ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 42
(a) Despite the fact that we have already learned in a previous Mishnah (on
39a.) the three obligations of a seducer and the four of a rapist, the Tana
finds it necessary to repeat them here - to teach us the Machlokes between
the Tana Kama and Rebbi Shimon.
(b) The Chidush cannot be the fact that it is the girl's father who receives
the money - since that too, is obvious, because, were the money to go to
*her*, why would a *seducer* be obligated to pay at all (seeing as by virtue
of her accepting his advances, she is, in effect, foregoing payment).
(a) If, after swearing his innocence, a man admits that he did rape or
seduce the claimant's daughter - according to the Tana Kama, he incurs the
three Chiyuvim, payment of the principle, an additional fifth and a Korban
(b) The Tana Kama disagrees with Rebbi Shimon, in whose opinion he is Patur
because a person does not pay K'nas by his own admission - due to the fact
that we are talking here not about K'nas, but about Boshes and P'gam (as
will be explained later).
(c) Abaye asked Rabah what the Din will be if the same man admits that he
did rape or seduce the claimant's daughter, but after the father claimed
that, he did so, and that he had already been pronounced guilty by the
Beis-Din, who had sentenced him to pay K'nas. His She'eilah is - whether
Rebbi Shimon will agree that, in this case, seeing as Beis-Din had already
obligated him to pay, the money has now become Mamon, in which case, his
admission exempts him from paying, as well as from a Korban Shevu'ah, or
whether it still retains its initial status of K'nas in this regard.
(d) Rabah replied that it is Mamon, and he is Patur from a Korban Shevu'ah.
(a) Rebbi Shimon in the Mishnah in Shevu'os learns from the Pasuk
"ve'Kichesh be'Pakidon O bi'Sesumes Yad ... O Matza Aveidah ve'Kichesh Bah
... " - that a man who admits that he raped a girl, or that his ox gored the
claimant's slave, or regarding a master who admits that his master knocked
out his eye or his tooth, after they had all sworn to the contrary), is
Patur from a Korban Shevu'ah.
(b) Presuming that Rebbi Shimon is speaking when the man had already been
taken to Beis-Din - this presents Rabah (who holds that such a case is
considered Mamon, and he is Chayav) with a Kashya.
(c) Rabah answers that the Beraisa speaks when the man had *not yet been
taken to Beis-Din* (and it is a pure K'nas). We ask on this however, from
the Reisha of the Beraisa, which clearly speaks when he *had*. The author of
the Reisha - is the Rabbanan.
(d) The Rabbanan learn from "u'Ma'alah Ma'al" - that even cases of K'nas,
such as the Kefel and four of five times of theft, O'nes, Mefateh and
Motzi-Shem-Ra is Chayav a Korban Shevu'ah. The Tana can only be speaking
about a case of Amad ba'Din, because otherwise, he would not be Chayav
(a) Rabah could have resolved the difficulty by establishing the entire
Beraisa according to Rebbi Shimon - the Reisha in a case of Amad ba'Din; the
Seifa, of Lo Amad ba'Din.
(b) He chose not to do so however, on the grounds that that would be a
forced answer - because then the Tana should have written either 'Rebbi
Shimon Omer' at the beginning of the Beraisa, or 'Divrei Rebbi Shimon' at
the end (as an indication that Rebbi Shimon is indeed the sole author of the
(a) So Rabah establishes the Beraisa by Amad ba'Din, the Reisha, according
to the Rabbanan, the Seifa, according to Rebbi Shimon (like we thought at
first), and he is Patur from a Korban Shevu'ah, because it is not similar to
the case of "ve'Kichesh" (Mamon from its inception). He considers it
Mamon - with regard to her father's heirs inheriting it from her father in
the event of his death.
(b) If, after Beis-Din have found the man guilty, the girl did not manage to
claim the money before becoming a Bogeres - Rebbi Shimon says that the money
belongs to the girl herself.
