ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 40
(a) Our Mishnah cites Rebbi Elazar, who obligates someone who rapes a
Yesomah who was divorced after having been betrothed, to pay K'nas. Rebbi
Elazar's statement is superfluous the way it stands - because there is no
reason for him to be Patur (and therefore no Chidush in saying that he is
(b) What he really means to say is - that the K'nas of a girl who was
divorced after having been betrothed, like that of a Yesomah, goes to her
(and not to her father).
(c) In fact, says Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Elazar
follows the opinion of his Rebbe - Rebbi Akiva, who taught this in the
Mishnah on 38a.
(d) In the equivalent case with regard to a seducer - the Tana rules that he
is Patur (because her seduction is considered as if she had foregone her
(a) Rav, who is quoted as saying that the Halachah is like Rebbi Elazar,
also described him as 'Tuvina da'Chakimi' - meaning the most praiseworthy of
the Chachamim (because Yonasan translates "Ashrei" as "Tuva'i").
(b) The Amora (Rebbi Yochanan's disciple, known as 'the Master of Eretz
Yisrael'), is Rebbi Elazar ben P'das. The full name of the Tana currently
under discussion - is Rebbi Elazar ben Shamua.
(a) Boshes is not fixed, but depends on the status of both the person who is
being shamed and who is doing the shaming. Beis-Din form the scale with
regard to ...
1. ... the person who was doing the shaming - by assessing the shaming of an
ordinary person higher than both that of a person of low status and of a
person of high standing.
(b) They would view the girl who was being shamed - as if she was a
slave-girl being sold on the market (the difference between her initial
value and her current value - this will be explained further later in the
2. ... the person being shamed - the more important he is, the greater the
(c) K'nas is equal in all cases. The principle that governs this statement -
is - that whenever the Torah specifies a standard payment, that payment cuts
right across the board.
(a) Rebbi Zeira explains that the fifty Shekalim K'nas cannot incorporate
Boshes and P'gam, because it is not feasible for the Torah not to make a
distinction between a princess who was raped and a girl of low status. Abaye
queries Rebbi Zeira's proof from the Din of an ox that killed an Eved -
where the owner has to pay thirty Shekalim irrespective of whether the Eved
is a diamond-cutter or a tailor (and there is no Boshes or P'gam there).
Consequently, it could well be that when it comes to cases of K'nas, the
Torah makes no distinction between people of different classes.
(b) So we scrap the contention that status should make any difference.
Rebbi Zeira's proof (that Boshes and P'gam must be an independent
obligation - and not part of the K'nas) is from a case of two people, one of
whom raped a girl naturally and the other, unnaturally - but in the reverse
order (the latter one, first - otherwise she would no longer be considered a
Besulah). Now if Boshes and P'gam were included in K'nas, argues Rebbi
Zeira, how could the Torah not differentiate between a complete Besulah and
one whose Besulim has been defected?
(c) Abaye counters this proof too - by pointing out that in the case of an
ox that gores an Eved too, the owner has to pay thirty Shekalim,
irrespective of whether the Eved is healthy or sick.
(d) So Abaye himself proves the point from the Pasuk "Tachas Asher Inah" -
implying that the fifty Shekalim is payment for the affliction of the Bi'ah,
but that there are payments that he is obligated to make.
(a) Rava learns it from the Pasuk "ve'Nasan ha'Ish ha'Shochev Imah la'Avi
ha'Na'arah Chamishim Kesef" - implying that the fifty Shekalim is payment
for the Bi'ah only, but that there are other payments that must be made.
(b) We try to prove that the Boshes and the P'gam go to the father, from the
Pasuk (written in connection with Nedarim) "bi'Ne'urehah Beis Avihah" - by
Darshening 'Kol Sh'vach Ne'urim le'Avihah' (all benefits that come to a
Na'arah go to her father).
(c) Rav Huna learns from the Pasuk "ve'Chi Yimkor Ish es *Bito le'Amah*" -
that the proceeds for the sale of a man's daughter belongs to the father,
just like the work of a servant-girl belong to her master.
(d) Rav Huna's D'rashah disproves the D'rashah that we just made from the
Pasuk "bi'Ne'urehah Beis Avihah" - because if *that* D'rashah was genuine,
then why would Rav Huna need a special Pasuk for the proceeds of the sale of
a man's daughter? Why not learn that too, from "bi'Ne'urehah Beis Avihah"?
(a) We cannot learn that Boshes and P'gam belong to the girl's father from
1. ... "bi'Ne'urehah Beis Avihah" - because that Pasuk is written in
connection with Nedarim, and we cannot learn Mamon from Isur.
(b) So in fact - we learn that Boshes and P'gam belong to the father (and
not to the girl herself) from a S'vara, from the fact that the father has
the right to shame her and to cause her to become defected, by giving her to
an ugly man or to a leper.
2. ... K'nas, which as we see, also goes to the father - because neither can
we learn Mamon from K'nas (which is a Chidush).
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that we reckon P'gam by detracting the girl's
sale-value after the rape from her value before it. This cannot be
referring to her value as a slave - because the fact that she was raped
would not affect her value as a slave by one iota.
(b) We initially object to the suggestion that it is referring to her value
as a 'wife' for the owner's slave - because why would a master care about
making his slave satisfied?
(c) We conclude - that it is indeed referring to her value as a 'wife' for
the owner's slave, a slave whom he wishes to repay for giving him a lot of
(a) The author of our Mishnah, which states that a girl who can be sold is
not subject to K'nas and vice-versa - is Rebbi Meir, who holds that a
Ketanah is not subject to K'nas.
(b) The Chachamim say - that a Ketanah is subject to K'nas.
(c) She can neither be sold nor is she subject to K'nas - the moment she
becomes a Bogeres.
(a) According to Rav Chisda, Rebbi Meir learns his opinion from the Pasuk
"ve'Lo Sihyeh le'Ishah" - implying a girl who is able to make herself his
wife (which a Ketanah is not).
(b) The Rabbanan, says Resh Lakish, learn their opinion from the word
Na'arah itself - because it is written without a 'Hey'.
(a) When Rav Papa B'rei de'Rav Chanan told this to Rav Shimi bar Ashi, he
claimed to have heard Resh Lakish's statement in connection with the Pasuk
on Motzi Shem Ra "ve'Nasnu la'Avi ha'Na'arah ... ". Resh Lakish actually
said there - that, since the Torah wrote "Na'arah" with a 'Hey', it is
referring specifically to a Na'arah (and not to a Ketanah).
(b) We cannot extrapolate from Resh Lakish's statement that, had the Torah
not written Na'arah with a 'Hey', we would have extended the Din of Motzi
Shem Ra to a Ketanah - because the Torah writes there that, if the husband's
accusation is verified, the girl must be stoned (and a Ketanah is not
(c) What we do extrapolate from it however - is that in places where the
Torah writes "Na'arah" without a 'Hey', it comes to include a Ketanah (which
Resh Lakish in the first Lashon learned from "Na'arah" of K'nas).