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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 20, 2022 | ื›ืดื“ ื‘ืืœื•ืœ ืชืฉืคืดื‘

  • 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 76

Todayโ€™s daf is sponsored by Tina & Shalom Lamm “With hakarat hatov to Hashem for the blessing of a new granddaughter, Aluma Mindel. Mazal tov to the parents, Peninah and Eitan Kaplansky.”
After resolving a difficulty with Rava’s interpretation of the Mishna, Rav Ashi brings a third approach to resolving the contradiction between the two parts of the Mishna. Rav Yehuda brought a halacha of Shmuel regarding a case where they bartered a donkey for a cow and the donkey died and it is unclear at what point – before the donkey owner acquired the cow or after. Shmuel holds that the burden of proof rests on the owner of the donkey and that can be derived from our Mishna. What case from our Mishna? A question is raised on this explanation of Shmuel from a braita and as a result, Rami bar Yechezkel explains Shmuel differently. The burden of proof rests on the person in whose possession the donkey was (owner of the cow). This fits in perfectly with our Mishna (in father’s house, burden of proof is on the father; in husband’s house, burden of proof is on the husband).

ื—ื“ื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืชืจืชื™ ื•ื—ื“ื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืชืจืชื™ ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉืœื ืชืชืืจืก ื”ืขืžื“ ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ืขืœ ื—ื–ืงืชื• ืœื ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ื—ื–ืงื” ื“ืื™ืŸ ืื“ื ืฉื•ืชื” ื‘ื›ื•ืก ืืœื ืื ื›ืŸ ื‘ื•ื“ืงื• ื•ื”ืื™ ืจืื” ื•ื ื™ืคื™ื™ืก ื”ื•ื ืื“ืจื‘ื” ื—ื–ืงื” ืื™ืŸ ืื“ื ืžื™ืคื™ื™ืก ื‘ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืขืžื“ ืžืžื•ืŸ ืขืœ ื—ื–ืงืชื•

one presumption opposed by two others. And we do not say that one presumption is decisive when it is opposed by two. However, if the husband brings proof that that she was blemished before she was betrothed, we cannot say: Establish the state of the womanโ€™s body according to its presumptive status, since it has been established that the blemishes existed prior to the betrothal. What claim is there in the womanโ€™s favor? Only the presumption that a person does not drink from a cup unless he first examines it, and this man has undoubtedly seen her blemishes and been appeased. The Gemara responds: On the contrary, there is a presumption that a person does not become appeased with regard to blemishes, and therefore the money is established according to its presumptive status and do not obligate the husband to pay for the marriage contract.

ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉื ืžื ื” ืœืื‘ื ื‘ื™ื“ืš ื•ืกื™ืคื ืžื ื” ืœื™ ื‘ื™ื“ืš

Rav Ashi said that the contradiction between the first and last clauses of the mishna can be resolved in the following manner: The first clause is similar to a claim made by one who says: My father has one hundred dinars in your possession. When the blemishes were discovered he had not yet married her, and therefore the payment for the marriage contract would go to the womanโ€™s father, and not to her. And the latter clause is referring to a married woman who claims the marriage contract for herself, and it is therefore as though she says: I have one hundred dinars in your possession. The presumptive status of her body enables her to claim money only for herself, not on behalf of someone else, including her father.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื•ื™ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื‘ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ื”ืจืื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืœื‘ื ืขืžื” ืžื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ืฉืขืœ ื”ืื‘ ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ืจืื™ื” ื•ืืžืื™ ืžื ื” ืœื™ ื‘ื™ื“ืš ื”ื•ื

Rav Aแธฅa, son of Rav Avya, raised an objection to Rav Ashiโ€™s opinion from a baraita: Rabbi Meir concedes with regard to blemishes that naturally come with her from her fatherโ€™s house, and which did not develop after the marriage, that the father must bring proof that she did not have them before the betrothal, even if she was already married when they were discovered. But why does Rabbi Meir agree in that case? It is similar to the case where someone says: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, along with the presumptive status of her body; therefore, the burden of proof should be upon the husband.

ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ืชื™ืจืช ื™ืชื™ืจืช ืžืื™ ืจืื™ื” ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืจืื™ื” ื“ืจืื” ื•ื ื™ืคื™ื™ืก ื”ื•ื

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? With a case of a woman who has an additional toe. She was obviously born with that blemish. The Gemara is puzzled by this response: If the baraita is speaking about an additional toe, what proof could the father possibly bring to argue that the toe grew after the marriage? The Gemara answers: He can provide proof that the husband saw the extra toe before the betrothal and he became appeased about it.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืžื—ืœื™ืฃ ืคืจื” ื‘ื—ืžื•ืจ ื•ืžืฉืš ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจ ืืช ื”ืคืจื” ื•ืœื ื”ืกืคื™ืง ื‘ืขืœ ื”ืคืจื” ืœืžืฉื•ืš ืืช ื”ื—ืžื•ืจ ืขื“ ืฉืžืช ื”ื—ืžื•ืจ ืขืœ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจ ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ืจืื™ื” ืฉื”ื™ื” ื—ืžื•ืจื• ืงื™ื™ื ื‘ืฉืขืช ืžืฉื™ื›ืช ืคืจื”

ยง Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to one who exchanges a cow for a donkey, where the two animals involved in this transaction are not in the same location, one of the parties acquires one of the animals by means of pulling it, which transfers the other animal to the other party through acquisition by means of the exchange. And in this case the owner of the donkey pulled the cow, but before the owner of the cow could pull the donkey in turn, the donkey died. The owner of the cow claimed that the donkey died before the other one pulled the cow, which means the exchange transaction never took effect. In that case, the owner of the donkey must bring proof that his donkey was alive at the time when the cow was pulled. If he is unable to bring proof to this effect, the owner of the cow retains his animal.

ื•ืชื ื ืชื•ื ื ื›ืœื” ื”ื™ ื›ืœื” ืื™ืœื™ืžื

Rav Yehuda adds: And the tanna of the mishna also taught along similar lines with regard to a bride. Shmuel learned this halakha concerning an acquisition by means of barter from the case of a bride. The Gemara inquires: Which halakha involving a bride serves as the basis for the halakha that Shmuel taught? If we say

ื›ืœื” ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ืžื™ ื“ืžื™ ื”ืชื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืื‘ ืจืื™ื” ื•ืžืคื™ืง ื”ื›ื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจ ืจืื™ื” ื•ืžื•ืงื™ื

that his proof is from the halakha with regard to a bride who is still in her fatherโ€™s house, when the burden of proof is upon the father, is it comparable? There, the father brings proof and takes money away from the husband, whereas here, the owner of the donkey brings proof and maintains possession of the cow. Consequently, perhaps this case is different, and he should not be obliged to provide proof.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ื›ืœื” ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื—ืžื™ื” ื•ืื›ืชื™ ืœื ื“ืžื™ ื”ืชื ื‘ืขืœ ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืจืื™ื” ื•ืžืจืข ืœื™ื” ืœื—ื–ืงื™ื” ื“ืื‘ ื”ื›ื ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจ ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืจืื™ื” ื•ืžื•ืงื™ื ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื”

Rabbi Abba said: The proof is from the case of a bride in her father-in-lawโ€™s house, that is, one who has entered her husbandโ€™s domain. The Gemara raises a difficulty: And yet the cases are still not comparable: There, the husband brings proof and undermines the presumption that was in favor of the father, i.e., the presumptive status of the daughterโ€™s body, whereas here, the owner of the donkey brings proof and thereby maintains the presumptive status of the donkeyโ€™s body and consequently maintains the cow in his possession. Perhaps, therefore, he should not have to bring proof.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื›ืœื” ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ืœืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ

Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said: Shmuelโ€™s proof is from the halakha of a bride in her fatherโ€™s house, but with regard to the money used for betrothal, not for the marriage contract. The father must bring proof in order to retain the betrothal money.

