Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

August 19, 2022 | 讻状讘 讘讗讘 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Ketubot 44

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 讙讘讬讗 诪讚诇讗 讻转讘 诇讛 讗讜住讬驻讬转 诇讱 诪讗讛 讗诪讗转讬诐 讗讞讜诇讬 讗讞讬诇转讬讛 诇砖注讘讜讚讗 拽诪讗

Here too, this is the reasoning for the ruling that she does not collect the additional one hundred dinars from the second stipulated time, as he did not write to her in the second marriage contract: I added one hundred dinars to your original marriage contract of two hundred dinars. Evidently, he did not add to the existing marriage contract. Rather, she forgave her rights to the first marriage contract, including the lien on his property from the date it was written, in order to accept the second marriage document.

讗诪专 诪专 讗讬 讘注讬讗 讘讛讗讬 讙讘讬讗 讗讬 讘注讬讗 讘讛讗讬 讙讘讬讗 诇讬诪讗 驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖谞讬 砖讟专讜转 讛讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讘讬讟诇 砖谞讬 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谉

搂 After clarifying Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion, the Gemara turns its attention to a more general issue, connected to his last statement. The Master, i.e., Rav Huna, said, as indicated in the above discussion, that if she wishes she can collect the sum specified in this marriage contract, and if she wishes she can collect the sum specified in that marriage contract. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that this opinion disagrees with that of Rav Na岣an? As Rav Na岣an said: With regard to two documents that pertain to the same issue and that are produced one after the other, e.g., a pair of documents that ascribe the transfer of ownership over a particular field to different times, the second, later document nullifies the first. Here too, the second marriage contract should negate the first one entirely.

诇讗讜 诪讬 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗讬 讗讜住讬祝 讘讬讛 讚讬拽诇讗 诇转讜住驻转 讻转讘讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讗 讗讜住讬祝 诇讛 诪讬讚讬

The Gemara refutes this suggestion: Was it not stated with regard to this halakha of Rav Na岣an that Rav Pappa said: And Rav Na岣an concedes that if he added so much as a palm tree in the second document, this shows that he wrote it as an addition, and therefore the second document does not cancel the first, but adds to its sum? Here too, he added something for her, as the sum of money specified in the second marriage contract is larger than that specified in the first.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖谞讬 砖讟专讜转 讛讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讘讬讟诇 砖谞讬 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谉 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗讬 讗讜住讬祝 讘讬讛 讚讬拽诇讗 诇转讜住驻转 讻转讘讬讛 驻砖讬讟讗 专讗砖讜谉 讘诪讻专 讜砖谞讬 讘诪转谞讛 诇讬驻讜转 讻讞讜 讛讜讗 讚讻转讘 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗

搂 Since the Gemara has mentioned the statement of Rav Na岣an, it discusses this matter itself: Rav Na岣an said: With regard to two documents that are produced one after the other, the second nullifies the first. Rav Pappa said: And Rav Na岣an concedes that if he added a palm tree to it, he wrote it as an addition. The Gemara analyzes this halakha in detail. It is obvious that if the first document was a document of a sale, and the second stated that the same field was given as a gift, the second document does not negate the first, as he wrote the additional document of a gift to improve the rights of the recipient due to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor.

讜讻诇 砖讻谉 专讗砖讜谉 讘诪转谞讛 讜砖谞讬 讘诪讻专 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘注诇 讞讜讘 讛讜讗 讚讻转讘 讻谉

And all the more so, this is the halakha if he wrote the first document as a gift and the second in the form of a sale, as we say it was due to the halakha of a creditor that he wrote it in this way. Out of concern that his creditor might come and snatch the field from the recipient and leave him without redress, he writes a document of sale for the recipient, so that he can return and collect this sum from him.

