Resources for Kesubos daf 28

1.     The גמרא says that if a ישראל divorces his wife and she remarries then they cannot live in the same שכונה. If a כהן divorces his wife, even if she doesn’t remarry they cant live in the same מבוי. What if the ישראל’s wife doesn’t remarry? The ריטב"א says it is a דבר פּשוט that they can live wherever they want since there is no איסור for the ישראל to remarry her. However, the רמב"ם  in הלכות איסורי ביאה פּרק כ"א הל׳ כ"ז disagrees and says that even a ישראל cant live in the same חצר as his divorced wife since we are afraid it may lead to זנות. The מגיד משנה says that the רמב"ם  must have had the גירסא of לא תדור בחצרו instead of our גירסא of לא תנשא בשכונתו. The הפלאה makes the following fascinating הערה: Theרמב"ם  holds that if a person is בא על הפּנויה, they get מלקות because of לא תהיה קדשה. So it makes sense that the רמב"ם  would hold that even a ישראל would not be allowed to live near his ex-wife lest they come to זנות. What’s surprising is that the רמב"ם  holds that if a כהן is בא על הגרושה שלא לשם קידושין there is no מלקות since the איסור is לא יקח. If so, it comes out that the ישראל’s איסור is more חמור than the כהן’s איסור that he has due to כהונה! If so, why is it that we are more מחמיר by a כהן than by a ישראל in terms of how far away the have to live from their ex-wives? He answers that since a ישראל at least has a way to do it בהיתר via קידושין so we aren’t as concerned that it will lead to זנות.

2.     The משנה says that a person is believed when he is a גדול to say what he saw when he was a child in regards to a person eating תרומה. The גמרא clarifies that this can only refer to תרומה דרבנן. The קובץ שיעורים in אות ע"ז asks why the person is not believed even by תרומה דאורייתא because of the concept of עד אחד נאמן באיסורים? The assumption of the question is that the issue with believing a person based on what they saw as a child is because of a פּסול עדות called תחילתו בפּסול וסופו בכשרות which means you have to be a כשר עד from the time you saw the action until the time you testify. In this case the person was תחילתו בפּסול because he saw the event when he was a child. Therefore, the question is that being an עד פּסול shouldn’t be a problem by תרומה דאורייתא, just like a woman is believed by איסורין דאורייתא even though she is an עד פּסול. He answers that the premise of the question was wrong. The issue with relying on the things you saw as a child is not because of a technical פּסול but rather that we simply don’t believe you understood what you saw because you were a child at the time.

3.     The גמרא says that a person can מעיד about what he saw as a child regarding קיום שטרות דרבנן. The הגהות אשר"י says that this includes all פּסולים, including relatives of the lender! However, the ריטב"א disagrees and says it certainly does not include relatives of the lender. Even the דיינים can't be related to each other. The only relatives allowed are if the עדים who are doing the קיום are related to the ones who signed the שטר.

New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters

Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder

Daf HaShavua Choveres - compiled by Rabbi Pinchas Englander