ื•ืœื ืชื™ืžื ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœืื• ืœื˜ื™ื‘ื•ืขื™ืŸ ื ื™ืชื ื• ืืœื ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœื˜ื™ื‘ื•ืขื™ืŸ ื ื™ืชื ื• ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ ื•ื“ืื™ ืื‘ืœ ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ ื˜ืขื•ืช ืื™ ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืจืื™ื” ืื™ืŸ ืื™ ืœื ืœื

Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak explains: And do not say that this is only according to the one who says in general that betrothal money was not given with the understanding that it is to be lost, that is, the money was handed over only for the purpose of betrothal and it must be returned if the betrothal is canceled. Rather, say that this is even according to the one who says that in the case of betrothal money that was given to be lost, this applies only to a betrothal whose status is certain. According to this opinion, if a husband later divorces his wife or dies she does not have to restore the betrothal money. But with regard to a mistaken betrothal, if the father brings proof then yes, he may keep the money; if he does not bring proof he may not retain ownership of the betrothal money. This supports Shmuelโ€™s opinion that in an uncertain case the one in possession of the money must bring proof in order to retain his ownership.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืžื—ื˜ ืฉื ืžืฆืืช ื‘ืขื•ื‘ื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ื•ืกื•ืช ืžืฆื“ ืื—ื“ ื›ืฉืจื” ืžืฉื ื™ ืฆื“ื“ื™ืŸ ื˜ืจื™ืคื” ื ืžืฆื ืขืœื™ื” ืงื•ืจื˜ ื“ื ื‘ื™ื“ื•ืข ืฉื”ื•ื ืœืคื ื™ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืœื ื ืžืฆื ืขืœื™ื” ืงื•ืจื˜ ื“ื ื‘ื™ื“ื•ืข ืฉื”ื•ื ืœืื—ืจ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื”

The Gemara raises an objection to Shmuelโ€™s opinion with regard to presumptions from a baraita about a different issue: In a case of a needle that is found in the thick wall of a slaughtered animalโ€™s second stomach, if it has pierced the stomach from only one side, the animal is kosher. If the stomach is pierced from both sides, meaning that the needle pierced a hole completely through the wall of the stomach, it has the status of an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], and one is consequently prohibited to eat from it. Furthermore, if a drop of congealed blood is found on top of the needle, it is certain that the perforation was created before the slaughtering of the animal, and it is therefore a tereifa. If no drop of blood is found on it, it is certain that it occurred after the slaughtering, which means the animal is kosher.

ื”ื•ื’ืœื“ ืคื™ ื”ืžื›ื” ื‘ื™ื“ื•ืข ืฉืฉืœืฉื” ื™ืžื™ื ืงื•ื“ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืœื ื”ื•ื’ืœื“ ืคื™ ื”ืžื›ื” ื”ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืขืœื™ื• ื”ืจืื™ื” ื•ืื™ ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ื˜ื‘ื— ื“ืžื™ ื‘ืขื™ ืœืื™ืชื•ื™ื™ ืจืื™ื” ื•ืžืคื™ืง

If a scab appeared over the wound on that spot, it is certain that the incident happened three days before the slaughtering. The significance of this fact is that if the animal was sold to a butcher after this point in time, the butcher can claim that the transaction was performed in error, as he did not intend to purchase a tereifa animal. If a scab did not appear over the wound, and the seller claims that the animal was injured while in the possession of the butcher who purchased the animal, while the butcher claims that it was wounded when he bought it, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. And therefore, if the butcher had already given the money, he needs to bring proof and then he can take his money back from the seller.

ื•ืืžืื™ ื‘ืขืœ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœื™ื™ืชื™ ืจืื™ื” ื•ื ื•ืงื™ื

The Gemara returns to Shmuelโ€™s opinion: But why should this be the halakha? Let the owner of the animal, i.e., the seller, bring proof and establish the validity of the sale, just as the owner of the donkey must provide proof in order to maintain possession of the cow. Why is the burden of proof upon the butcher?

ื‘ื“ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ื˜ื‘ื—ื ื“ืžื™ ืžืื™ ืคืกืงื

The Gemara answers: This baraita is referring to a case when where the butcher had not yet given the money, but was going to pay at a later time. Therefore, the seller is the one claiming money from the butcher, and he must offer proof in order for the transaction to be upheld. The Gemara poses a question: Why was it stated without qualification? The wording of the baraita implies that either side must bring proof. This baraita appears to refute the opinion of Shmuel.