讗诇讗 讗讬 砖谞讬讛诐 讘诪讻专 砖谞讬讛诐 讘诪转谞讛 讘讬讟诇 砖谞讬 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 专驻专诐 讗诪专 讗讬诪专 讗讜讚讜讬讬 讗讜讚讬 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讗诪专 讗讬诪专 讗讞讜诇讬 讗讞诇讬讛 诇砖讬注讘讜讚讬讛

Rather, Rav Na岣an meant that if both of them were documents of sale or both of them were documents of gifts, the second nullifies the first. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this halakha? Amora鈥檌m argued over this matter. Rafram said: Say that the recipient of the field admitted to him that the first document was invalid, e.g., it was forged, and he therefore wrote a second, valid document. Rav A岣 said: Say that the recipient forgave him his lien from the date of the first document. Consequently, if the seller鈥檚 creditors collect this field as payment for the debt owed to them, which necessitates the seller reimbursing the buyer for the purchase price of the field, the buyer has a lien only on property owned by the seller from the time of the second document.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讜专讜注讬 住讛讚讬

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two explanations? The Gemara explains: The practical difference between them involves several cases. First, there is the issue of whether this serves to impair the reliability of the witnesses: According to Rafram, who assumes that the first document was of questionable validity, the witnesses who signed on that document are likewise under suspicion, and therefore their testimony and signature in other cases are of questionable value.

讜诇砖诇讜诪讬 驻讬专讬 讜诇讟住拽讗

And there is also a difference with regard to paying for the produce of the property between the dates specified in the two documents. According to Rafram, the transfer of ownership did not take place at the date specified in the first document. Consequently, the recipient of the field must compensate the original owner for the field鈥檚 produce that he consumed between the two dates. According to Rav A岣, the transfer of ownership took place at the time specified in the first document. And finally, there is a difference with regard to the payment of the land tax [taska]. If the first document was invalid, the previous owner must pay all taxes due during the period between the two documents.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 讚讻转讜讘讛 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪谞讛 诪讗转讬诐 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讜转讜住驻转 诪谉 讛谞讬砖讜讗讬谉

搂 The above discussion came in the wake of the dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Asi with regard to whether the lien on a husband鈥檚 property to ensure payment of his wife鈥檚 marriage contract applies from the time of betrothal or the time of marriage. The Gemara returns to that issue. What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter of a marriage contract? The Gemara responds: Come and hear the following ruling, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: The lien on his property with regard to the one hundred dinars or two hundred dinars that comprise the basic sum of a marriage contract applies from the time of the betrothal, and the lien with regard to the additional sum applies from the time of the marriage.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 诪谉 讛谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讜讛诇讻转讗 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 诪谉 讛谞讬砖讜讗讬谉

And the Rabbis say: The lien with regard to both this and that takes effect only from the time of the marriage. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that with regard to both this and that, the lien takes effect from the time of the marriage, in accordance with the majority opinion of the Rabbis.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讙讬讜专转 砖谞转讙讬讬专讛 讘转讛 注诪讛 讜讝讬谞转讛 讛专讬 讝讜 讘讞谞拽 讗讬谉 诇讛 诇讗 驻转讞 讘讬转 讛讗讘 讜诇讗 诪讗讛 住诇注

MISHNA: In the case of a female convert whose daughter converted with her and later, as a young woman, the daughter engaged in licentious sexual relations when she was betrothed, she is executed by strangulation, not stoning, the method of execution that would be employed had she been born Jewish. She has neither the halakha of being executed at the entrance to her father鈥檚 house, as in the case of a woman who was born Jewish who committed this crime, nor does she receive one hundred sela if her husband defamed her by falsely claiming that she had committed adultery. The reason is that the verses state 鈥淚srael鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:19, 21) with regard to these halakhot, indicating that these halakhot apply only to those born as Jews.

讛讬转讛 讛讜专转讛 砖诇讗 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讜诇讬讚转讛 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讛专讬 讝讜 讘住拽讬诇讛 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 诇讗 驻转讞 讘讬转 讛讗讘 讜诇讗 诪讗讛 住诇注 讛讬转讛 讛讜专转讛 讜诇讬讚转讛 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讛

However, if the daughter鈥檚 conception occurred when her mother was not yet in a state of sanctity, i.e., when she was still a gentile, but her birth took place when her mother was in a state of sanctity, as her mother converted during her pregnancy, this daughter is punishable by stoning if she committed adultery as a betrothed young woman. However, she has neither the halakha of being executed at the entrance to her father鈥檚 house, nor the right to one hundred sela if it turns out that her husband defamed her. If her conception and birth occurred when her mother was in a state of sanctity, i.e., after she converted, she is like a regular Jewish woman in all matters.

