ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 27
KESUVOS 26 & 27 (6th and 7th days of Pesach) - have been generously
dedicated by Dick and Beverly Horowitz of Los Angeles. May they be blessed
with a life of joy and much Nachas from their very special children and
(a) The second Lashon considers Ashkelon to have been under Jewish
authority. What is significant about the episode that took place there is -
the fact that the woman was being held hostage for ransom.
(b) We now infer from the Beraisa, which seems to clash with the Din of
'Nechbeshah ... al-yedei Mamon' in our Mishnah - that it is only because
there were witnesses that she was permitted, but otherwise she would have
been forbidden, in spite of the fact that she was being held for ransom (and
not on threat of her life).
(c) We resolve the apparent contradiction - by differentiating between a
case of Hurhenah (where she is forbidden) and Nechbeshah (where she is not),
as we explained earlier.
(d) The third version (presented in the form of a Kashya which Rav Shmuel
bar Rav Yitzchak Amar Rav comes to resolve) - conforms with the first
version discussed above. Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak Amar Rav answers - that
our Mishnah speaks when it is the Jews who have jurisdiction over the town,
whereas the Beraisa speaks when it is under the authority of the Nochrim.
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah forbids a woman who has been captured to return
to her husband. According to Rav, this refers to 'Hani Nashi de'Ganvi' - by
which he means that the woman's husband had been taken into custody for
stealing, and was now subject to the death-sentence, and his wife and
property considered public (for people to do with as they wish).
(b) According to Levi, it refers to people like Elazar ben Dina'i - who was
a murderer. According to him, it was the wife and property of a *murderer*
that were made public, but not of a *thief*.
(c) Chizkiyah explains that according to Levi, the woman only becomes
forbidden after her husband's judgment has been concluded. Rebbi Yochanan
says - even if it has not.
(a) An 'Ir she'Kavshuhah Karkom' - is a city that has been captured by a
(b) Not all women are forbidden to their husbands - but the wives of Kohanim
are (because of the probability that they were raped).
(c) Anyone is permitted to testify on their behalf - including a slave or a
Shifchah, though they are not believed on their own testimony.
(a) The Mishnah in Avodah-Zarah says that if a non-Jewish army enters a city
1. ... in peace-time - open barrels of wine are forbidden, closed ones are
(b) Rav Mari reconciles the two Mishnah's by differentiating between wine
and women ('li'V'ol Yesh P'nai, le'Nasech Ein P'nai' - meaning that for
women one always finds time). Rebbi Yitzchak ben Elazar Mishmei de'Chizkiyah
answers by differentiating between the home army, who are under royal orders
to preserve the well-being of the state (and will not therefore spoil the
wine or molest the local women), and a foreign army, who are only concerned
with their own self-gratification.
2. ... in time of war - both are permitted (because they do not have time to
render the wine Nesech.
(c) The soldiers however, are not so well-disciplined, even if they are from
the same country, and even if it is in time of war. In order to eliminate
the possibility of some soldiers leaving camp to enter the town and 'give
vent to their desires ...
1. ... Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel therefore establish the Mishnah in
Avodah-Zarah - when the soldiers are in full view of the guards.
(d) Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'a and the Rabbanan argued over this point. One of
them accepted the initial answer - that the home army, will not spoil the
wine or molest the local women, and is not concerned about the soldier's
lack of discipline.
2. ... Rebbi Levi establishes it - when the camp is surrounded by
metal-chains, dogs, sticks and thorns and geese (to catch any soldiers
trying to slip by the sleeping guards.
(a) Rav Idi bar Avin Amar Rav Yitzchak bar Ashian permits even the wives of
Kohanim in the town - if there is even just one hiding-place in the town.
(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah asks - whether a small hiding-place that holds only one
person will suffice to permit each woman that comes to Beis-Din claiming to
be Tahor, or whether we will declare them all Tamei, seeing as it is
impossible for all of them to have hidden there.
