamim: A captive is different, since most
Nachrim are immoral.
5. R. Yehoshua: It is no different - when a man is
secluded with a woman, there is no guardian against
(e) Question: How could R. Yehoshua ask from the case of a
captive - there, most captors disqualify her, but most
men of the city do not!
(f) Answer: This supports R. Yehoshua Ben Levi, who says that
the Tana'im do not make such a distinction - R. Gamliel
believes her, even where most men would defile her; R.
Yehoshua is stringent, even where most men do not defile
(a) (R. Yochanan): R. Gamliel, who says she is believed that
she is still fit to marry a Kohen, says that she is also
believed that the child has proper lineage; R. Yehoshua,
who says that she may not marry a Kohen, also says that
the child may not marry one of Kosher lineage.
(b) (R. Elazar): (Even) R. Gamliel says that the child may
not marry one of Kosher lineage.
1. (Rabah): R. Elazar's reasoning is that she has a
Chazakah (status quo) of being permitted; the child
(c) Question (R. Elazar - Beraisa): (The dispute of her
credibility) regards herself, but all agree that the
child is a Shtuki.
1. Is not a Shtuki disqualified from marrying those of
Kosher lineage (he is called Shtuki, because his
mother tells him Shtok (be quiet) when he sees a man
and calls him 'father')?
(d) Answer (R. Yochanan): No, the Shtuki is Kosher.
(e) Question: Do we find a Kosher Shtuki?
(f) Answer: Yes, as Shmuel.
1. (Shmuel): 10 Kohanim were together. 1 separated and
had relations with a woman. The child is a Shtuki.
2. This cannot mean, we Mashtik (silence him) from
inheriting his father - Shmuel would not need to
teach this, since we do not know which is his
3. Rather, we silence him from privileges of Kehunah.
4. "To him and his sons after him" - one whose children
trace their lineage after him, to exclude our case.