ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 10
(a) Rav Nachman too, cites Shmuel like Rav Yehudah did (with regard to
'Pesach Pasu'ach'. When we ask 'im-Kein, Mah Ho'ilu Chachamim
be'Takanasan' - we mean to ask how Chazal could simply permit one of their
Takanos to be overturned.
(b) Rava answers - that we have no choice but to believe him, since he has
the backing of a Chazakah ('Ein Adam Torei'ach bi'Se'udah u'Mafsidah').
(c) According to the Tana Kama in the Tosefta, a woman may only claim her
Kesuvah from Ziburis (inferior quality property) - because, in his opinion,
Kesuvah is only a Takanah de'Rabbanan.
(d) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says - that Kesuvah is d'Oraysa.
(a) When the Torah writes (in connection with a man who seduces a woman)
"Kesef Yishkol ke'Mohar ha'Besulos" - it means to compare the Din of a
Besulah who was seduced to one who was raped (to obligate the seducer to pay
(b) The Tana Kama of a Beraisa learns from the fact that the Torah uses the
word "Mohar" (a reference to Kesuvah) - that Kesuvah is d'Oraysa.
(c) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says - that Kesuvah is only a Takanas
(d) To resolve the glaring contradiction between the two statements of Raban
Gamliel, we switch the opinions in the second Beraisa. We switch the
opinions in the *second* Beraisa, rather than the *first* - because it is
clear from a Mishnah in 'Sh'nei Daynei', where Raban Gamliel is stringent
with regard to the payment of the Kesuvah (as we shall now see).
(a) The Tana Kama in the Mishnah in 'Sh'nei Daynei' maintains that, whether
a man married his wife in Eretz Yisrael and divorced her in Keputki (where
the value of the same coins was higher) or vice-versa, he had to pay her
according to the value of Eretz Yisrael coins (because he holds Kesuvah
de'Rabbanan); whereas Raban Shimon ben Gamliel holds - that he had to pay
according to the value of the coins in Keputki (because in his opinion,
Kesuvah is d'Oraysa).
(b) Alternatively, we avoid switching opinions by amending the second
Beraisa, establishing it all like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - by adding the
Din of Almanah, about whom the Tana writes that it is a Takanas Chachamim,
and then adding that the entire Beraisa is really Raban Shimon ben Gamliel.
(c) Rav Nachman reacted to that man who claimed 'Pesach Pasu'ach Matzasi' -
by ordering him to receive Malkos (de'Rabbanan) with 'Kufri' (palm-branches,
which have sharp spikes).
(d) Some explain that, although Rav Nachman himself rules that he is
believed, that does not preclude us from giving him Malkos (because the fact
that he was an expert in these matters indicated that he was a man of loose
morals. According to Rav Achai - Rav Nachman would only believe someone who
was married, but not a Bachur (like that man was), and the reason that he
gave him Malkos is because he had the Chutzpah to make such a claim in
(a) When Raban Gamliel responded to that man who claimed 'Pesach Pasu'ach
Matzasi', with 'Shema Hitisa' - he meant that perhaps, during the Bi'ah, he
had inadvertently turned to the side in an effort to find the Pesach, and
had managed to break her Besulim without realizing it.
(b) According to the second Lashon - he asked him whether he had not perhaps
done so deliberately (because it is unusual to do so inadvertently).
(c) Raban Gamliel upheld a certain woman's claim that she was a Besulah,
despite the lack of bloodstains, which seemed to substantiate the man's
claim that she was not a Besulah - by soaking the cloth in water and washing
it (thereby washing away the Zera that was covering the bloodstains).
(d) Huna Mar Brei de'Rava asked Rav Ashi why they did not apply that method
in Bavel - to which Rav Ashi replied that, seeing as washing clothes in
Bavel required rubbing them with a stone, a process which would inevitably
remove the bloodstains as well, it was impractical.
(a) Using a barrel of wine, Raban Gamliel bar Rebbi upheld a certain woman's
claim that she was a Besulah, in spite of the fact that there was no Dam
Besulim - by sitting first a Shifchah who was a Besulah on a barrel of wine
and then, a Be'ulah. When the smell of the wine passed through the body of
the latter, but not of the former, he did the same to the woman in question
to prove that she was still a Besulah.
(b) He did not place the woman on the barrel immediately - because, although
he had heard of that method, he had not tried it out before, and did want to
degrade a Jewish woman by using her as a guinea-pig for a test of that
(a) In another incident involving Raban Gamliel ha'Zaken, the woman was a
Besulah despite of their being no Dam Besulim. Raban Gamliel ascertained
that - by substantiating her claim that she belonged to the family Durteki
(by confirming it with other members of her family), who were known to have
no Dam Besulim.
(b) 'Durteki' stands for 'Dor Keti'a' (cut-off generation).
(c) With regard to Raban Gamliel's statement (expressing how fortunate the
man was to get a woman from such a family) - Rebbi Chanina commented that
this was really a futile consolation, since we have a principle 'the less
blood, the less children'.