讬砖 诇讛 讗讘 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 驻转讞 讘讬转 讛讗讘 讬砖 诇讛 驻转讞 讘讬转 讛讗讘 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 讗讘 讛专讬 讝讜 讘住拽讬诇讛 诇讗 谞讗诪专 驻转讞 讘讬转 讗讘 讗诇讗 诇诪爪讜讛

If a young woman who is betrothed commits adultery and she has a father but does not have an entrance to her father鈥檚 house, i.e., if her father does not possess a house of his own, or if she has an entrance to her father鈥檚 house but does not have a father, as he has passed away, she is nevertheless executed via stoning, as the requirement that she is to be executed at the entrance to her father鈥檚 house is stated only for a mitzva but it is not an indispensable requirement.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诪转讛 诇专讘讜转 讛讜专转讛 砖诇讗 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讜诇讬讚转讛 讘拽讚讜砖讛

GEMARA: Since the rulings of the mishna are based on the principle that the special halakhot of a betrothed young woman who committed adultery apply only to a woman who was born Jewish, the Gemara questions the halakha that a woman who was conceived when her mother was a gentile but born when her mother was Jewish is executed via stoning: From where are these matters derived? Reish Lakish said: As the verse states: 鈥淎nd the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:21). The phrase 鈥渢hat she die鈥 is superfluous and comes to include one whose conception occurred when her mother was not yet in a state of sanctity but her birth took place when her mother was in a state of sanctity.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讬诇拽讗 谞诪讬 谞讬诇拽讬 讜诪讗讛 住诇注 谞诪讬 诇砖诇诐 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诪转讛 诇诪讬转讛 谞转专讘转讛 讜诇讗 诇拽谞住 讜讗讬诪讗 诇专讘讜转 讛讜专转讛 讜诇讬讚转讛 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讛讛讬讗 讬砖专讗诇讬转 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: If so, if the verse equates her to a regular Jewish woman, let her husband also be flogged if he defames her, and let him also pay the one hundred sela. The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淭hat she die鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:21), which indicates that she was included with regard to the death penalty but not with regard to the fine. The Gemara asks another question: Say that this verse comes to include only a girl whose conception and birth both occurred when her mother was in a state of sanctity. The Gemara responds: That girl is a full-fledged Jewish woman, and there is no difference between her and any other Jewish woman.

讜讗讬诪讗 诇专讘讜转 讛讜专转讛 讜诇讬讚转讛 砖诇讗 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讗诐 讻谉 讘讬砖专讗诇 诪讗讬 讗讛谞讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks a question from the opposite perspective: And say that the verse comes to include even one whose conception and birth both occurred when her mother was not in a state of sanctity. The Gemara answers: If so, the phrase 鈥渋n Israel鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:21), what purpose does it serve? This expression indicates that this halakha applies only to woman who was born Jewish.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讛诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 注诇 讛讬转讜诪讛 驻讟讜专 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞转谞讜 诇讗讘讬 讛谞注专讛 驻专讟 诇讝讜 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讗讘

Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina said: The defamer of an orphan girl is exempt, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young woman鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:19), which excludes this one who does not have a father.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讝讘讬讚讗 讜讗诐 诪讗谉 讬诪讗谉 讗讘讬讛 诇专讘讜转 讬转讜诪讛 诇拽谞住 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬

Rabbi Yosei bar Avin, and some say it was Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida, raised an objection to this from the following baraita: The verse states with regard to a seduced young woman: 鈥淚f her father utterly refuse [ma鈥檈n yima鈥檈n] to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins鈥 (Exodus 22:16). The double phrase 鈥渦tterly refuse [ma鈥檈n yima鈥檈n]鈥 comes to include an orphan for the fine, i.e., if she does not have a father and she herself refuses to marry her seducer, he must pay her the fine. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. This proves that the fact that the girl does not have a father does not exempt her seducer from paying the fine.

