Previous daf

1) 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 Besulim.

2)

(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 converted.

(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 recant ...

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 having recanted.
2. ... even after she grows-up - because if she does recant immediately, she cannot do so later.

(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.

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.
2. ... 've'ha'Katan she'Ba al ha'Gedolah' - a boy under nine who had relations with a girl over 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 hundred Zuz).

(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.

5) 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.

6)

(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.

(c)

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 betrothal.

(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.