ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 11
KESUVOS 11-14 - have been anonymously dedicated by a unique Ohev Torah and
Marbitz Torah living in Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.
A female convert, and a freed captive and slave-girl who are all under
three, have in common - the fact that if, at the time, they were under three
years old, their Kesuvah is two hundred Zuz, and they have a Ta'anas
(a) Rav Huna permits the conversion of a Nochri Katan 'al Da'as Beis-Din' -
if his father is no longer alive and it is his mother who wants him
(b) Rav Huna's Chidush is based on the principle 'Zachin le'Adam she'Lo
be'Fanav' - because, since a Katan does not have Da'as, whatever concerns
him is considered 'she'Lo be'Fanav'.
(c) We need Rav Huna to teach us this, in spite of the Mishnah in Eiruvin
which teaches us the same principle - because of the counter-principle,
'*Eved* be'Hefkeira Nicha Lei' (and the same would apply to a grown-up
*Nochri*), in which case, in the case of a grown-up, a forced conversion
would be considered a Chov, and not a Z'chus. Rav Huna's Chidush is - that a
Nochri Katan is different, because, for him, who has not tasted the fruits
of 'Hefkeirus', it is a Z'chus.
(d) There is no proof for Rav Huna from our Mishnah, which considers the
conversion of a female convert under three to be a legal conversion -
because our Mishnah could be speaking in a case when it is her father who is
bringing her for conversion (in which case it is certainly considered a
Z'chus, because a child always follows the lead of his father).
(a) Rav Yosef says that a Ger Katan who is converted against his will - can
recant when he becomes a Gadol.
(b) In spite of Rav Yosef's ruling, our Mishnah grants a girl who converted
under three to a Kesuvah of two hundred Zuz. We are not afraid that she will
1. ... as soon as she grows-up, and will then go on to spend her Kesuvah as
a Nochris - because she only receives it after she becomes a Gedolah without
(c) Rava asks the same Kashya on Rav Yosef from the Mishnah in 'Eilu
Na'aros', which grants a convert (as well as a freed captive and a
slave-girl) of under three who is later raped, a fine of fifty Shekalim. And
we give the same answer as we gave to Abaye.
2. ... even after she grows-up - because if she does recant immediately, she
cannot do so later.
1. Abaye did not ask from the Mishnah in 'Eilu Na'aros' - because the reason
for the fine there is in order that the sinner (the rapist) should not
benefit from his sin (in which case, what difference does it make whether
she uses the money as a Jewess or as a Nochris.
2. Rava did not ask from our Mishnah - because the reason by Kesuvah is in
order to make it more difficult for the husband to divorce her.
Consequently, as long as she has not recanted, she will receive her Kesuvah,
irrespective of the fact that she might later do so.
(a) Our Mishnah states 'ha'Gadol she'Ba al ha'Ketanah, ve'ha'Katan she'Ba al
ha'Gedolah ... K'subasan Masayim'. When the Tana of our Mishnah says ...
1. ... 'ha'Gadol she'Ba al ha'Ketanah' - he is referring to a Gadol (over
nine) who had relations with a girl under three.
(b) Rebbi Meir includes a Mukas-Eitz in this list. According to the
Chachamim - a Mukas Eitz is entitled to a Kesuvah of only one Manah (a
2. ... 've'ha'Katan she'Ba al ha'Gedolah' - a boy under nine who had
relations with a girl over three.
(c) The Kesuvah of a Gerushah or a Chalutzah min ha'Nisu'in is only a
Manah - and so is that of a Besulah min ha'Nisu'in, a woman who entered the
Chupah but whose husband died, leaving her with a Chazakah that the marriage
was not consummated.
(d) The other ramifications of a woman whose Kesuvah is only one Manah are -
that the second husband does not have a Ta'anis Besulim.
A female convert, and a freed captive or slave-girl who were all above the
age of three, have in common - the fact that their Kesuvah is a Manah and
that the subsequent husband does not have a Ta'anas Besulim.
(a) According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, if a Gedolah has relations with a
Katan, she has the Din of a Mukas-Eitz. The two ramifications of this ruling
are - that, according to the Rabbanan, her Kesuvah will only be a Manah, and
that she will be forbidden to a Kohen Gadol.
(b) When Rav Yehudah subsequently told Shmuel what Rav had said - he
retorted that a woman cannot become a Mukas-Eitz through flesh (only through
a hard object, such as a stick).
