Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) ONE WHO CLAIMS THAT THE OPENING WAS OPEN

(a) (R. Elazar): A Chasan who claims that the Kalah's opening was open (i.e. she is not a virgin) is believed, and she becomes forbidden to him (we suspect that she had relations with someone after the engagement).
(b) Question: She should be permitted, because there is a double doubt!

1. Perhaps she had relations before the engagement.
2. Even if the relations were during the engagement, perhaps she was forced to have relations against her will.

(c) Answer#1: R. Elazar's law applies to the wife of a Kohen, who becomes forbidden to her husband even if she was forced.
(d) Answer#2: His law applies to a girl who became engaged (through her father) before the age of 3 (in which case relations definitely occurred during the engagement).
(e) Question: A Mishnah already teaches this (that if one says that something is forbidden to him, it becomes forbidden to him, even if he is contradicted)!

1. (Mishnah): One says to a woman, I engaged you to myself, and she denies it. He may not marry her relatives, but she may marry his relatives.

(f) Answer: In the Mishnah, he certainly knows the truth. R. Elazar has to teach his law, since we might have thought that a man cannot tell if the opening was already open.
(g) Question: Did R. Elazar really say this? (This contradicts a teaching of his)!

1. (R. Elazar): A woman only becomes forbidden to her husband through Kinuy (warning not to be in seclusion with a particular man) and seclusion, as in the episode (of David and Bas Sheva).
2. Question: This cannot be correct - there was no Kinuy and seclusion in that episode!

i. Also - She did not become forbidden!

3. Correction: R. Elazar meant, we see that a woman only becomes forbidden through Kinuy and seclusion *from* the episode, in which there was not Kinuy and seclusion, and she did not become forbidden.
4. The question remains; the claim of an open opening is not a case of Kinuy and seclusion!

(h) Counter-question: Do you think that R. Elazar says (she can become forbidden) only through Kinuy and seclusion, but not through witnesses?!
(i) Retraction: R. Elazar's other teaching says: A woman becomes forbidden through 2 witnesses; if there was Kinuy and seclusion, even 1 witness can make her forbidden.

1. The claim of an open opening is like 2 witnesses.

(a) Question: Why didn't she become forbidden in the episode?
(b) Answer#1: She was forced.

(c) Answer#2 (Rav Shmuel Bar Nachmani): Everyone who went to war in David's army wrote a document of divorce to his wife.

1. (Rav Yosef): "Take Arovasam" - these are things between man and wife (i.e. marriage, which is taken (removed) through divorce).

(a) (Abaye): Our Mishnah teaches R. Elazar's law!

1. 'A virgin is married on Wednesday' - but not Thursday - because the Chasan may calm down (and not come to Beis Din).

(b) If the concern is that he will pay a Kesuvah (which she does not deserve) - let him pay it! (It is his own fault for calming down.)
(c) Rather, we are concerned that he come to Beis Din, so we will rule that she is forbidden to him.
(d) Suggestion: Isn't it the case, that he claims that the opening was open?
(e) Rejection: No, he claims that there was no blood.
(f) (Rav Yehudah): One who claims that the opening was open is believed to deprive her of her Kesuvah.
(g) Question (Rav Yosef): A Mishnah teaches this!

1. (Mishnah): One who eats by his father-in-law in Yehudah without witnesses cannot later complain that his Kalah is not a virgin, since he goes in seclusion with her.
2. We infer, in Galil (where they do not go in seclusion) he may make such a claim.
3. If the claim is to make her forbidden on him - this should also apply in Yehudah!
4. Rather, the claim must be to deprive her of her Kesuvah.
5. Suggestion: He claims that the opening was open.
6. Rejection: No, the claim is that there was no blood.