Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Yehudah learns from the Pasuk "ve'Lo Hikum Yehoshua Ki Nishbe'u Lahem Nesi'ei ha'Eidah" - that a Neder that is made in public cannot be nullified.

(b)

1. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak learns from the Pasuk (regarding the Din of a Zavah) "Yamim Rabim" - that 'Rabim' pertains to three people (even in the language of the Rabbanan).
2. Rav Yitzchak learns from the word "ha'Eidah" - that the Pasuk in Yehoshua must be referring to ten people.

(c) Rava establishes the second Beraisa (which rules that even if the woman went to a Chacham after her betrothal, and had her Neder nullified, her Kidushin would not be valid) too, like Rebbi Meir, only the Tana is speaking about an important woman - in which case the husband does not want to land up in a situation where he will have to divorce her because of her Nedarim, and become forbidden to the other members of such an important family. Consequently, he betrothed her on the understanding that, should she be found to have Nedarim, the Kidushin will be null and void, so that his options to marry other members of her family will remain open to him.

(d) The Tana nevertheless writes in the Seifa (which presumably, also speaks about an important *man*) that if, in the equivalent case, the man had his Neder nullified, the Kidushin remains valid. There, we do not say that the woman does not want the Kidushin to be valid for the same reason - because of the principle that a woman prefers to be married at all costs, rather to remain single.

(a)

1. Abaye says - that a woman who marries a man who is as small as an ant - will nevertheless be proud to place her chair among the princesses.
2. Rav Papa says in this regard - that even if a man whose profession is combing wool calls a woman to come and sit at his gate, she will (because she wants to get married at all costs).

(b) Rav Ashi says - that she will even marry a man whose family is stigmatized, just in order to be married, and she will not even ask him for lentils.

(c) The last word however, goes to the Tana of the Beraisa - who says that a woman who marries a man of lowly status will use her marriage to him as an excuse to commit adultery, and then insist that he is the father of her children.

(a) The Tana adds three blemishes that lose a woman her Kesuvah to those that disqualify Kohanim from performing the Avodah: perspiration, a wart and foul breath. The Mishnah in Bechoros comments - that the three blemishes of an animal 'old, sick and sweaty' apply to a Kohen, even if they are only temporary.

(b) To reconcile this Mishnah with the Tana of the Beraisa (regarding perspiration), Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina restricts the Mishnah to perspiration that cannot be removed, whereas the Beraisa speaks about perspiration that can be removed through bathing (see Tosfos DH 'Kahn').

(c) Rav Ashi makes a distinction between 'Mezuham' (mentioned by an animal), and 'Zei'ah' (mentioned by a Kohen). According to him - 'Mezuham' cannot be removed by means of vinegar, whereas 'Zei'ah' can, which explains why the latter is not considered a blemish with regard to Kohanim, seeing as the vinegar is sufficiently effective to enable the Kohanim to perform the Avodah.

(d) He also permits a Kohen with foul breath to perform the Avodah, because he can place a pepper in his mouth for the duration of the Avodah. Nevertheless, a woman will lose her Kesuvah in both of these cases, because whereas these measures achieve their purpose in the case of the Kohen, who serves in the Beis-Mikdash for only a few days each year, they are not practical when it comes to a woman who lives with her husband on an ongoing basis.

(a) There is no difference between a Kohen and a woman with regard to ...

1. ... a wart with a hair inside - both are considered blemishes.
2. ... a large wart - which Raban Shimon ben Gamliel describes as being the size of an Italian Isar; both are considered blemishes.
3. ... a small wart - both are not considered blemishes.

(b) So Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina establishes the difference between them by a small wart on the forehead (which is worse, because it is visible). The problem with this answer is - why should a woman lose her Kesuvah on account of it, considering that her husband must have seen it before the Chupah and accepted it.

(c) Rav Papa resolves the problem - by establishing the Mishnah in a case when the wart is partially covered by her head-gear, in which case, it is sometimes hidden and sometimes revealed (and it seems that when her husband examined her, it was covered).

(d) Rav Chisda ...

1. ... heard from Rav Shilo that if a woman was bitten by a dog - and the bite left cracked scars, then that is considered a blemish, for which she will lose her Kesuvah.
2. ... learns from the Pasuk "*Ki Kolech Areiv* u'Mar'ech Naveh" - that a thick (man's) voice is also considered a blemish by a woman.

(a) When the Beraisa (quoted by Rebbi Nasan Bira'ah) says 'Bein Dadei Ishah Tefach' - it means that a Tefach is considered a blemish.

(b) Abaye describes - three finger-breadths as normal.

(c) Rebbi Nasan in a Beraisa says that if the breasts of a woman are larger than normal - it is considered a blemish. Rav Meyashe the grandson of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi quoting his grandfather, gave the Shiur as a Tefach larger than normal.

(d) To bear this out, we quote Rabah bar bar Chanah - who gave testimony that he once saw an Arab woman throwing her breasts over her shoulder and feeding her baby from behind.

(a) In time to come, says the Navi Yeshayah, the Nochrim will bring "all those who were born in Tzi'on" back to Yerushalayim - which Rav Meyashe the grandson of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi interprets to incorporate those who inquired after it.

