Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan ben Gudgoda testified that a Chareshes whose father married her off, may later accept her own Get even after she grows-up, and that a Ketanah whose mother and brothers married her to a Kohen - is permitted to eat Terumah.

(b) He is referring to Terumah de'Rabbanan.

(c) From his switch from a Chareshes to a Ketanah - we infer that a Chareshes who is married to a Kohen is not permitted to eat Terumah.

(a) We ultimately ascribe the prohibition of a Chareshes to eat even Terumah de'Rabbanan - to the fear that a Cheresh Kohen might feed his wife who is a Pikachas Terumah d'Oraysa.

(b) We reject the initial answer, which ascribes it to the fear that a Cheresh might feed his wife who is a Chareshes, Terumah - because, in light of the principle 'Katan Ochel Neveilos Ein Beis-Din Metzuvin Lehafrisho', so what if he does?

(c) We initially prefer to ascribe it to a *Cheresh* feeding his wife who is a Chareshes, rather than to a *Pikei'ach* feeding his wife who is a Chareshes - because it is closer to a Cheresh feeding a Pikei'ach (one would not be likely to confuse a Cheresh feeding a Pikachas with a Pikei'ach feeding a Chareshes). So we decree a Cheresh feeding a Chareshes because of a Pikei'ach feeding a Chareshes, with whom people will confuse a Cheresh feeding a Pikachas.

(d) The Rabbanan did not issue a similar decree forbidding a grown-up Kohen to feed his wife who is a Ketanah, Terumah (on account of a Katan Kohen feeding his wife who is a Gedolah) - because, seeing as a Katan cannot marry, there is no reason to issue such a decree.

(a) Chazal ...

1. ... did not institute a Kesubah for a Chareshes - because then, nobody would want to marry her.
2. ... did however, institute it for a Ketanah - because, unlike a Chareshes, she remains a Ketanah for only a limited time, after which she is destined to grow-up.

(b) We infer from the Mishnah in Kesuvos, which teaches that a Mema'enes is not entitled to a Kesubah - that a Ketanah who does not make Miy'un, is entitled to a Kesubah.

(c) We learn from a Beraisa that the wife of a Cheresh and a Shoteh are not entitled to a Kesubah. The same Beraisa says that if a Pikei'ach writes a Kesubah even to the value of a thousand Zuz, for his wife who is a Chareshes or a Shotah, the Kesubah is valid. We can infer from this that if he did not write one, they would not be entitled to receive a Kesubah, either.

(d) We are not afraid that, if a Pikachas to a Cheresh does not receive a Kesubah, she will refrain from marrying - because of the principle 'Yoser mi'Mah she'ha'Ish Rotzeh Lisa, Ishah Rotzah Linasei' (her eagerness to get married will override all other considerations).

(a) Rav Malkiyo - found a wife for that Cheresh who lived in his vicinity and wrote her a Kesubah to the value of four hundred Zuz out of his own pocket.

(b) Rava explained - that if the Cheresh would have asked for a slave to serve him, would he not have been obligated to help him (seeing as the Mitzvah of Tzedakah entails helping the poor man, as far as one is able, according to his [the poor man's] needs)? How much more so if he needs a wife (who, as a help-mate, incorporates the dual need of a wife and a servant), thereby killing two birds with one stone.

(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Ashi Amar Shmuel says that one is not Chayav an Asham Taluy for committing adultery with the wife of a Cheresh - because a Cheresh, who does not have Da'as, cannot acquire at all min ha'Torah.

(b) Besides a Cheresh, Shoteh ve'Katan - the Terumah of someone who separates Terumah from someone else's crops (without his permission) and of a Nochri (even with permission) is not valid.

(c) A Cheresh, Shoteh ve'Katan cannot separate Terumah - because they do not have complete Da'as, says the Mishnah in Terumos.

(d) There is no proof from this Mishnah for Rebbi Chiya bar Ashi Amar Shmuel, because Shmuel holds like Rebbi Yitzchak Amar Rebbi Elazar - who says that the Terumah of a Cheresh does not go out to Chulin (because it is Safek Terumah).

(a) Even though Shmuel holds like Rebbi Elazar, one is not Chayav an Asham Taluy for committing adultery with the wife of a Cheresh - because he holds that, in order to bring an Asham Taluy, one requires 'Chatichah Achas mi'Sh'tei Chatichos' (one of two pieces).