(a) The Mishnah in Taharos presents a case - where two people walked along
two paths, one of which was Tamei (due to a grave that ran across its entire
width), and they did not know which one walked which path. They then touched
Taharos, and now each one wanted to know whether the Taharos that he touched
were Tahor or Tamei.
(b) According to Rebbi Yehudah, if they came to Beis-Din to ask ...
1. ... one after the other - then we would declare the Taharos Tahor in both
(c) In the opinion of Rebbi Yossi - either way they are Tamei.
2. ... simultaneously - we would declare them both Tamei.
(d) According to Rava or Rebbi Yochanan, both Tana'im agree that if the two
men were to ask the She'eilah simultaneously, the ruling would be 'Tamei',
and if they came individually, the ruling would be 'Tahor'. Their
Machlokes is - when one of the two men came to ask on behalf of both of
them, first for himself and then for his friend (see Tosfos DH 'be'Ba').
That is where Rebbi Yossi rules Tamei, because he compares it to the case
where they both came to ask simultaneously.
(a) We try to connect Rebbi Yirmiyah's She'eilah to the Machlokes between
Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yossi in Taharos - and to say, that if each woman
came to ask for herself, we will rule that they are Tahor, and if they all
came simultaneously to ask, the ruling will be Tamei; but if one of them
came to ask on behalf of all of them, they will all be Tamei, like Rebbi
Yossi (like whom we always rule when he argues with a contemporary).
(b) But in fact, the cases are not comparable - because whereas in the case
of the two paths it is impossible that both should both be Tahor, in our
case it is quite possible that all of the women are Tahor (even if they did
not hide. Consequently, we will declare any woman who claims to have been in
the hiding-place Tahor, irrespective of how they come to ask.
(a) Rav Ashi asks what the Din will be if the woman claims that she did not
hide but that she is Tahor anyway - whether we will say 'Mah Li le'Shaker'
('Migu' - since she could have said that she hid), or whether 'Mah Li
le'Shaker' does apply here, because it is 'Mah Li le'Shaker' be'Makom Eidim
(since we are witnesses that a woman who did not hide was raped).
(b) That man who hired a donkey on the express condition that he would not
take it along the route of River Pakud (because there was water), but that
he would go via Neresh where there was no water - actually followed the
route that he was warned against taking. After the donkey died, he
admitted in front of Rava to having done so, but claimed that there was in
fact, no water there.
(c) Abaye objected to Rava's ruling, believing him on the basis of a 'Mah Lo
le'Shaker', because he could have said that he took the donkey via Neresh -
because it is a 'Migu be'Makom Eidim' (since we are witnesses that there is
water in the River Pakud area).
(d) The outcome of our She'eilah (regarding a woman who claims that she did
not hide but that she is Tahor anyway) is - that she is believed. It is not
a Migu be'Makom Eidim because it is not at all certain that she was raped
(the decree forbidding all women is only a Chumra, not due to any Chazakah).
(a) The Beraisa in Gitin forbids a woman to seclude herself with her husband
without witnesses, though even a slave or a slave-girl is believed. We are
speaking in the case - of a dying husband who wrote his wife a Get and gave
it to her.
Rav Ashi agrees with Rav Papi, but for a different reason. According to him,
the woman in the Beraisa is not permitted to seclude herself with her
husband in the presence of her Shifchah, yet a woman is permitted through
the testimony of her Shifchah who testifies that she was not raped by the
invading soldiers - because of the S'vara, 'Tarti Lo Avdi' (meaning -
although she might condescend to be silent to cover-up for her mistress, she
will not lie on her behalf).
(b) The Get (which is known as a Get Yashan) will becomes invalid should he
subsequently seclude himself with her - because Chazal were afraid that
people will say that the Get preceded the birth of her son (and that someone
else is his true father).
(c) Her own Shifchah is ...
