ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 76
KESUVOS 75-80 - dedicated by Mrs. Rita Grunberger of Queens, N.Y., in loving
memory of her husband, Reb Yitzchok Yakov ben Eliyahu Grunberger. Mr Irving
Grunberger helped many people quietly in an unassuming manner and is sorely
missed by all who knew him. His Yahrzeit is 10 Sivan.
(a) Rav Ashi, like Rava establishes the entire Mishnah like Raban Gamliel.
When he establishes the Reisha by 'Manah le'Aba be'Yadcha' - he means that,
seeing as the Reisha speaks whilst the girl is an Arusah, she is still in
her father's domain, in which case, it is the father who is claiming the
Kesuvah, and even Raban Gamliel will agree that the Chezkas ha'Guf of the
daughter will not help her father's claim.
(b) Despite the fact that our Mishnah follows the opinion of Raban Gamliel,
Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa (commenting on the Seifa of our Mishnah - that if
the Safek occurred after they were married, the onus lies on the husband
... ) nevertheless states that if the blemishes were fitting to come from
her father's house', the onus shifts to the father - because he is referring
(not to any blemishes that are *likely* to have occurred there) but to
blemishes such as an extra finger, that can only have occurred from birth.
(c) The proof that the father is then expected to bring is - that the
husband knew about the blemish and was willing to forego it.
(a) If someone swapped a cow for a donkey, and the owner of the donkey made
a Meshichah on the cow - neither of them is permitted to retract (even
before the owner of cow makes a Kinyan on the donkey), because the Kinyan
that one of them makes on one of the objects, completes the transaction.
(b) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel speaks about a case when the owner of the donkey
made a Kinyan on the cow, but, before the owner of the cow was able to take
the donkey, it died. Now they are both arguing over when it died. If it died
before the Kinyan over the cow took place, then the transaction is void; the
donkey died in the domain of the original owner and it is he who must bear
his loss; whereas if it died afterwards, then the transaction is valid, and
it is the original owner of the cow who must bear the loss.
(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules - that it is the owner of the donkey who
must prove that it was alive at the time when the Kinyan was made, otherwise
the sale is void and he bears the loss of his donkey.
(d) He proved this from one of the cases of Kalah in our Mishnah.
(a) We suggest that the source of Shmuel (who holds that it is the owner of
the donkey who must prove that it was alive at the time when the Kinyan was
made) is the Reisha of our Mishnah (where the blemishes were discovered
whilst they were still betrothed) - which he establishes like Rebbi Yehoshua
(in accordance with Rebbi Elazar explanation), who holds that, irrespective
of where the Safek is discovered, the father cannot claim the Kesuvah
without proof. Here too, the owner of the donkey cannot establish ownership
of the cow without proof that the donkey died after the transaction.
(b) We reject this suggestion however - on the grounds that Rebbi Yehoshua
is talking about the father extracting the money from the husband, whereas
here, Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel is talking about retaining the cow that he
already has (which would not need to be proven).
(c) So we suggest that his source lies in the Seifa (when the blemishes are
discovered after they are married, and, like in our case, where the husband
comes to establish his money in his own possession. In that case - he will
hold like Raban Gamliel (still according to the explanation of Rebbi
Elazar), in whose opinion the husband has to prove that the blemishes
occurred before the betrothal, even if the Safek occurred before they were
married. And if there (where the husband is coming to establish *his own
money* in his possession), the onus lies on him to bring the proof, how much
more so in Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's case, where he is coming to establish
ownership over *someone else's cow*.
(d) We refute this suggestion too - on the grounds that in the case of our
Mishnah, the husband (in spite of his Chezkas Mamon) has to bring the proof
to counter the woman's Chezkas ha'Guf, whereas in the case of Rav Yehudah
Amar Shmuel, not only does he not need to counter a Chezkas ha'Guf, but he
even has the Chezkas ha'Guf of his donkey (which was last known to be alive)
on his side together with the Chezkas Mamon.
(a) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak finally reinstates the first suggestion,
establishing Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's proof from the Reisha, according to
Rebbi Elazar's interpretation, and according to Rebbi Yehoshua. We dispense
with the Kashya that we initially asked, that here the owner of the donkey
establishes what he has, whereas there the father comes to extract the
Kesuvah from the Chasan - by changing the case in the Mishnah to, when the
father is claiming, not the Kesuvah, but the money of the Kidushin (which he
(b) In the event that the Chasan dies - some hold that the money of the
Kidushin must be returned.
(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel could well hold like that opinion - because that
is only when the husband dies, and the Kidushin is certainly broken, but not
by Kidushei Ta'us, where the break-up of the Kidushin is only a Safek. There
everyone will agree that the father may retain the money.
(d) Rav Yehudah establishes Shmuel like Rebbi Yehoshua, even though he
specifically ruled in the first Perek like Raban Gamliel. We could have
asked this Kashya on Rav Yehudah. However - seeing as we eventually prove
Rav Yehudah wrong anyway, we do not bother to ask it.
(a) A needle that is found in the Beis ha'Kosos (part of the stomach) of a
Shechted animal renders the animal T'reifah - when it has pierced the
double-layer of skin that surrounds the Beis-ha'Kosos, but not as long as it
has only pierced one of the layers.
(b) If, after he Shechts the animal, he discovers that a crust has formed
over the surface of the wound, we know that it occurred at least three days
before the Shechitah; if not, it is a Safek, says the Beraisa. Assuming that
the butcher bought the animal live from the wholesaler - the
ramifications of this statement are that, if he bought it within three days
of the Shechitah, then the animal must have become a T'reifah in the
wholesaler's domain, and he can claim a false sale.
(c) If a crust has not formed, then the Tana rules 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro,
Alav ha'Re'ayah'. Assuming that the butcher already paid the wholesaler,
this poses a Kashya on Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, who maintains that it is
always the original owner of the animal which is a Safek who must bring the
proof; whereas here we see that the onus to bring the proof lies on the
butcher and not on the wholesaler.
(d) We cannot establish the Beraisa when the butcher has not yet paid -
because it is not feasible to suggest that it is normal for a wholesaler to
give the butcher a cow before he has paid for it.
(a) As a result of this Kashya, Rami bar Yechezkel negates his brother Rav
Yehudah's version of Shmuel's statement. *He* therefore quotes Shmuel as
saying - 'the one in whose domain the animal died must bring the proof as to
when it died.'
(b) This conforms with Raban Gamliel, according to the interpretation of
Rava who holds 'Kahn Nimtze'u, Kahn Hayu'.
(c) According to Rava, the butcher would have to bring the proof, even if he
had not yet paid the money. Nevertheless, the Tana uses the expression
'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro, Alav ha'Re'ayah' (even though that is not the true
criterion) - because he is speaking when the butcher already pay.
(d) We establish the Beraisa when the butcher paid (justifying the use of
the Lashon 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro, Alav ha'Re'ayah' - as we just explained) -
because it is normal for the wholesaler to give the animal to the butcher
only after he has paid.
(a) Assuming there are no bathhouses in the entire town - the Chachamim in
our Mishnah hold - that when it comes to hidden blemishes, the husband can
claim even after the marriage, that it was a false sale.
(b) Rav Nachman classifies epilepsy - under the category of hidden
(c) He agrees however, that even epilepsy is considered a revealed blemish -
if her attacks do not occur at fixed times (in which case it will be
extremely difficult to hide her ailment from the public).