ืืœื ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื™ื—ื–ืงืืœ ืืžืจ ืœื ืชืฆื™ื™ืชื™ื ื”ื• ืœื”ื ื™ ื›ืœืœื™ ื“ื›ื™ื™ืœ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื—ื™ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื›ืœ ืฉื ื•ืœื“ ืกืคืง ื‘ืจืฉื•ืชื• ืขืœื™ื• ื”ืจืื™ื” ื•ืชื ื ืชื•ื ื ื›ืœื”

Rather, when Rami bar Yeแธฅezkel came, he said: Pay no attention to those rules formulated by my brother Yehuda in the name of Shmuel. In actuality, this is what Shmuel said: In whosesoeverโ€™s domain the uncertainty came into being, the burden of proof rests upon him. In the case of the exchange of the cow for the donkey, it is the owner of the cow who must provide proof. And the tanna of the mishna also taught along similar lines with regard to a bride. If the bride was in her fatherโ€™s domain he must provide proof; if she was living with her husband the burden of proof is upon him.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืžื—ื˜ ืฉื ืžืฆืืช ื‘ืขื•ื‘ื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ื•ืกื•ืช ื›ื•ืณ ื•ืื™ ื“ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ื˜ื‘ื— ื“ืžื™ ื‘ืขืœ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื‘ืขื™ ืœืื™ืชื•ื™ื™ ืจืื™ื” ื•ืžืคื™ืง ื•ืืžืื™ ืกืคื™ืงื ื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ื˜ื‘ื— ืื™ืชื™ื™ืœื™ื“

The Gemara raises an objection: A needle that is found in the thick wall of an animalโ€™s second stomachโ€ฆthe burden of proof rests upon the claimant. And if the butcher had not already given the money, the owner of the animal needs to bring proof, and only then can he take his money. The Gemara asks: But why? The uncertainty was formed in the butcherโ€™s possession. According to Rami Bar Yeแธฅezkelโ€™s opinion, it should be the butcherโ€™s responsibility to provide proof.

ื“ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ื˜ื‘ื— ื“ืžื™ ื•ืžืื™ ืคืกืงื ืกืชืžื ื“ืžื™ืœืชื ื›ืžื” ื“ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ื—ื™ื•ืชื

The Gemara answers: This baraita is referring to a case where the butcher had already given the money. Since the butcher is the one demanding money from the seller, he must provide proof. The Gemara poses a question: But why was it stated without qualification? How is it known that the tanna was referring to this particular case? The Gemara answers: The ordinary situation is that as long as a person has not given money, the other person will not give him the animal. It can therefore be assumed that the butcher paid for the animal before he was allowed to slaughter it, which means it is he who is claiming the return of the money.

ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ืกืชืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ

ยง The mishna teaches: And the Rabbis say: In what case is this statement said? With regard to hidden blemishes. But he cannot claim to have been unaware of visible blemishes. Rav Naแธฅman said:

  • 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: 70-76 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about a husband or wife that takes vows that affect their spouse and the consequences...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 76: The Case of the Extra Toe

More on the blemishes. Noting that people with blemishes did indeed get married - even when there was knowledge of...

Ketubot 76

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 76

ื—ื“ื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืชืจืชื™ ื•ื—ื“ื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืชืจืชื™ ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉืœื ืชืชืืจืก ื”ืขืžื“ ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ืขืœ ื—ื–ืงืชื• ืœื ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ื—ื–ืงื” ื“ืื™ืŸ ืื“ื ืฉื•ืชื” ื‘ื›ื•ืก ืืœื ืื ื›ืŸ ื‘ื•ื“ืงื• ื•ื”ืื™ ืจืื” ื•ื ื™ืคื™ื™ืก ื”ื•ื ืื“ืจื‘ื” ื—ื–ืงื” ืื™ืŸ ืื“ื ืžื™ืคื™ื™ืก ื‘ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืขืžื“ ืžืžื•ืŸ ืขืœ ื—ื–ืงืชื•

one presumption opposed by two others. And we do not say that one presumption is decisive when it is opposed by two. However, if the husband brings proof that that she was blemished before she was betrothed, we cannot say: Establish the state of the womanโ€™s body according to its presumptive status, since it has been established that the blemishes existed prior to the betrothal. What claim is there in the womanโ€™s favor? Only the presumption that a person does not drink from a cup unless he first examines it, and this man has undoubtedly seen her blemishes and been appeased. The Gemara responds: On the contrary, there is a presumption that a person does not become appeased with regard to blemishes, and therefore the money is established according to its presumptive status and do not obligate the husband to pay for the marriage contract.

ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉื ืžื ื” ืœืื‘ื ื‘ื™ื“ืš ื•ืกื™ืคื ืžื ื” ืœื™ ื‘ื™ื“ืš

Rav Ashi said that the contradiction between the first and last clauses of the mishna can be resolved in the following manner: The first clause is similar to a claim made by one who says: My father has one hundred dinars in your possession. When the blemishes were discovered he had not yet married her, and therefore the payment for the marriage contract would go to the womanโ€™s father, and not to her. And the latter clause is referring to a married woman who claims the marriage contract for herself, and it is therefore as though she says: I have one hundred dinars in your possession. The presumptive status of her body enables her to claim money only for herself, not on behalf of someone else, including her father.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืื•ื™ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื‘ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ื”ืจืื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืœื‘ื ืขืžื” ืžื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ืฉืขืœ ื”ืื‘ ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ืจืื™ื” ื•ืืžืื™ ืžื ื” ืœื™ ื‘ื™ื“ืš ื”ื•ื

Rav Aแธฅa, son of Rav Avya, raised an objection to Rav Ashiโ€™s opinion from a baraita: Rabbi Meir concedes with regard to blemishes that naturally come with her from her fatherโ€™s house, and which did not develop after the marriage, that the father must bring proof that she did not have them before the betrothal, even if she was already married when they were discovered. But why does Rabbi Meir agree in that case? It is similar to the case where someone says: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, along with the presumptive status of her body; therefore, the burden of proof should be upon the husband.

ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ืชื™ืจืช ื™ืชื™ืจืช ืžืื™ ืจืื™ื” ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืจืื™ื” ื“ืจืื” ื•ื ื™ืคื™ื™ืก ื”ื•ื

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? With a case of a woman who has an additional toe. She was obviously born with that blemish. The Gemara is puzzled by this response: If the baraita is speaking about an additional toe, what proof could the father possibly bring to argue that the toe grew after the marriage? The Gemara answers: He can provide proof that the husband saw the extra toe before the betrothal and he became appeased about it.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืžื—ืœื™ืฃ ืคืจื” ื‘ื—ืžื•ืจ ื•ืžืฉืš ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจ ืืช ื”ืคืจื” ื•ืœื ื”ืกืคื™ืง ื‘ืขืœ ื”ืคืจื” ืœืžืฉื•ืš ืืช ื”ื—ืžื•ืจ ืขื“ ืฉืžืช ื”ื—ืžื•ืจ ืขืœ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจ ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ืจืื™ื” ืฉื”ื™ื” ื—ืžื•ืจื• ืงื™ื™ื ื‘ืฉืขืช ืžืฉื™ื›ืช ืคืจื”

ยง Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: With regard to one who exchanges a cow for a donkey, where the two animals involved in this transaction are not in the same location, one of the parties acquires one of the animals by means of pulling it, which transfers the other animal to the other party through acquisition by means of the exchange. And in this case the owner of the donkey pulled the cow, but before the owner of the cow could pull the donkey in turn, the donkey died. The owner of the cow claimed that the donkey died before the other one pulled the cow, which means the exchange transaction never took effect. In that case, the owner of the donkey must bring proof that his donkey was alive at the time when the cow was pulled. If he is unable to bring proof to this effect, the owner of the cow retains his animal.

ื•ืชื ื ืชื•ื ื ื›ืœื” ื”ื™ ื›ืœื” ืื™ืœื™ืžื

Rav Yehuda adds: And the tanna of the mishna also taught along similar lines with regard to a bride. Shmuel learned this halakha concerning an acquisition by means of barter from the case of a bride. The Gemara inquires: Which halakha involving a bride serves as the basis for the halakha that Shmuel taught? If we say

ื›ืœื” ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ืžื™ ื“ืžื™ ื”ืชื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืื‘ ืจืื™ื” ื•ืžืคื™ืง ื”ื›ื ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจ ืจืื™ื” ื•ืžื•ืงื™ื

that his proof is from the halakha with regard to a bride who is still in her fatherโ€™s house, when the burden of proof is upon the father, is it comparable? There, the father brings proof and takes money away from the husband, whereas here, the owner of the donkey brings proof and maintains possession of the cow. Consequently, perhaps this case is different, and he should not be obliged to provide proof.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ื›ืœื” ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื—ืžื™ื” ื•ืื›ืชื™ ืœื ื“ืžื™ ื”ืชื ื‘ืขืœ ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืจืื™ื” ื•ืžืจืข ืœื™ื” ืœื—ื–ืงื™ื” ื“ืื‘ ื”ื›ื ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื—ืžื•ืจ ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืจืื™ื” ื•ืžื•ืงื™ื ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ื‘ื™ื“ื™ื”