讛讜讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 诪驻专拽 诇讛 讘讘讗 注诇讬讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞转讬转诪讛

The Gemara states that Rabbi Yosei bar Avin raised the objection and he resolved it: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili refers to one who had intercourse with her and afterward was orphaned. Since she had a father when the incident occurred, he is obligated to pay her the fine.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 诪诪讗讬 诪讚转谞讬 讗诪讬 讘转讜诇转 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 讘转讜诇转 讙专讬诐

Rava said, in contrast to Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina, that one who defames an orphan is obligated to pay the fine. From where does he learn this? He learns this from the fact that Ami taught that the fine applies to one who defamed 鈥渁 virgin of Israel鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:19) and does not apply to one who defamed a virgin who is a convert.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讘讬砖专讗诇 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讙专讬诐 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讬砖专讗诇 讻讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 驻讟讜专 讛砖转讗 讘讬砖专讗诇 驻讟讜专 讘讙专讬诐 诪讬讘注讬讗

Rava elaborates: Granted, if you say that in a case like this, where a woman has no father, with regard to a woman who was born as a Jew, he is obligated to pay, that is why it was necessary for the verse to exclude converts. Every convert is considered like an orphan, as the familial connection with her parents is severed upon her conversion, and therefore it is as though she did not have a father. However, if you say that in a case like this involving a woman born as a Jew he is exempt, now if in a case involving a woman born as a Jew he is exempt, is it necessary to derive from a verse that converts are not entitled to the fine? The fact that there is such a derivation in the case of converts indicates that in the case of a Jewish-born orphan, the defamer must pay a fine.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 注诇 讛拽讟谞讛 驻讟讜专 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞转谞讜 诇讗讘讬 讛谞注专讛 谞注专讛 诪诇讗 讚讘专 讛讻转讜讘

Reish Lakish said: The defamer of a minor girl is exempt, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd give them to the father of the young woman [na鈥檃ra]鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:19). The word na鈥檃ra is written in full, with the letter heh at the end, whereas elsewhere in the Torah it is written without the heh. This indicates that the verse was speaking of a female who has fully attained the status of a young woman, rather than a minor who has not yet reached the state of being a young woman.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛 讛谞注专讛 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讟谞讛 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜讗诐 讗诪转 讛讬讛 讛讚讘专 讛讝讛 诇讗 谞诪爪讗讜 讘转讜诇讬诐 诇谞注专讛 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 讗转 讛谞注专讛 讗诇 驻转讞 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讜住拽诇讜讛 讜拽讟谞讛 诇讗讜 讘转 注讜谞砖讬谉 讛讬讗

Rav A岣 bar Abba strongly objects to this: Is it correct that the reason is that it is written with regard to her 鈥na鈥檃ra in full, but if that were not so, I would say that even a minor is included in this halakha? Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淏ut if this matter is true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in this young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the entrance to her father鈥檚 house and the men of her city shall stone her鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:20鈥21)? And since a minor is not eligible for punishment, this verse evidently is referring to a young woman, not a minor, and therefore there is no need for the aforementioned exposition.

讗诇讗 讻讗谉 谞注专讛 讛讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 谞注专 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讟谞讛 讘诪砖诪注

Rather, the verse should be understood as follows: Here, where it is evident that the Torah is referring to a young woman, it writes na鈥檃ra with a heh, from which it may be inferred that wherever it is stated na鈥檃ra without a heh at the end, it indicates that the verse is referring even to a minor girl. The term na鈥檃ra without a heh is referring to both a minor and a young woman and excludes only an adult woman.

转谞讬 砖讬诇讗 砖诇砖 诪讚讜转 讘谞注专讛 讘讗讜 诇讛 注讚讬诐 讘讘讬转 讞诪讬讛 砖讝讬谞转讛 讘讘讬转 讗讘讬讛

Sheila taught in a baraita: There are three different circumstances with regard to a young woman who has been defamed. If witnesses came to testify about her when she was in her father-in-law鈥檚 house, i.e., after she was married, and stated that she committed adultery in her father鈥檚 house, when she was betrothed,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Ketubot: 42-48 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

The fourth chapter continues discussing the maiden who is seduced or raped. We will learn what payments are made and...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 44: Tailor-made Ketubot

The woman's ketubah can function as a lien, fundamentally, on the man's property. In the case under discussion, of a...

