ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 45
(a) Shilo quoted a Beraisa listing three Dinim by a Na'arah Me'urasah. If
witnesses came after she married that she had committed adultery when she
was betrothed, she is sentenced to S'kilah at the entrance of her father's
house - announcing to her parents 'See the fruits of your Chinuch; because
it was in this house that this disgusting deed occurred!'
(b) In the event that the testimony that she committed adultery took place
1. ... before she married - she is put to death at the gate of the Beis-Din
of the city.
2. ... when she became a Bogeres before the witnesses testified
(irrespective of whether they testified before the marriage or after it -
she is sentenced to Chenek and not to S'kilah, because when the physical
change takes place inside her, her Din changes correspondingly.
(a) The Beraisa states that a Na'arah Me'urasah whom her husband accused of
committing adultery, and took to Beis-Din after she had already become a
Bogeres - neither receives Malkos nor pays a hundred Shekalim (should he not
be able to substantiate his claim).
(b) When the Tana says 'Hi ve'Zomemehah Makdimin le'Veis ha'S'kilah' - he
means either she (if the testimony stands) or the witnesses (should they
turn out to be Zomemim) are sentenced to stoning.
(c) This Beraisa poses a Kashya on Shilo's Beraisa - who holds that if the
witnesses testify after she has become a Bogeres, she receives Chenek and
(d) Rava answers that Motzi Shem Ra is different because it is a Chidush -
inasmuch as even though he slanders her after they are married, at a time
when adultery then would result in Chenek and not S'kilah, she nevertheless
receives S'kilah, as though no change had taken place. Consequently, Bagrus
(in the case of Motzi Shem Ra) will not cause her Din to change either.
(a) Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua refutes Rava's distinction between Motzi
Shem Ra and adultery - on the grounds that, even though marriage will not
change her Din, perhaps a physical change such as Bagrus, will.
(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak therefore concludes - that the two conflicting
Beraisos (whether 'Ishtani Gufa' causes her to adopt the Din of a married
woman [to reduce her Din from S'kilah to Chenek] or not) do indeed argue,
and that there is no difference between the cases of adultery and Motzi Shem
(c) A Hedyot (an ordinary person) who sins, brings a she-sheep or a she-goat
as a Korban Chatas.
1. A king - brings a male goat.
2. A Kohen Gadol - brings a bull.
(a) According to the Tana Kama, a king or a Kohen Gadol who sinned before
his appointment, and who only discovered that he sinned after he is
appointment, brings the Korban of a Hedyot. According to Rebbi Shimon - he
does not bring a Korban at all.
(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak attempts to connect the Machlokes Tana'im with
regard to 'Ishtani Gufa' (in 3c.) with this Machlokes. The Tana of Shilo,
who holds 'Ishtani Gufa' changes her Halachah, follows the opinion of Rebbi
Shimon (who appears to hold likewise) - whereas the Tana of the second
Beraisa holds like the Tana Kama.
(c) We reject this contention however, on the grounds that - if Rebbi
Shimon were to hold like the Tana of Shilo (that 'Ishtani Gufa' causes her
Din to change), then he should have ruled that the king and the Kohen Gadol
bring their respective Korbanos (rather than no Korban at all).
(d) His reasoning by Korban Chatas is therefore - that he goes after the
knowledge as well as the sin (both must be either when he is a Hedyot or
when he is a king or a Kohen Gadol).
(a) Rebbi Yochanan reconciles the two conflicting Beraisos by amending
Shilo's version of the Beraisa ('Sarchah ve'Lib'sof Bagrah, Teidon
be'Chenek'). What is Rebbi Yochanan's version?
(b) He counters the Kashya from the Pasuk "Na'arah ha'Me'urasah" (which
appears to preclude a Bogeres from S'kilah) with the Pasuk "ve'Hotzi'u es
*ha'Na'arah*" - which is superfluous, and from which he extrapolates
'ha'Na'arah" she'Haysah K'var'.
(c) Rebbi Chananyah exclaimed 'Rachmana Litzlan me'Hai Da'ata'! - because he
could not understand why Rebbi Ila'a's Din should not extend to the husband,
to make him pay a hundred Shekalim and to receive Malkos, despite the fact
that she is now a Bogeres.