Rabbi Abba said: The proof is from the case of a bride in her father-in-lawโ€™s house, that is, one who has entered her husbandโ€™s domain. The Gemara raises a difficulty: And yet the cases are still not comparable: There, the husband brings proof and undermines the presumption that was in favor of the father, i.e., the presumptive status of the daughterโ€™s body, whereas here, the owner of the donkey brings proof and thereby maintains the presumptive status of the donkeyโ€™s body and consequently maintains the cow in his possession. Perhaps, therefore, he should not have to bring proof.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื›ืœื” ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ืœืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ

Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said: Shmuelโ€™s proof is from the halakha of a bride in her fatherโ€™s house, but with regard to the money used for betrothal, not for the marriage contract. The father must bring proof in order to retain the betrothal money.

ื•ืœื ืชื™ืžื ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœืื• ืœื˜ื™ื‘ื•ืขื™ืŸ ื ื™ืชื ื• ืืœื ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืœื˜ื™ื‘ื•ืขื™ืŸ ื ื™ืชื ื• ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ ื•ื“ืื™ ืื‘ืœ ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉื™ ื˜ืขื•ืช ืื™ ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ืจืื™ื” ืื™ืŸ ืื™ ืœื ืœื

Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak explains: And do not say that this is only according to the one who says in general that betrothal money was not given with the understanding that it is to be lost, that is, the money was handed over only for the purpose of betrothal and it must be returned if the betrothal is canceled. Rather, say that this is even according to the one who says that in the case of betrothal money that was given to be lost, this applies only to a betrothal whose status is certain. According to this opinion, if a husband later divorces his wife or dies she does not have to restore the betrothal money. But with regard to a mistaken betrothal, if the father brings proof then yes, he may keep the money; if he does not bring proof he may not retain ownership of the betrothal money. This supports Shmuelโ€™s opinion that in an uncertain case the one in possession of the money must bring proof in order to retain his ownership.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืžื—ื˜ ืฉื ืžืฆืืช ื‘ืขื•ื‘ื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ื•ืกื•ืช ืžืฆื“ ืื—ื“ ื›ืฉืจื” ืžืฉื ื™ ืฆื“ื“ื™ืŸ ื˜ืจื™ืคื” ื ืžืฆื ืขืœื™ื” ืงื•ืจื˜ ื“ื ื‘ื™ื“ื•ืข ืฉื”ื•ื ืœืคื ื™ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืœื ื ืžืฆื ืขืœื™ื” ืงื•ืจื˜ ื“ื ื‘ื™ื“ื•ืข ืฉื”ื•ื ืœืื—ืจ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื”

The Gemara raises an objection to Shmuelโ€™s opinion with regard to presumptions from a baraita about a different issue: In a case of a needle that is found in the thick wall of a slaughtered animalโ€™s second stomach, if it has pierced the stomach from only one side, the animal is kosher. If the stomach is pierced from both sides, meaning that the needle pierced a hole completely through the wall of the stomach, it has the status of an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], and one is consequently prohibited to eat from it. Furthermore, if a drop of congealed blood is found on top of the needle, it is certain that the perforation was created before the slaughtering of the animal, and it is therefore a tereifa. If no drop of blood is found on it, it is certain that it occurred after the slaughtering, which means the animal is kosher.

ื”ื•ื’ืœื“ ืคื™ ื”ืžื›ื” ื‘ื™ื“ื•ืข ืฉืฉืœืฉื” ื™ืžื™ื ืงื•ื“ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืœื ื”ื•ื’ืœื“ ืคื™ ื”ืžื›ื” ื”ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืขืœื™ื• ื”ืจืื™ื” ื•ืื™ ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ื˜ื‘ื— ื“ืžื™ ื‘ืขื™ ืœืื™ืชื•ื™ื™ ืจืื™ื” ื•ืžืคื™ืง

If a scab appeared over the wound on that spot, it is certain that the incident happened three days before the slaughtering. The significance of this fact is that if the animal was sold to a butcher after this point in time, the butcher can claim that the transaction was performed in error, as he did not intend to purchase a tereifa animal. If a scab did not appear over the wound, and the seller claims that the animal was injured while in the possession of the butcher who purchased the animal, while the butcher claims that it was wounded when he bought it, the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. And therefore, if the butcher had already given the money, he needs to bring proof and then he can take his money back from the seller.