Ketubot 44

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 44

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 讙讘讬讗 诪讚诇讗 讻转讘 诇讛 讗讜住讬驻讬转 诇讱 诪讗讛 讗诪讗转讬诐 讗讞讜诇讬 讗讞讬诇转讬讛 诇砖注讘讜讚讗 拽诪讗

Here too, this is the reasoning for the ruling that she does not collect the additional one hundred dinars from the second stipulated time, as he did not write to her in the second marriage contract: I added one hundred dinars to your original marriage contract of two hundred dinars. Evidently, he did not add to the existing marriage contract. Rather, she forgave her rights to the first marriage contract, including the lien on his property from the date it was written, in order to accept the second marriage document.

讗诪专 诪专 讗讬 讘注讬讗 讘讛讗讬 讙讘讬讗 讗讬 讘注讬讗 讘讛讗讬 讙讘讬讗 诇讬诪讗 驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖谞讬 砖讟专讜转 讛讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讘讬讟诇 砖谞讬 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谉

搂 After clarifying Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion, the Gemara turns its attention to a more general issue, connected to his last statement. The Master, i.e., Rav Huna, said, as indicated in the above discussion, that if she wishes she can collect the sum specified in this marriage contract, and if she wishes she can collect the sum specified in that marriage contract. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that this opinion disagrees with that of Rav Na岣an? As Rav Na岣an said: With regard to two documents that pertain to the same issue and that are produced one after the other, e.g., a pair of documents that ascribe the transfer of ownership over a particular field to different times, the second, later document nullifies the first. Here too, the second marriage contract should negate the first one entirely.

诇讗讜 诪讬 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗讬 讗讜住讬祝 讘讬讛 讚讬拽诇讗 诇转讜住驻转 讻转讘讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讗 讗讜住讬祝 诇讛 诪讬讚讬

The Gemara refutes this suggestion: Was it not stated with regard to this halakha of Rav Na岣an that Rav Pappa said: And Rav Na岣an concedes that if he added so much as a palm tree in the second document, this shows that he wrote it as an addition, and therefore the second document does not cancel the first, but adds to its sum? Here too, he added something for her, as the sum of money specified in the second marriage contract is larger than that specified in the first.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖谞讬 砖讟专讜转 讛讬讜爪讗讬谉 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讘讬讟诇 砖谞讬 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谉 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讚讗讬 讗讜住讬祝 讘讬讛 讚讬拽诇讗 诇转讜住驻转 讻转讘讬讛 驻砖讬讟讗 专讗砖讜谉 讘诪讻专 讜砖谞讬 讘诪转谞讛 诇讬驻讜转 讻讞讜 讛讜讗 讚讻转讘 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗

搂 Since the Gemara has mentioned the statement of Rav Na岣an, it discusses this matter itself: Rav Na岣an said: With regard to two documents that are produced one after the other, the second nullifies the first. Rav Pappa said: And Rav Na岣an concedes that if he added a palm tree to it, he wrote it as an addition. The Gemara analyzes this halakha in detail. It is obvious that if the first document was a document of a sale, and the second stated that the same field was given as a gift, the second document does not negate the first, as he wrote the additional document of a gift to improve the rights of the recipient due to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor.

讜讻诇 砖讻谉 专讗砖讜谉 讘诪转谞讛 讜砖谞讬 讘诪讻专 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘注诇 讞讜讘 讛讜讗 讚讻转讘 讻谉

And all the more so, this is the halakha if he wrote the first document as a gift and the second in the form of a sale, as we say it was due to the halakha of a creditor that he wrote it in this way. Out of concern that his creditor might come and snatch the field from the recipient and leave him without redress, he writes a document of sale for the recipient, so that he can return and collect this sum from him.