(d) Rebbi Yitzchak bar Avin or Rebbi Yitzchak bar Aba ascribes Rebbi Ila'a's
distinction to the fact that - whereas the girl's sentence is based on her
immoral act (which took place before her physical change), the man's is
based on his slander, which took place after it.
(a) We have already learned that a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah is stoned to death
at the gate of her father's house, in the event of the witnesses testifying
after she was already married. In the event that ...
The Torah writes by Na'arah ha'Me'urasah "el Pesach Beis Avihah" and it also
writes (in connection with the Mishkan) "Masach Pesach Sha'ar he'Chatzer".
We now learn from there that if a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah has no father or
father's house, that she is stoned at the gate of the city where she
sinned - by first of all considering as if the word "Sha'ar" was written
next to "Pesach" by Na'arah ha'Me'urasah, just like it is specifically
written next to it in the Pasuk in Bamidbar, and then by learning a
'Gezeirah-Shavah' 'She'arecha" "She'arecha" from someone who served idols.
1. ... she has no father or father's house - she is stoned at the gate of
the town where she sinned.
(b) If someone served idols, the Torah writes "ve'Hotzeisa es ha'Ish ha'Hu
... el *She'arecha*". We learn from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from "Ki Yimatzei
be'Kirbecha be'Achad *She'arecha*" - that he is stoned at the gate of the
town where he served idols and not at the gate of the town where he was
2. ... most of the town's residents are Nochrim - then she is stoned at the
gate of the Beis-Din where she was sentenced.
(c) We also learn from the word " ... el She'arecha" - that this does not
apply in a city where the majority of its residents are Nochrim, though this
we learn from the suffix "She'are*cha*".
(a) The Tana Kama in a Beraisa states that a husband who slanders his
newly-married wife receives Malkos and has to pay a hundred Shekalim in any
event - whether the marriage was consummated (and he claims that he
discovered that she was not a Besulah), or not (and his claim is based
entirely on the evidence of witnesses). Rebbi Yehudah agrees with this with
regard to Malkos. With regard to paying - he says that only if the marriage
was consummated does he have to pay, otherwise not.
(b) According to this Lashon, it is only Rebbi Yehudah who holds like Rebbi
Eliezer ban Ya'akov (whose opinion will be cited later). Despite the fact
that, in their opinion, the Parshah of Motzi Shem Ra was only said in a case
of Ba'al (when the marriage was consummated), the husband will nevertheless
receive Malkos even if the marriage was not consummated - because he
contravened the La'av "Lo Seilech Rachil be'Amecha" (see Tosfos DH 'Rebbi
(c) Nor is there a problem with the fact that he receives Malkos for a
'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh' - since that is the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah
(a) The second Lashon establishes both opinions like Rebbi Eliezer ben
Ya'akov, and the Tana Kama speaks specifically when the marriage was
consummated. Rebbi Yehudah says - like he said according to the first
Lashon: namely, that he receives Malkos in any event.
(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak reconciles Rebbi Yehudah (in both Leshonos)
with another Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah says 'Ba'al Lokeh; Lo Ba'al, Eino
Lokeh' - by establishing the first Beraisa by Malkos mi'de'Rabbanan (and not
mi'd'Oraysa, like we thought until now).
(c) Rav Papa disagrees with Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak. Reestablishing the
first Beraisa like we initially understood it, he explains 'Lo Ba'al, Eino
*Lokeh*' in the second Beraisa - to mean that he is not *fined monetarily*,
since the fine is restricted to where the marriage was consummated (as we
(d) It is perfectly appropriate to refer to Mamon as 'Lokeh' - as we shall
(a) According to the Tana Kama of a Beraisa, if someone says 'Chatzi Erki
Alai', Nosen Chatzi Erko. According to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah - he
must pay his full Erech.
(b) Rav Papa explains Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah's statement '*Lokeh*
ve'Nosen Erech Shalem' - to mean, not that he receives Malkos, but that he
is 'hit' financially to make him pay full damages.
(c) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah's reason is - because we decree 'Chatzi
Erki' on account of 'Erech Chetzyi', where he is obligated min ha'Din, to
pay his full Erech.
(d) Someone who says 'Erech Chetzyi Alai' has to pay his full Erech -
because the statement automatically incorporates some limbs upon which his
life depends, and someone who undertakes to pay the Erech of even one such
limb, is obligated to pay his complete Erech.