(c) According to others - Rav and Shmuel dispute this issue directly.
(d) Rav Oshaya points out that our Mishnah, where the Chachamim argue with
Rebbi Meir regarding a Mukas-Eitz, but not regarding a Katan who had
relations with a Gedolah, appears to substantiate Shmuel's opinion. Rava
establishes the Mishnah even according to Rav - by explaining it like this:
'Gadol ha'Ba al ha'Ketanah ve'Lo K'lum; de'Pachos mi'Kahn, ke'Nosen Etzba
be'Ayin Dami; ve'Katan ha'Ba al ha'Gedolah, As'ah Mukas Eitz; u'Mukas Eitz
Gufah, P'lugta de'Rebbi Meir ve'Rabbanan'.
(a) According to Rami bar Chama, Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan agree that if a
man does not know that his wife is a Mukas-Eitz, she receives nothing -
because it is considered a 'Mekach Ta'us' (a false sale).
(b) They argue, he maintains, specifically when he knows that she is. The
basis of their argument is whether she receives the Kesuvah of a Bogeres or
of a Be'ulah. The Kesuvah of a Bogeres - is two hundred Zuz.
1. Rebbi Meir prefers to compare her to a Bogeres (than to a Be'ulah) -
because, like a Bogeres, nothing was done to her by a man.
2. The Chachamim prefer to compare her to a Be'ulah (than to a Bogeres) -
because, like a Be'ulah, something was done to her, unlike a Bogeres, where
it was not.
(a) In the Mishnah later in the Perek, Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer
declare that we believe the woman who says that her Besulim were broken,
not through relations with a man - but by a piece of wood.
(b) Rav Nachman proves Rami bar Chama wrong from there - because, if she
were to receive nothing (as Rami bar Chama maintains), what would be the
difference between her testimony and his?
(c) Rava therefore establishes the Machlokes in both cases (whether he knew
that she was a Mukas-Eitz or not). According to Rebbi Meir, she always
receives two hundred Zuz. According to the Chachamim - she receives a Manah
if he knew about her, but nothing, if he did not.
(d) The author of the Mishnah later in the Perek (which quotes Raban Gamliel
and Rebbi Eliezer) - is Rebbi Meir.
(a) We explain the Beraisa (which states that if a man claims that a woman
was not a Besulah and there are witnesses that she committed adultery after
the Kidushin, she is entitled to a Kesuvah of a hundred Zuz) to mean - that
if there are witnesses that she committed adultery after the betrothal, she
is Chayav S'kilah; before the betrothal, she receives a Kesuvah of only a
Manah. The Beraisa cannot be taken literally, because if there were
witnesses that she committed adultery after their betrothal, why would she
receive a Kesuvah at all, seeing as she is Chayav S'kilah?
(b) Rav Chiya bar Avin Amar Rav Sheishes extrapolates from there - that if a
man marries a woman on the understanding that she is a Besulah and she turns
out to be a Be'ulah, she receives the Kesuvah of a Be'ulah.
(c) Rav Nachman asks on this from a Mishnah later which says to the
contrary. The Tana says that a man who claims that the woman he just married
is not a Besulah and that he acquired a Mekach Ta'us (against her argument
that she was raped after the betrothal).
(d) To answer the Kashya - Rav Sheishes himself answers that Mekach Ta'us
there means that she only gets a Manah, instead of Masayim, which she was
due to receive.
(a) Rava prefer Rav Nachman's question to Rav Sheishes' answer - because
'Mekach Ta'us implies that she receives nothing at all (and not a Manah).
(b) So *he* answer the Kashya, by adding a phrase to the Mishnah. According
to the amended wording - it is a Mekach Ta'us when she is found to have had
relations with a man prior to their betrothal, but she will receive a
hundred Zuz, if she is found to have been a Mukas-Eitz prior to the
(c) Bearing in mind Rava's own interpretation of the Machlokes between Rebbi
Meir and the Chachamim, (where, according to Rebbi Meir, she receives
Masayim, and according to the Rabbanan, nothing) we prove from his current
statement (that she at least receives a Manah), that he retracted from his
previous opinion (in the Chachamim).
(d) The author of the Mishnah later in the Perek (which quotes Raban Gamliel
and Rebbi Eliezer - where she claims that she is a Mukas Eitz) - can now be
the Chachamim, too.