讗诇讗 讗讬 砖谞讬讛诐 讘诪讻专 砖谞讬讛诐 讘诪转谞讛 讘讬讟诇 砖谞讬 讗转 讛专讗砖讜谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 专驻专诐 讗诪专 讗讬诪专 讗讜讚讜讬讬 讗讜讚讬 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讗诪专 讗讬诪专 讗讞讜诇讬 讗讞诇讬讛 诇砖讬注讘讜讚讬讛

Rather, Rav Na岣an meant that if both of them were documents of sale or both of them were documents of gifts, the second nullifies the first. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this halakha? Amora鈥檌m argued over this matter. Rafram said: Say that the recipient of the field admitted to him that the first document was invalid, e.g., it was forged, and he therefore wrote a second, valid document. Rav A岣 said: Say that the recipient forgave him his lien from the date of the first document. Consequently, if the seller鈥檚 creditors collect this field as payment for the debt owed to them, which necessitates the seller reimbursing the buyer for the purchase price of the field, the buyer has a lien only on property owned by the seller from the time of the second document.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讜专讜注讬 住讛讚讬

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these two explanations? The Gemara explains: The practical difference between them involves several cases. First, there is the issue of whether this serves to impair the reliability of the witnesses: According to Rafram, who assumes that the first document was of questionable validity, the witnesses who signed on that document are likewise under suspicion, and therefore their testimony and signature in other cases are of questionable value.

讜诇砖诇讜诪讬 驻讬专讬 讜诇讟住拽讗

And there is also a difference with regard to paying for the produce of the property between the dates specified in the two documents. According to Rafram, the transfer of ownership did not take place at the date specified in the first document. Consequently, the recipient of the field must compensate the original owner for the field鈥檚 produce that he consumed between the two dates. According to Rav A岣, the transfer of ownership took place at the time specified in the first document. And finally, there is a difference with regard to the payment of the land tax [taska]. If the first document was invalid, the previous owner must pay all taxes due during the period between the two documents.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 讚讻转讜讘讛 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪谞讛 诪讗转讬诐 诪谉 讛讗讬专讜住讬谉 讜转讜住驻转 诪谉 讛谞讬砖讜讗讬谉

搂 The above discussion came in the wake of the dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Asi with regard to whether the lien on a husband鈥檚 property to ensure payment of his wife鈥檚 marriage contract applies from the time of betrothal or the time of marriage. The Gemara returns to that issue. What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter of a marriage contract? The Gemara responds: Come and hear the following ruling, as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: The lien on his property with regard to the one hundred dinars or two hundred dinars that comprise the basic sum of a marriage contract applies from the time of the betrothal, and the lien with regard to the additional sum applies from the time of the marriage.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 诪谉 讛谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讜讛诇讻转讗 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 诪谉 讛谞讬砖讜讗讬谉

And the Rabbis say: The lien with regard to both this and that takes effect only from the time of the marriage. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that with regard to both this and that, the lien takes effect from the time of the marriage, in accordance with the majority opinion of the Rabbis.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讙讬讜专转 砖谞转讙讬讬专讛 讘转讛 注诪讛 讜讝讬谞转讛 讛专讬 讝讜 讘讞谞拽 讗讬谉 诇讛 诇讗 驻转讞 讘讬转 讛讗讘 讜诇讗 诪讗讛 住诇注

MISHNA: In the case of a female convert whose daughter converted with her and later, as a young woman, the daughter engaged in licentious sexual relations when she was betrothed, she is executed by strangulation, not stoning, the method of execution that would be employed had she been born Jewish. She has neither the halakha of being executed at the entrance to her father鈥檚 house, as in the case of a woman who was born Jewish who committed this crime, nor does she receive one hundred sela if her husband defamed her by falsely claiming that she had committed adultery. The reason is that the verses state 鈥淚srael鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:19, 21) with regard to these halakhot, indicating that these halakhot apply only to those born as Jews.

讛讬转讛 讛讜专转讛 砖诇讗 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讜诇讬讚转讛 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讛专讬 讝讜 讘住拽讬诇讛 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 诇讗 驻转讞 讘讬转 讛讗讘 讜诇讗 诪讗讛 住诇注 讛讬转讛 讛讜专转讛 讜诇讬讚转讛 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讛

However, if the daughter鈥檚 conception occurred when her mother was not yet in a state of sanctity, i.e., when she was still a gentile, but her birth took place when her mother was in a state of sanctity, as her mother converted during her pregnancy, this daughter is punishable by stoning if she committed adultery as a betrothed young woman. However, she has neither the halakha of being executed at the entrance to her father鈥檚 house, nor the right to one hundred sela if it turns out that her husband defamed her. If her conception and birth occurred when her mother was in a state of sanctity, i.e., after she converted, she is like a regular Jewish woman in all matters.