ื•ืืžืื™ ื‘ืขืœ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœื™ื™ืชื™ ืจืื™ื” ื•ื ื•ืงื™ื

The Gemara returns to Shmuelโ€™s opinion: But why should this be the halakha? Let the owner of the animal, i.e., the seller, bring proof and establish the validity of the sale, just as the owner of the donkey must provide proof in order to maintain possession of the cow. Why is the burden of proof upon the butcher?

ื‘ื“ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ื˜ื‘ื—ื ื“ืžื™ ืžืื™ ืคืกืงื

The Gemara answers: This baraita is referring to a case when where the butcher had not yet given the money, but was going to pay at a later time. Therefore, the seller is the one claiming money from the butcher, and he must offer proof in order for the transaction to be upheld. The Gemara poses a question: Why was it stated without qualification? The wording of the baraita implies that either side must bring proof. This baraita appears to refute the opinion of Shmuel.

ืืœื ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื™ื—ื–ืงืืœ ืืžืจ ืœื ืชืฆื™ื™ืชื™ื ื”ื• ืœื”ื ื™ ื›ืœืœื™ ื“ื›ื™ื™ืœ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื—ื™ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื›ืœ ืฉื ื•ืœื“ ืกืคืง ื‘ืจืฉื•ืชื• ืขืœื™ื• ื”ืจืื™ื” ื•ืชื ื ืชื•ื ื ื›ืœื”

Rather, when Rami bar Yeแธฅezkel came, he said: Pay no attention to those rules formulated by my brother Yehuda in the name of Shmuel. In actuality, this is what Shmuel said: In whosesoeverโ€™s domain the uncertainty came into being, the burden of proof rests upon him. In the case of the exchange of the cow for the donkey, it is the owner of the cow who must provide proof. And the tanna of the mishna also taught along similar lines with regard to a bride. If the bride was in her fatherโ€™s domain he must provide proof; if she was living with her husband the burden of proof is upon him.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืžื—ื˜ ืฉื ืžืฆืืช ื‘ืขื•ื‘ื™ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ื•ืกื•ืช ื›ื•ืณ ื•ืื™ ื“ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ื˜ื‘ื— ื“ืžื™ ื‘ืขืœ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื‘ืขื™ ืœืื™ืชื•ื™ื™ ืจืื™ื” ื•ืžืคื™ืง ื•ืืžืื™ ืกืคื™ืงื ื‘ืจืฉื•ืช ื˜ื‘ื— ืื™ืชื™ื™ืœื™ื“

The Gemara raises an objection: A needle that is found in the thick wall of an animalโ€™s second stomachโ€ฆthe burden of proof rests upon the claimant. And if the butcher had not already given the money, the owner of the animal needs to bring proof, and only then can he take his money. The Gemara asks: But why? The uncertainty was formed in the butcherโ€™s possession. According to Rami Bar Yeแธฅezkelโ€™s opinion, it should be the butcherโ€™s responsibility to provide proof.

ื“ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ื˜ื‘ื— ื“ืžื™ ื•ืžืื™ ืคืกืงื ืกืชืžื ื“ืžื™ืœืชื ื›ืžื” ื“ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ื–ื•ื–ื™ ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ื—ื™ื•ืชื

The Gemara answers: This baraita is referring to a case where the butcher had already given the money. Since the butcher is the one demanding money from the seller, he must provide proof. The Gemara poses a question: But why was it stated without qualification? How is it known that the tanna was referring to this particular case? The Gemara answers: The ordinary situation is that as long as a person has not given money, the other person will not give him the animal. It can therefore be assumed that the butcher paid for the animal before he was allowed to slaughter it, which means it is he who is claiming the return of the money.

ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ืกืชืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ

ยง The mishna teaches: And the Rabbis say: In what case is this statement said? With regard to hidden blemishes. But he cannot claim to have been unaware of visible blemishes. Rav Naแธฅman said:

Scroll To Top