1. ... not acceptable as a witness - because she is familiar with her and
she knows that, even if she is intimate in her presence, she will not inform
(d) Rav Papa does not differentiate between the two cases. According to
him - it is the husband's Shifchah who is believed (in both of the above
cases), but not her's. He explains our Mishnah 'Ein Adam Ne'eman al Atzmo' -
to incorporate her Shifchah, who is considered like herself.
2. ... acceptable in our Mishnah (to permit a woman to her husband after the
town fell to foreign troops) according to Rav Papi - because 'bi'Sh'vuyah
Heikilu' (seeing as the decree forbidding all the wives of the Kohanim is
only a Chumra).
(a) When Mari bar Isak claimed that he did not recognize the brother who
came from overseas to claim a portion in his father's property - Rav Chisda
justified this with the Pasuk "va'Yaker Yosef es Echav (because they already
had beards when Yosef parted from them), ve'Heim Lo Hikiruhu" (because his
had not yet grown). Here too, the brother of Mari bar Isak left when he was
a young child, and it was therefore natural for Mari not to recognize him
now that he had grown-up.
(b) When Rav Chisda instructed him to bring witnesses to prove that he was
indeed Mari bar Isak's brother - he replied that he had witnesses but that
they were afraid to testify against Mari, because he was known to be a tough
(c) So Rav Chisda - ordered Mari to bring the witnesses to testify that they
did not recognize the brother, ignoring the principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro
Alav ha'Re'ayah' - because that is what he ruled when dealing with tough
characters like Mari bar Isak.
(d) He was not afraid that the witnesses would come and testify against
Mari's brother, simply because they were afraid of Mari - because 'Tarti Lo
Avdi' (as we explained in 10).
(a) The woman's parents, brothers and sisters - are believed to testify that
the soldiers did not rape her.
(b) Besides the woman's own children - the Tana of the first Beraisa also
disqualifies the woman's sons and daughters from testifying.
(c) The only two people whom the Tana of the second Beraisa disqualifies
from testifying - are her husband and herself.
(d) Rav Papi and Rav Ashi (who accept the testimony of the woman's Shifchah
in our Mishnah) will explain - that the Beraisos argue, and that they follow
the opinion of the second Beraisa.
(a) Rav Papa (who does not accept the testimony of the woman's Shifchah in
our Mishnah) will certainly hold like the first of the two Beraisos. The
second Beraisa according to him (which seems to permit the woman's
Shifchah) - speaks by 'Masi'ach Lefi Tumo', in which case all relatives and
even her own Shifchah are believed.
(b) The example of 'Masi'ach Lefi Tumo' that came before Rebbi Yehoshua ben
Levi or before Rebbi - was that of a daughter (who, we just ruled, is not
believed to testify for her mother, and) who described, 'Masi'ach Lefi
Tumo, how they had both been captured, and how she kept a watch on her
mother even when she went to draw water or to collect fire-wood.
(c) Rebbi permitted the mother on basis of her daughter's statement.
(d) In spite of the fact that the Tana of the second Beraisa permits all
other relatives 'Masi'ach Lefi Tumo' - he nevertheless forbids the woman's
husband and herself.
(a) After his town had been captured by an invading army - Rebbi Zecharyah
ben ha'Katzav declared that his hand did not leave his wife's until all the
soldiers had left. He had good reason to be particularly worried - because
he was a Kohen. The B'nei Yeshivah said to him - that a person is not
believed to testify on his own behalf ('Ishto ke'Gufo'.
(b) He did not divorce her but designated a house in his Chatzer for her to
live - something that would not have been permitted in the case of a Kohen
who divorced his wife. They avoided 'Yichud' from that time on - by her
always leaving the courtyard in front of her children, and entering it
behind them (whenever he was in the courtyard).
(c) A Yisrael who divorced his wife may not live in the same Shechunah
(group of houses) as her - because she recognizes all his signs and
movements (and we are afraid that she will easily be lured to him).
(d) A Kohen is even forbidden to live in the same Mavoy (street). A small
village - is considered like a Mavoy, in which case a Yisrael is permitted,
but a Kohen is forbidden.