讬砖 诇讛 讗讘 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 驻转讞 讘讬转 讛讗讘 讬砖 诇讛 驻转讞 讘讬转 讛讗讘 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 讗讘 讛专讬 讝讜 讘住拽讬诇讛 诇讗 谞讗诪专 驻转讞 讘讬转 讗讘 讗诇讗 诇诪爪讜讛

If a young woman who is betrothed commits adultery and she has a father but does not have an entrance to her father鈥檚 house, i.e., if her father does not possess a house of his own, or if she has an entrance to her father鈥檚 house but does not have a father, as he has passed away, she is nevertheless executed via stoning, as the requirement that she is to be executed at the entrance to her father鈥檚 house is stated only for a mitzva but it is not an indispensable requirement.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诪转讛 诇专讘讜转 讛讜专转讛 砖诇讗 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讜诇讬讚转讛 讘拽讚讜砖讛

GEMARA: Since the rulings of the mishna are based on the principle that the special halakhot of a betrothed young woman who committed adultery apply only to a woman who was born Jewish, the Gemara questions the halakha that a woman who was conceived when her mother was a gentile but born when her mother was Jewish is executed via stoning: From where are these matters derived? Reish Lakish said: As the verse states: 鈥淎nd the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:21). The phrase 鈥渢hat she die鈥 is superfluous and comes to include one whose conception occurred when her mother was not yet in a state of sanctity but her birth took place when her mother was in a state of sanctity.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讬诇拽讗 谞诪讬 谞讬诇拽讬 讜诪讗讛 住诇注 谞诪讬 诇砖诇诐 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诪转讛 诇诪讬转讛 谞转专讘转讛 讜诇讗 诇拽谞住 讜讗讬诪讗 诇专讘讜转 讛讜专转讛 讜诇讬讚转讛 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讛讛讬讗 讬砖专讗诇讬转 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: If so, if the verse equates her to a regular Jewish woman, let her husband also be flogged if he defames her, and let him also pay the one hundred sela. The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淭hat she die鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:21), which indicates that she was included with regard to the death penalty but not with regard to the fine. The Gemara asks another question: Say that this verse comes to include only a girl whose conception and birth both occurred when her mother was in a state of sanctity. The Gemara responds: That girl is a full-fledged Jewish woman, and there is no difference between her and any other Jewish woman.

讜讗讬诪讗 诇专讘讜转 讛讜专转讛 讜诇讬讚转讛 砖诇讗 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讗诐 讻谉 讘讬砖专讗诇 诪讗讬 讗讛谞讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks a question from the opposite perspective: And say that the verse comes to include even one whose conception and birth both occurred when her mother was not in a state of sanctity. The Gemara answers: If so, the phrase 鈥渋n Israel鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:21), what purpose does it serve? This expression indicates that this halakha applies only to woman who was born Jewish.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讛诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 注诇 讛讬转讜诪讛 驻讟讜专 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞转谞讜 诇讗讘讬 讛谞注专讛 驻专讟 诇讝讜 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 讗讘

Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina said: The defamer of an orphan girl is exempt, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young woman鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:19), which excludes this one who does not have a father.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讝讘讬讚讗 讜讗诐 诪讗谉 讬诪讗谉 讗讘讬讛 诇专讘讜转 讬转讜诪讛 诇拽谞住 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬

Rabbi Yosei bar Avin, and some say it was Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida, raised an objection to this from the following baraita: The verse states with regard to a seduced young woman: 鈥淚f her father utterly refuse [ma鈥檈n yima鈥檈n] to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins鈥 (Exodus 22:16). The double phrase 鈥渦tterly refuse [ma鈥檈n yima鈥檈n]鈥 comes to include an orphan for the fine, i.e., if she does not have a father and she herself refuses to marry her seducer, he must pay her the fine. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. This proves that the fact that the girl does not have a father does not exempt her seducer from paying the fine.

