Kesubos - Daf 44
- שני שטרות היוצאין בזה אחר זה ביטל שני את הראשון
Rav Nachman said: שני שטרות היוצאין בזה אחר זה ביטל שני את הראשון – Two shtaros that are for one field and one is dated after the other, the second shtar nullifies the first. The Gemara asks what the reason is that the first shtar is batel, and Rafram said: אימר אודויי אודי ליה – We say that the recipient admitted to him that the first shtar was invalid. Rashi explains that by acknowledging the need for a second shtar, the recipient is admitting the first shtar was fraudulent. Rav Acha said: אימר אחולי אחליה לשיעבודיה – We say that the recipient graciously waived the lien that is inherent in the first deed. If the land is seized, he is limited to collecting from lands sold after the date in the second shtar. The Gemara brings three practical differences between the two reasons. According to Rafram, who holds the first shtar was fraudulent, we have, אורועי סהדי – the disqualification of the witnesses, referring to those that signed the first shtar. ולשלומי פירי – the repayment of fruits eaten by the recipient before the second shtar was signed since he was not the real owner at first, ולטסקא – and the payment of the property tax, which will have to be paid by the seller, since he was really the owner of the land before the second shtar was signed.
- נערה המאורסה – היתה הורתה שלא בקדושה ולידתה בקדושה
The next Mishnah states referring to a נערה המאורסה – a betrothed naarah who committed adultery, היתה הורתה שלא בקדושה ולידתה בקדושה – if her conception was not in kedushah, meaning, that it was before her mother converted, but her birth was in kedushah, meaning, after her mother converted, הרי זו בסקילה – she is chayav skilah (stoning) ואין לה לא פתח בית האב ולא מאה סלע – and she is not subject to stoning by the entrance of her father’s house, since her father is not Jewish, nor is she entitled to the hundred-sela fine if her husband is found to by lying about her. The Gemara asks from where it is known that she is chayav skilah, and Reish Lakish said that the passuk states: And the people of her city shall pelt her with stones, ומתה – and she shall die. Since stoning means being put to death, the superfluous “and she shall die” לרבות הורתה שלא בקדושה ולידתה בקדושה – is coming to include one who was not conceived in kedushah but was born in kedushah. When the Gemara asks why this does not teach us that if her husband is found guilty of trying to defame her, he should be lashed and have to pay the fine, it answers, "ומתה" – and she shall die, למיתה נתרבתה ולא לקנס – she was included for the death penalty, but not for the fine.
- המוציא שם רע על היתומה
Rebbe Yose bar Chanina said: המוציא שם רע על היתומה פטור – One who defames an orphan girl is patur from the fine, for the passuk states regarding the fine, "ונתנו לאבי הנערה" – and give them to the father of the girl, פרט לזו שאין לה אב – excluded is this one who has no father. Ravina said he is chayav to pay the fine, and brought a Baraisa taught by Ami that says, referring to the defamer, that he has defamed, "בתולת ישראל" – a besulah of Yisrael, which excludes a besulah of geirim. A giyores has the status of an orphan, but she is only being excluded because she is not from Yisroel. It makes sense then that a Jewish girl who is an orphan receives the fine, and that is why the passuk is needed to exclude geirim. For if an orphaned Yisraelis does not receive the fine, why then would the Torah need to exclude a giyores from receiving a fine?
