ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 32
(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Kedei Rish'aso" - that (with regard to
punishments meted out by Beis-Din) a person can receive only one punishment
for one act, but not two (even when the act incorporates two punishments).
(b) The Mishnah in Makos lists a number of Arayos who receive Malkos (a
sister, a father's or mother's sister ... ). This poses a Kashya on our
Mishnah ('Eilu Na'aros she'Yesh Lahen K'nas') - where the culprit appears to
be obligated to pay K'nas despite the Mishnah in Makos, which declares him
(a) When it is a question of Mamon versus Malkos - Ula holds that he pays
Mamon 'Mamona Mechalsm, Milka Lo Laki'.
(b) Ula differentiates between a Na'arah (our Mishnah) and a Bogeres (the
Mishnah in Makos). In a case of Mamon versus Malkos, Ula holds 'Mamona
Meshalem, Milka Lo Laki'.
(c) Ula has established the Mishnah in Makos by a Bogeres. He solves the
problem regarding ...
1. ... Boshes u'P'gam (which are Mamon, and due to a Bogeres, too) - by
establishing the Mishnah by a Shotah, to whom Boshes and P'gam are not
(d) We now establish the Mishnah in Makos even by a Na'arah - who is both an
orphan (who is personally due to receive whatever the man is obligated - in
lieu of her father), and a Mefutah (who automatically forgoes the Boshes and
the P'gam, by virtue of her acceptance).
2. ... Tza'ar (which, like Boshes and P'gam, is Mamon, which, as e just
explained, a Bogeres also receives) - by establishing it by a girl who was
seduced and who does not receive Tza'ar (because her pleasure overrides the
(a) We try to learn Ula's principle (that Mamona Meshalem, Milka Lo Laki')
from every case of Chovel ba'Chaveiro, where, besides the obligation to pay,
the damager has also contravened two La'avin, for which he ought to receive
Malkos (but does not - even if he was warned).
(b) We learn that Chovel ba'Chaveiro is subject to Malkos - from the Pasuk
in Ki Seitzei "Lo Yoseif ... Pen Yosif".
(c) We are uncertain whether Mamon is stricter than Chovel ba'Chaveiro or
more lenient than it.
(d) We cannot learn Mamon from Chovel ba'Chaveiro, assuming that Mamon is
1. ... more stringent - because one is not obligated to pay the five things
(pain, healing, work-loss and shame - besides the depreciation) that one has
to pay by Chovel.
2. ... more lenient - because Chovel ba'Chaveiro has a Chumra, inasmuch as
he is subject to Malkos (by a wound that is less than a Shaveh P'rutah,
which other cases of Mamon (such as O'nes and Mefateh [who are not Chayvei
Kareis]), are not.
(a) We also attempt to use - Eidim Zomemin (who pay [when that is what they
tried to cause the defendant to do] but do not receive Malkos) as Ula's
(b) We learn that Eidim Zomemin are subject to ...
1. ... Mamon - from "Ka'asher Zamam La'asos le'Achiv".
(c) Here too, we are uncertain whether Mamon is stricter than Eidim Zomemin
or more lenient.
2. ... Malkos (even when "Ka'asher Zamam" is not applicable) - from "Lo
Sa'aneh" (in the Eseres ha'Dibros).
(d) We cannot learn Mamon from Eidim Zomemin, assuming that Mamon is ...
1. ... more stringent than them - because Mamon requires warning (for
Malkos to be applicable), whereas Eidim Zomemin do not (as we soon see).
2. ... more lenient - because in the case of Mamon, the culprit performed an
act, whereas Eidim Zomemin only sinned with their mouths.
(a) We cannot even learn Mamon from the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' (the combination)
of Chovel ba'Chaveiro and Eidim Zomemin - because the Tzad ha'Shaveh is
different inasmuch as it has a 'Tzad Chamur' (the Chumros of both of them
are unique (see Tosfos DH 'she'Kein'), or, if we consider Mamon to be more
lenient, that it has a 'Tzad Kal' (both leniencies are unique).
(b) So Ula ultimately learns his principle from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah'
"Tachas" (Asher Inah) "Ayin *Tachas* Ayin" - in connection with Chovel
(a) In the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan, whenever there is a question of Mamon
versus Malkos, the rule is 'Milka Laki, Mamona Lo Meshalem'. In his opinion
therefore - our Mishnah (which obligates the rapist to pay), speaks when
there has been no warning (for which reason he will not receive Malkos, so
he pays K'nas); whereas the Mishnah in Makos speaks when the rapist was
warned, in which case, he receives Makos.
(b) The Machlokes between Ula and Rebbi Yochanan ...
1. ... in our Mishnah (which, both agree, speaks about a Na'arah) is -
whether the Tana speaks specifically when the rapist was not warned (Rebbi
Yochanan), or whether it speaks even when he was (Ula)
(c) Rebbi Yochanan, like Ula, learns that one can only receive one
punishment from "Kedei Rish'aso". The Torah juxtaposes the Pasuk "Arba'im
Yakenu" (the source for Malkos) next to this one - serving as his source to
give Malkos precedence.
2. ... in the Mishnah in Makos is - whether the Tana speaks specifically
about a Bogeres (Ula), or even about a Na'arah, but when the rapist was
warned (Rebbi Yochanan).
(a) We ask on Rebbi Yochanan from Chovel ba'Chaveiro, where the
culprit is sentenced to pay, and does not receive Malkos. To vindicate Rebbi
Yochanan - we initially try to establish that ruling in a case where there
was no warning.
(b) We refute this contention however, from a statement by Rebbi Yochanan
himself, whom Rebbi Ami quoted as saying that for striking Shimon without
creating a wound worth a P'rutah, Reuven receives Malkos, which can only be
speaking when the culprit was warned - because otherwise, why would he
receive Malkos at all? And yet we see, that he receives Malkos only for a
wound that is less than a Shaveh P'rutah, implying that for one that is
worth more, he has to pay.
(c) We resolve the problem from Chovel ba'Chaveiro (according to Rebbi
Yochanan) with a statement by Rebbi Ila'a - who says that (even though
normally, when there is a question of Malkos and Mamon, Malkos takes
precedence) by Eidim Zomemin a G'zeiras ha'Kasuv teaches us that they pay
Mamon rather than receive Malkos. In that case, we will say the same by
Chovel ba'Chaveiro (as we shall see shortly).
(a) Rebbi Meir says that if Eidim Zomemin attempt to obligate someone to pay
two hundred Zuz, they are sentenced to pay two hundred Zuz in addition to
receiving Malkos - because the two obligations stem from different sources:
the one from "Lo Sa'aneh", and the other, from "Ka'asher Zamam La'asos
(b) The Rabbanan say 'Kol ha'Meshalem Eino Lokeh'.
(c) Rebbi Ila'a learns from the Pasuk "Yad be'Yad" - that, according to the
Chachamim, Eidim Zomemin are obligated to pay rather than receive Malkos
(Davar ha'Nitein mi'Yad le'Yad).
(d) And Rebbi Yochanan learns from the Pasuk "Ka'asher Asah Kein Yea's Lo
... Kein Yinasen Bo" - that Chovel ba'Chaveiro, has to pay, and does not
receive Malkos ('Davar she'Yesh Bo Nesinah').