Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa continues 'ha'Mema'enes Ein Lah K'nas ve'Lo Pituy'. We infer from there that a Ketanah who did not make Miy'un *does* receive K'nas and Pituy, prompting us to declare 'Ha Mani, Rabbanan Hi' (meaning the Rabbanan of Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah).

(b) The Seifa of the Beraisa states 'Aylonis Ein Lah Lo K'nas ve'Lo Pituy' - because an Aylonis remains a Ketanah until the age of twenty, when she becomes a Bogeres, neither of whom receive K'nas or Pituy according to Rebbi Meir. Because although all Tana'im agree that a Bogeres does not receive a K'nas, it is only Rebbi Meir who holds that a Ketanah does not receive a K'nas either.

(c) We suggest that Rebbi Meir is also the author of the Reisha, and that with regard to the Din of a Mema'enes, he holds like Rebbi Yehudah - in whose opinion a girl can still make Miy'un even after she becomes a Na'arah (until there is more black than white - meaning that the two hairs have grown long enough to fold back on to the skin). Consequently, the Reisha is not speaking about a Ketanah at all.

(d) We reject this suggestion however - on the grounds that Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, specifically disagrees with Rebbi Yehudah, permitting Miy'un only 'ad she'Tavi Sh'tei Se'aros'.

(a) So we try to establish the Beraisa like Rebbi Yehudah who we suggest, holds like Rebbi Meir regarding a Ketanah. That too, we reject - on the basis of Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, who said (with regard to the K'nas of a Ketanah) 'Zu Divrei Rebbi Meir' and not 'Zu Divrei Rebbi Meir ve'Rebbi Yehudah'.

(b) So we finally establish the Beraisa - like a third anonymous Tana who holds like Rebbi Meir regarding the K'nas of a Ketanah, but who disagrees with him (since he holds like Rebbi Yehudah) regarding the Miy'un of a Na'arah.

(c) Rafram suggests that 'Mema'enes' means 'ha'Re'uyah le'Ma'en' - meaning a Ketanah, in which case the author of the Beraisa will be Rebbi Meir.

(d) Rafram's explanation is unacceptable however - because then the Tana should have said 'Ketanah' (rather than 'ha'Re'uyah le'Ma'en').

(a) The author of the previous Beraisa ('Aylonis Ein Lah Lo K'nas ve'Lo Pituy') holds like Rebbi Meir (as we just explained) - whereas the author of another Beraisa, which states 'ha'Chareshes, ve'ha'Shotah *ve'ha'Aylonis Yesh Lahen K'nas, ve'Yesh Lahen Pituy'* is the Rabbanan (who hold that a Ketanah receives K'nas).

(b) This answer is really obvious, and we only cited the latter Beraisa as an excuse to point out a discrepancy between its continuation: 've'Yesh Lahen Ta'anas Besulim' and a third Beraisa, which states 'ha'Chareshes ve'ha'Shotah ... Ein Lahen Ta'anas Besulim'. The Tana includes a Bogeres in this list. There is no Ta'anas Besulim with regard to a Bogeres - because her Besulim terminate the moment she becomes a Bogeres (see 5b.).

(c) The fourth case that the Tana lists - is a Mukas Eitz.

(d) The Beraisa concludes 'ha'Suma ve'Aylonis Yesh Lahen Ta'anas Besulim. This is the opinion of the Tana Kama. Sumchus quoting Rebbi Meir says - 'Suma Ein Lah Ta'anas Besulim'.

(a) We resolve the discrepancy between the Beraisa which holds 'Chareshes ve'Shotah Yesh Lahen Ta'anas Besulim', with the Beraisa which holds ' ... Ein Lahen Ta'anas Besulim' - by establishing the former Beraisa like Rebbi Yehoshua, who holds (in the case of 'mi'she'Eirastani Ne'enasti') 'Lo mi'Pihah Anu Chayim', and the second Beraisa like Raban Gamliel, who says that she is believed to say that she was raped after her betrothal.

(b) Raban Gamliel will believe that the girl was raped after the betrothal, even though she did not say anything - on the basis of the Pasuk in Mishlei "P'sach Picha le'Ileim", prompting Beis-Din to present logical claims on behalf of those who are unable to do so themselves.

(a) When Rav says that one gives a Bogeres the first night - he means that any blood that she sees on the first night of her marriage is considered Dam Besulim.

(b) According to Rav, when the Tana of the Beraisa says ' ... ve'ha'Bogeres Ein Lahen Ta'anas Besulim' - he means that there is no Ta'anah of Pesach Pasu'ach (because the Pesach of a Bogeres is no longer closed).

(c) We believe the man when he claims 'Pesach Pasu'ach Matzasi', even though there is no way he can prove it - on the grounds of a Chazakah that a person will not take the trouble of arranging a wedding with a Se'udah, only to negate it next morning with a trumped-up claim of not finding her a Besulah.

6)

(a) Sumchus quoting Rebbi Meir says that there is no Ta'anas Besulim with regard to a blind girl - because he must expect her to have lost her Besulim when she knocked herself on the ground without realizing it.