(d) Rebbi Chiya compared Dam Besulim to yeast - the former is to a woman (to
make her succeed in her role of child-bearer), he said, like yeast is to
dough (to bring it to perfection). Rebbi Meir agrees with the principle.
(a) There are two opinions as to whether Raban Gamliel ha'Zaken considered
marrying such a woman a 'Z'chus' or a 'Chov'. He would consider it a Chov,
because of Rebbi Chiya's statement. And he would consider it a Z'chus -
inasmuch as he will never be confronted with the aggravating problem of
(b) When a certain woman claimed she was still a Besulah, and that the lack
of Dam Besulim was due to starvation - he noted that both of their faces
were black from hunger, so he ordered baths to be prepared for them and,
they had bathed he fed them and given them to drink. Then he led them into
a private room, and after they had been intimate, they found the required
(c) When he quoted the Pasuk "Tzafad Oram al Besaram, Yavesh Hayah
ke'Eitz" - he was referring to their situation, which shows that hunger
affects the body, causing the skin to stick to the flesh or simply, that it
(a) The Kesuvah of ...
1. ... a Besulah is - two hundred Zuz.
(b) In the latter case - her second husband does have a Ta'anas Besulim.
Should he employ it - she loses her entire Kesuvah, because it is 'a false
2. ... an Almanah is - one hundred Zuz.
3. ... an Almanah or a Gerushah from the Eirusin, if she marries again - is
two hundred Zuz (because she is still a Besulah).
(a) Rav Chana Bagdesa'ah explains - that the word Almanah is a derivative of
Manah (which is the amount of her Kesuvah).
(b) And the same applies to ...
1. ... an Almanah from the Eirusin (despite the fact that *her* Kesuvah is
two hundred Zuz) - because Chazal did not wish to differentiate between
(c) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Sheim ha'Nahar Shelishi Chidekel, Hu
ha'Holech Kidmas *Ashur*" - that the Torah sometimes refers to place-names
and events of the future (such as the name Ashur, who only came into the
world close to two thousand years later).
2. ... the Almanah about which the Torah speaks (despite the fact that a
Kesuvah is a Takanas Chachamim) - because even the Torah hints to the
Takanos of Chazal.
(a) When Rav Chana Bagdesa'ah described 'something that waters and
saturates, fertilizes, makes the fruit delicious and brings it out' - he was
(b) Rava bar Rebbi Yishmael or Rav Yeisar bar Shalmaya learns all of these
from the Pasuk "Telamehah Ravei Nacheis Gedudehah bi'Revivim Temogagnah,
Tzimchah Tevarech" - because "Ravei" means waters and saturates,
"Temogagnah" means fertilizes and " Tzimchah Tevarech" means makes the fruit
delicious and brings it out'.
(c) And when Rebbi Elazar described something that 'removes (Meizi'ach),
feeds, endears and removes sins (Mechaper - atones) - he was referring to
(d) The difference between 'Meizi'ach' and 'Mechaper' - is that the latter
removes sin (atones), whereas the former removes evil decrees.
(a) When Rav Chana Bagdesa'ah described something that 'heats the body,
satisfies, loosens the bowels, strengthens and prevents finnickiness' - he
was referring to dates.
(b) The Tana says that dates are healthy in the morning and in the evening,
but unhealthy in the late afternoon (during the time of Minchah Ketanah) -
because they are only healthy when they are eaten *after meals* (breakfast
and supper), but not *before* (after the afternoon siesta).
(c) They are best of all in the early afternoon after lunch - because,
seeing as they also loosen the bowels, and it is unpleasant to have to leave
town to go to the fields in order to relieve oneself (as they used to do in
former times) at night-time. It is not clear why dates in the afternoon are
better than in the early morning (seeing as both are after meals, and both
are in day-time). Perhaps in the morning, after a small meal, the dates are
not so effective.
(d) Dates prevent three things; worries, stomach-sickness - and piles.
(a) We initially reconcile Rav, who ruled that one should not issue rulings
after having eaten dates, with the above-mentioned Beraisa, which clearly
maintains that dates are healthy after a meal - by pointing out that the two
statements do not really clash, since all Rav said was that dates
intoxicate, not that they are bad.
(b) Dates, in this regard, are similar to wine since wine, which also
intoxicates, even though it is healthy.
(c) Alternatively, it is only before the meal that dates intoxicate (when
they are also unhealthy), but not after it. Abaye's foster-mother said that
1. ... before the meal - are as harmful to the body as a bolt in a
2. ... after the meal - strengthen the body like a bolt strengthens a door.
(a) Dasha means a door, Darga a ladder and Puri'ah, a bed. In addition ...
1. ... Dasha is the acronym of 'Derech Sham'.
(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak adds (to the previous list of Rava and Rav
Papa) Aylonis - which is the acronym of '*Ayil de'Lo* Yaldah' (because she
is like a male who cannot bear children).
2. ... Darga - of 'Derech Gag'
3. ... Puri'ah - '*Parin ve'Ravin* Alehah'.