(c) But did we not just say that with regard to inheritance, the money
becomes Mamon immediately following Amad ba'Din? Rav Yosef and Rabah himself
were unable to answer the Kashya as long as Rabah was Rosh Yeshivah - a
period of twenty-two years. Then Rabah died, and Rav Yosef, who succeeded
him, resolved the She'eilah.
(a) Rav Yosef answered the Kashya by quoting the Pasuk "*ve'Nasan* ha'Ish
ha'Shochev Imah la'Avi ha'Na'arah ... " - from which we learn that when it
comes to K'nas and Mefateh, the money only becomes the father's (even
regarding inheritance) once he has received it.
(b) When Rabah said that it is Mamon for his heirs to inherit it - he was
referring to all other K'nasos besides O'nes and Mefateh.
(c) It is also considered Mamon - inasmuch as if the culprit admits of his
own volition, he remains Chayav to pay.
(d) According to Rav Yosef's explanation, in the case of an ox that gored
an Eved Kena'ani (which is also a K'nas) and where the Torah writes "Kesef
Sh'loshim Shekalim *Yiten* la'Adonav" we do not make the same D'rashah as we
made by O'nes and Mefateh, to say that until the master receives the money,
it remains a K'nas (even after Ha'amadah ba'Din) - because whereas
"ve'Nasan" lends itself to a D'rashah, "Yiten" does not.
(a) Despite the fact that the source that renders O'nes and Mefateh unique,
inasmuch as it remains K'nas until the money is actually claimed, is
"ve'Nasan" (as Rav Yosef just explained), Rebbi Shimon in the Beraisa needs
to quote the Pasuk "ve'Kichesh" giving it the same Din as other K'nasos - in
a case where the girl became a Bogeres and died before Ha'amadah ba'Din.
(b) The reason that this case is different than a case when the father died
before the money was been claimed is - because, according to Rebbi Shimon
(who holds that when the girl becomes a Bogeres after Ha'amadah ba'Din, the
money belongs to her), the father inherits the money from her. And, unlike
money that goes *directly* to the father, the money he inherits from is pure
Mamon (because whatever *she* receives is not subject to the D'rashah of
"ve'Nasan"). Consequently, we require the Pasuk "ve'Kichesh" to exempt the
culprit from Korban Shevu'ah, like all other cases of K'nas after Beis-Din
have issued their ruling.
(c) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explains - that when the Tana states 'Yatz'u
Eilu she'Hein K'nas', he means that they are basically K'nas (because that
is how they began).
(a) We learned in the Mishnah in Shevu'os 'Rebbi Shimon Poter (mi'Korban
Shevu'ah), she'Eino Meshalem K'nas al-pi Atzmo' - from which we can infer
that in a case where one would pay by one's own admission, he would indeed
be Chayav a Korban Shevu'ah.
(b) In fact, Rebbi Shimon exempts O'nes and Mefateh from a Korban Shevu'ah
altogether (as he explicitly says in the Beraisa), and when, in the Mishnah
in Shevu'os, he exempts only because 'she'Eino Meshalem K'nas al-pi Atzmo' -
he means to query the Rabbanan, to ask them whether they will not at least
agree with him in such a case.
(c) The Rabbanan however, refuse to concede to Rebbi Shimon's argument - on
the grounds that, in their opinion, it is not K'nas that the father is
claiming (unless he actually says so) but Boshes and P'gam, which, of
course, is pure Mamon, in which case the rapist is subject to a Korban
(d) According to ...
1. ... Rebbi Shimon, a person would be certain to claim K'nas, rather than
Boshes and P'gam - because he would not claim an unspecified sum of money,
when he can claim a fixed amount.
2. ... the Rabbanan, he would be certain to claim Boshes and P'gam, rather
than K'nas - because he would not claim a sum of money that the defendant
can simply deny and be exempt, if he can claim a sum from which he will be
obligated to pay.