Resources for Kesubos daf 17
1. The גמרא brings the מחלוקת ב"ש וב"ה about how you properly praise a כלה. בית שמאי says that you can only say כלה כמות שהיא which most ראשונים understand to mean that you just praise what she has and don’t praise what she doesn’t have. However, ב"ה disagrees and says כלה נאה וחסודה which means you can say every כלה is נאה. The ריטב"א explains that this should have been a violation of מדבר שקר תרחק but is allowed מפּני דרכי שלום. The ט"ז, בית שמואל, and ערוך השלחן in אה"ע סימן ס"ה all say that it really isn’t a lie at all. The ט"ז in ס"ק א says that the person saying she is נאה means she is נאה in the eyes of her husband. The בית שמואל and ערוך השלחן say the person means she is נאה in her ways and actions. The רש"ש here has a beautiful פּשט in this גמרא. He asks what the meaning of the expression “אם כדבריכם” that ב"ה says to ב"ש? That phrase is typically used if ב"ש had said something to ב"ה but there is no mention of ב"ש talking to ב"ה. He also asks what was the purpose of ב"ה saying if someone bought something "מן השוק". He answers that what ב"ה was really saying to ב"ש is based on a מחלוקת they have in גיטין as to what the criteria are to divorce one’s wife. ב"ש says one can only get divorced if one finds an ערות דבר (sin) in his wife whereas ב"ה says you can divorce for any reason (אפילו הקדיחה תבשילו). Therefore, ב"ה says to ב"ש that I could understand your concern with lying according to my שיטה since I hold it is ok to divorce your wife if you don’t like her. However, according to your שיטה (אם כדבריכם) then he is stuck with his wife forever anyway. If so, that is similar to someone buying something from a שוק which is a large marketplace where you wouldn’t know who to return it to in which case there is no point in telling the person he bought bad merchandise since he can’t return it anyway. Here too, if you say she is a bad wife then you won’t accomplish anything since he will not be able to separate from her anyway.
2. The גמרא says that אגריפּס got out of the way of a wedding procession. The גמרא asks how was allowed to do that—don’t we have a principle that a king can’t be מוחל על כבודו? The גמרא answers it wasn’t obvious to all what he was doing since it was a פּרשת דרכים. The קובץ שיעורים here asks a fascinating question: it is true that there is a מצוהfor the people to honor the king, but it there a מצוה for the king himself to honor himself? The גמרא has asked how as אגריפּס allowed to get out of the way of the wedding procession—but since when is the king commanded to honor himself? He just can’t be מוחל on someone else dishonoring him! He answers that you see from here that the מצוה to honor the king is not a דין in כבוד המלך but rather כבוד המלכות, and even the king has the מצוה of כבוד המלכות.
3. The גמרא says that רבי זירא was not happy with the fact that רב שמואל בר יצחק was dancing like he did since he felt it was a בזיון התורה. The קובץ שיעורים here says that this should be a proof to the רא"ש in אלו מציאות who says that a זקן ואינו לפי כבודו isn’t allowed to return certain אבדות since it is a בזיון לכבוד התורה and a תלמיד חכם can’t be מוחל על בזיונו as the ריב"ש writes in the name of the ראב"ד. He also brings the משנה ברורה in סימן ר"נ in the last ביאור הלכה who quotes the פּמ"ג who explains that the reason why in fact רב שמואל בר יצחק was allowed to do what he did is because it was obvious to anyone looking that it was done for a מצוה whereas by returning a lost object it is not always obvious.
New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters
Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder
Daf HaShavua Choveres - compiled by Rabbi Pinchas Englander