(b) Abaye says - that one Talmid-Chacham from Eretz Yisrael is worth two from Bavel.

(c) Rava proves from Rebbi Yirmiyah (who originated from Bavel) that a Talmid-Chacham who went from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael is worth two Talmidei-Chachamim who originated from Eretz Yisrael - because Rebbi Yirmiyah, who was unable to understand what the Talmidei-Chachamim in Bavel were saying, was later able to refer to the Talmidei-Chachmim of Bavel as 'those foolish Babylonians'.

(a) Rebbi Meir says that if a woman who is claiming her Kesuvah because, due to blemishes, her Chasan is divorcing her ...

1. ... before the Chupah - the onus lies on the father to prove that his daughter *had no blemishes* before the betrothal (if she wishes to receive her Kesuvah).
2. ... after the Chupah - the onus lies on the husband to prove that she *had*.

(b) The Chachamim limit the husband's right to claim a false sale on account of the blemishes, only if the blemishes are hidden from view, but where the blemishes are visible, the fact that he did not protest until now, proves that he accepted them.

(c) They add that if the town has a bathhouse - he can never claim a false sale due to blemishes, because, before the Chupah, he would have had her examined by his female relatives, and would therefore have known about them.

8)

(a) According to Rebbi Meir, if a woman is claiming her Kesuvah because, due to blemishes, her Chasan is divorcing her *before the Chupah*, the onus lies on the father to prove that his daughter *had no blemishes* before the betrothal (if she wishes to receive her Kesuvah); *after the Chupah*, the onus lies on the husband to prove that she *did*. These two rulings appear to contradict each other - because the first ruling gives precedence to the Chezkas Mamon of the Chasan to the Chezkas ha'Guf of the woman (like Rebbi Yehoshua in the first Perek - on Daf 12b.); whereas the second ruling gives precedence to the Chezkas ha'Guf (like Raban Gamliel there).

(b) Rebbi Elazar says 'Tavra' - meaning that the Reisha and the Seifa do indeed clash (because Rebbi Elazar makes no distinction as to in whose domain the Safek occurred).

(c) So he reconciles the two statements - by establishing the Reisha like Rebbi Yehoshua and the Seifa like Raban Gamliel.

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua concedes that we go after Chezkas ha'Guf (even against a Chezkas Penuyah - see Tosfos DH 'Safek') - when there is no Chezkas Mamon to counter it .

(b) Rava learns this from the Beraisa regarding a Safek whether the white mark of Baheres preceded the two white hairs, or vice-versa. The Beheres needs to come first - for the Kohen to declare it Tamei.

(c) When there is a Safek which came first - the Tana Kama holds that the stricken man is Tamei (see Tosfos DH 'Safek').

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua says 'Keiheh', which, if it is spelt with a 'Kaf', means that it is as if the Baheres had become faint (and is therefore Tahor). Rebbi Moshe ha'Darshan spells the word with a 'Kuf' - and interprets it to mean that Rebbi Yehoshua ground his teeth (like one does when people do not want to listen to what one has to say).

(b) Rebbi Yehoshua's reason is - because of the Chezkas ha'Guf.

(a) Rava disagrees with Rebbi Elazar. His major bone of contention is - the fact that the latter establishes the Reisha like Rebbi Yehoshua and the Seifa like Raban Gamliel (as if Rebbi was in doubt as to whose opinion to follow), when, in the first Perek, we clearly ruled like Raban Gamliel.

(b) Rava therefore establishes both the Reisha and the Seifa like Raban Gamliel, despite the fact that the Tana does not go after Chezkas ha'Guf) - because even Raban Gamliel does not follow Chezkas ha'Guf if the source of the Safek occurred in the domain of the father ('Kahn Nimtze'u, Kahn Hayu'), as is the case here.

(c) The Mishnah in the first Perek however - speaks after they are married, in which case 'Kahn Nimtze'u, Kahn Hayu' informs us that the blemish did not exist before they married, giving her a Chezkas ha'Guf.

(d) In the Seifa of our Mishnah (when the husband discovers the blemish after they are married), the Tana requires the husband to prove that it was there *before* the betrothal - implying that if he brought proof that the blemish existed *after* the betrothal, we would follow the Chezkas ha'Guf (disproving Rava's principle 'Kahn Nimtze'u, Kahn Hayu').

(a) We offer the suggestion that if the husband only brings a proof that she had the blemish after the betrothal, there is a counter-Chazakah of 'Ein Adam Shoseh be'Kos Ela-im-Kein Bodko' - meaning that he would have discovered the blemish, and clearly married her in spite of it.

(b) We refute it however - on the grounds that, if that is so, why should we not say the same even if he managed to prove that she was blemished before the Eirusin.

(c) We conclude that when the husband only brings a proof that the blemish existed after the betrothal, there are two Chazakos against one - a Chezkas ha'Guf and the Chazakah that a man does not enter the Chupah before he has examined her (and married her in spite of the blemish).

(d) We ignore the Chazakah of 'Kahn Nimtze'u, Kahn Hayu' - because, even if the blemish did precede the betrothal, it will be overridden by the Chazakah that a man does not enter the Chupah before he has examined her (see also Tosfos DH 've'Chada' - Daf 76a.).

Next daf