(b) We learn 'Chatichah Achas mi'Sh'tei Chatichos' (with regard to an Asham Taluy) from the Pasuk "Achas mi'Kol *Mitzvos* Hashem". Rashi's two examples are: If a man, thinking that only his wife was in the house, had relations with her, but later discovered that there had been another married woman in the house too, and he does not know with which woman he had relations; or if he ate one of two pieces of what he thought was Shuman (Kasher fat), but later discovered that one of them was Cheilev (non-Kasher fat), and he doesn't know which one he ate.

(c) Rebbi Elazar says that someone who eats the Cheilev of a K'vi - is Chayav an Asham Taluy.

(d) We say that Shmuel holds like Rebbi Elazar - only as far as a Cheresh being Safek Koneh is concerned, but not regarding an Asham Taluy.

8)

(a) Rav Ashi suggests that Rebbi Elazar (who says that one is Chayav an Asham Taluy for committing adultery with the wife of a Cheresh) may hold that the mind of a Cheresh is not one hundred percent functional like that of a Pikei'ach.

1. The Safek (for which one brings an Asham Taluy) will then be - whether his non-functional mind has a certain degree of lucidity or not.
2. The other possible way of explaining Rebbi Elazar - is that generally, his mind is not lucid at all; he does however, have moments of normality (during which time his Kinyan would be valid).

(b) The difference between the two reasons is - that, according to the first reason, a born Cheresh *will be able to give a Get* (because of the S'vara 'just as he married using hints, so too, will he be able to divorce using of hints'); whereas according to the second reason, he will *not* (in case at the time when he married, his mind was lucid, but at the time when he gave the Get, it was not).

(c) The Rabbanan hold like the first side of Rebbi Elazar's She'eilah.

(a) The Torah writes "ve'Nasan be'Yadah ve'Shil'chah mi'Beiso". Tana de'Bei ...

1. ... Rebbi Yanai learns from "ve'Nasan be'Yadah" - that one may not divorce a Shotah who cannot even look after her Get.
2. ... Rebbi Yishmael learn from the words "ve'Shil'chah mi'Beiso" - that one may not divorce a Shotah who returns even after she has been sent away.

(b) When Rebbi Yitzchak says that min ha'Torah, a Shotah can be divorced, because she is no worse than a Pikachas against her will - he is referring to a Shotah who is at least able to look after her Get (who presumably, is synonymous with one who will not return once she is sent away) even though she is unable to look after herself.

(c) The reason for the Takanah prohibiting her divorce - is to protect her from abuse.

(d) A Shoteh however, even one who does have a limited Da'as, cannot divorce min ha'Torah. Rav Ashi proves this distinction from the Lashon of the Tana of our Mishnah who writes, with regard to a Chareshes, 'Nishtatis, Lo Yotzi' (mi'de'Rabbanan) - and with regard to a Cheresh, Lo Yotzi Olamis (mi'd'Oraysa).

(a) We are in a quandary - as to whether Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri in our Mishnah thinks that a Pikei'ach who became a Cheresh can obviously not divorce, and he fails to understand why a woman should be different, or whether it is obvious to him that a Pikachas who became a Chareshes can be divorced, and he cannot understand why a Cheresh should be different.

(b) We try to resolve the She'eilah from the wording of the Chachamim's response 'Eino Domeh ha'Ish ha'Megaresh la'Ishah ha'Misgareshes ... ' - implying that it is the fact that a Chareshes can be divorced that was obvious to Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri, and they are responding why a Cheresh should be different.

(c) We counter that proof from Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri's own response to them 'Af Zu Keyotzei Bah' - which implies that it is the Cheresh that is obvious to him.

(d) We conclude that Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri asked them to account for *their* opinion. *He* maintains - that just like a Cheresh cannot divorce, so can a Chareshes not be divorced either, and he asks the Chachamim to explain why, if a Chareshes can be divorced, why can a Cheresh not divorce? And that is precisely what they answered him.

(a) Rava extrapolates from Rebbi Yochanan ben Gudgoda, who stressed the fact that we do not need the woman's Da'as at all for divorce - that even if one were to give one's wife a Get, telling her that it was really a Sh'tar-Chov (a bill of debt), she would also be divorced.

(b) The witnesses would know that the Get was authentic - because he would have to have had to tell them what it really was before handing it to her.

(c) Rava needs to tell us this - because otherwise, we would have thought that, in spite of Rebbi Yochanan ben Gudgoda, the Get would be invalid, because by telling his wife that it was a Sh'tar-Chov, he was negating the Get.

(d) We know that he did *not* intend to negate the Get - because, if he did, he would have told the witnesses so. The reason that he told his wife that it was a Sh'tar-Chov was because he was embarrassed to tell her the truth.