讛讜讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 诪驻专拽 诇讛 讘讘讗 注诇讬讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞转讬转诪讛

The Gemara states that Rabbi Yosei bar Avin raised the objection and he resolved it: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili refers to one who had intercourse with her and afterward was orphaned. Since she had a father when the incident occurred, he is obligated to pay her the fine.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 诪诪讗讬 诪讚转谞讬 讗诪讬 讘转讜诇转 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 讘转讜诇转 讙专讬诐

Rava said, in contrast to Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina, that one who defames an orphan is obligated to pay the fine. From where does he learn this? He learns this from the fact that Ami taught that the fine applies to one who defamed 鈥渁 virgin of Israel鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:19) and does not apply to one who defamed a virgin who is a convert.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讘讬砖专讗诇 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讙专讬诐 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘讬砖专讗诇 讻讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 驻讟讜专 讛砖转讗 讘讬砖专讗诇 驻讟讜专 讘讙专讬诐 诪讬讘注讬讗

Rava elaborates: Granted, if you say that in a case like this, where a woman has no father, with regard to a woman who was born as a Jew, he is obligated to pay, that is why it was necessary for the verse to exclude converts. Every convert is considered like an orphan, as the familial connection with her parents is severed upon her conversion, and therefore it is as though she did not have a father. However, if you say that in a case like this involving a woman born as a Jew he is exempt, now if in a case involving a woman born as a Jew he is exempt, is it necessary to derive from a verse that converts are not entitled to the fine? The fact that there is such a derivation in the case of converts indicates that in the case of a Jewish-born orphan, the defamer must pay a fine.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 注诇 讛拽讟谞讛 驻讟讜专 砖谞讗诪专 讜谞转谞讜 诇讗讘讬 讛谞注专讛 谞注专讛 诪诇讗 讚讘专 讛讻转讜讘

Reish Lakish said: The defamer of a minor girl is exempt, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd give them to the father of the young woman [na鈥檃ra]鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:19). The word na鈥檃ra is written in full, with the letter heh at the end, whereas elsewhere in the Torah it is written without the heh. This indicates that the verse was speaking of a female who has fully attained the status of a young woman, rather than a minor who has not yet reached the state of being a young woman.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛 讛谞注专讛 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讟谞讛 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讜讗诐 讗诪转 讛讬讛 讛讚讘专 讛讝讛 诇讗 谞诪爪讗讜 讘转讜诇讬诐 诇谞注专讛 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 讗转 讛谞注专讛 讗诇 驻转讞 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讜住拽诇讜讛 讜拽讟谞讛 诇讗讜 讘转 注讜谞砖讬谉 讛讬讗

Rav A岣 bar Abba strongly objects to this: Is it correct that the reason is that it is written with regard to her 鈥na鈥檃ra in full, but if that were not so, I would say that even a minor is included in this halakha? Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淏ut if this matter is true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in this young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the entrance to her father鈥檚 house and the men of her city shall stone her鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:20鈥21)? And since a minor is not eligible for punishment, this verse evidently is referring to a young woman, not a minor, and therefore there is no need for the aforementioned exposition.

讗诇讗 讻讗谉 谞注专讛 讛讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 谞注专 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讟谞讛 讘诪砖诪注

Rather, the verse should be understood as follows: Here, where it is evident that the Torah is referring to a young woman, it writes na鈥檃ra with a heh, from which it may be inferred that wherever it is stated na鈥檃ra without a heh at the end, it indicates that the verse is referring even to a minor girl. The term na鈥檃ra without a heh is referring to both a minor and a young woman and excludes only an adult woman.

转谞讬 砖讬诇讗 砖诇砖 诪讚讜转 讘谞注专讛 讘讗讜 诇讛 注讚讬诐 讘讘讬转 讞诪讬讛 砖讝讬谞转讛 讘讘讬转 讗讘讬讛

Sheila taught in a baraita: There are three different circumstances with regard to a young woman who has been defamed. If witnesses came to testify about her when she was in her father-in-law鈥檚 house, i.e., after she was married, and stated that she committed adultery in her father鈥檚 house, when she was betrothed,

Scroll To Top