(b) Other girls might suffer the same mishap - but they would have seen blood as a result, and their mother would have informed them that they are no longer Besulos. Consequently, any girl who failed to inform her Chasan of this, will lose her Kesuvah for having tricked him. A blind girl, on the other hand, does not see blood, so she does not go and show her mother.

(a) The Beraisa on 35b. also stated that a woman who leaves her husband because of a 'Shem Ra' is not eligible to receive K'nas or Pituy. This does not mean that she left her husband because of a Ta'anas Besulim, in which case she would be Chayav S'kilah. What he means, according to Rav Sheishes - is that she left him due to a *rumor* that she had committed adultery in her youth.

(b) Rav Papa extrapolates from the Beraisa - that a document which rumor had it, was forged - cannot be used to claim with.

(a) We reject the above explanation of the Beraisa on the basis of a statement by Rava - who said that unsubstantiated rumors of this nature are to be ignored.

(b) So we finally explain 'Shem Ra' in the Beraisa to refer to a case - where witnesses testified to the fact that the woman accosted them, and we assume that, even though *they* turned her down, others are always available to accede to her request.

(c) We still retain Rav Papa's comparison of a document which was disqualified in a similar way to the woman. We nevertheless try and differentiate between the two however - on the grounds that, whereas there may well be plenty of people around with loose morals, how can one assume that the 'creditor' found someone to forge someone else's signature?

(d) In fact, the same fear that invalidates the woman invalidates the document - because, failing to find others to forge the witnesses' signature, the 'creditor' will have taken the trouble to study the trade himself.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan equates Rebbi Dosa with Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah. Rebbi Dosa said that a bas Kohen who was captured - may eat Terumah, because what did the Arab captor do other than play around with her?

(b) Rava however, disagrees. In his opinion ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah's ruling may well be confined to the case of a rapist having to pay K'nas to a captive - because he penalizes him for his misdeed, but might not necessarily extend to Rebbi Dosa's Din of eating Terumah).
2. ... Rebbi Dosa's ruling of a captive eating Terumah - may well be confined to Terumah (which nowadays is only de'Rabbanan anyway - and 'S'feika de'Rabbanan, le'Kula'). He may not necessarily agree with Rebbi Yehudah however, who speaks about claiming K'nas. There he may well agree with the Rabbanan who declare her Tamei, rather than allow her to extract money when in doubt.

(c) Abaye ascribes Rebbi Yehudah's lenient view regarding a captive receiving K'nas to the S'vara 'she'Lo Yehei Chotei Niskar' (as we just explained). When, in another Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah says that even if the girl was ten when she was set free from captivity, she retains her Kedushah and her Kesuvah remains two hundred Zuz - that is because otherwise, people will presume that she was really raped, and nobody will want to marry her.

(d) According to the Rabbanan who argue with Rebbi Dosa - she is permitted to eat Terumah as long as she is the one who informs us that she was captured (because of the principle 'ha'Peh she'Asar Hu ha'Peh she'Hitir'); but not otherwise.

(a) The Mishnah precludes a convert, a captive and a Shifchah who converted, was redeemed, and set-free respectively, from K'nas - because, once they reach the age of Bi'ah, they have a Chazakah of having had relations with a man, and are presumed therefore to have lost their Besulim.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah disagrees in the case of a captive - who, he maintains, retains her Kedushah.

(c) Someone who rapes his daughter or granddaughter, his wife's daughter or granddaughter - are all exempt from paying K'nas, because they are Chayav Misah bi'Yedei Shamayim.

(d) We learn this from the Pasuk "Im Lo Yihyeh Ason, Anosh Ye'anesh" - 'Ha', Im Yihyeh Ason', we extrapolate, 'Lo Ye'anesh'.

(a) The Beraisa says that someone who redeems a girl who was captured - is permitted to marry her.

(b) The problem with the next statement 'Me'id Bah, Lo Yisa'enah' - is, based on the assumption that it is a continuation of the previous statement, why should the fact that, because he also testified that she was Tahor, forbid him to marry her?

(c) So we interpret the Beraisa to mean that, if he redeemed her, as well as testifying that she was Tahor, he may marry her, but if he testified without redeeming her, he may not.

(d) Rebbi Yehudah says - either way, he is not permitted to marry her?

(a) In order to reconcile Rebbi Yehudah's statement here with his previous statement (that a captive girl retains her Kedushah) we amend it to read - 'Bein Kach, u'Vein Kach, Yisa'enah'.

(b) Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua explains that Rebbi Yehudah said what he said according to the Rabbanan's opinion - meaning, that according to him, either way, he was permitted to marry her; only according to their view (that she was probably raped), she ought to be forbidden to marry the witness whether he redeemed her or not ('Bein Kach, u'Vein Kach, Lo Yisa'enah').

(c) The Rabbanan say 'ha'Podeh es ha'Sh'vuyah ...

1. ... u'Me'id Bah, Yisa'enah' - because a man does not spend so much money unless he is certain that she really remained Tahor).
2. ... Me'id Bah Kedi, Lo Yisa'enah - because maybe he only testified because he took a fancy to her.