Resources for Kesubos daf 29

1.     The משנה says that a כותית is entitled to a קנס. רש"י explains that our משנה holds that כותים are גירי אריות and that there is an איסור דאורייתא to marry them because ofלא תתחתן בם. Nonetheless, they are entitled to a קנס. תוספות in ד"ה ועל הכותית asks how could רש"י says that our משנה holds they are גירי אריות? If they are גירי אריות then they are גוים and גוים don’t get a קנס (as the גמרא said earlier on דף י"א)! רבי עקיבא איגר asks an interesting question: why doesn’t תוספות ask that if the issue is that they are גוים then the משנה should have simply said גוים and not כותים! He answers that besides the reason תוספות gives for גוים not having קנס, there is another reason that גוים  don’t get קנס: a person who is בועל ארמית is subject to the דין of קנאין פּוגעין בו. That is similar to a חיוב מיתה and we would apply the principle of קים ליה בדרבה מיניה. Therefore, a person will never be חייב a קנס to a גוי. However, this reason does not apply to a כותי because even if you hold כותים are גירי אריות, they are not the same as regular גוים. They are still ספק גוים because some of them probably did convert בלב שלם. If so, we wouldn’t say קנאין פּוגעין בו since they are a ספק גר. Therefore, תוספות understood that even if you hold כותים are  גירי אריות there would still be a קנס for them if not for the fact that the גמרא says on דף י"א that we would not want to give someone a קנס who is even a ספק גוי.

The פּני יהושע answers תוספות’s question as to why a כותי would get a קנס if you hold they are גירי אריות in a similar vein. He quotes his grandfather the מגיני שלמה who says like רע"א  mentioned above that כותים are ספק גרים. He also quotes תוספות in גיטין דף כ"ח ע"א ד"ה הלוקח who suggests that there is no איסור סתם יינם by a כותי because even if you hold they are גירי אריות they are still not the same as גוים as they keep תורה שבכתב and don’t worship ע"ז as much as the other גוים do. Therefore, the פּני יהושע suggests we would not have a problem giving a קנס to a כותי.

2.     The משנה mentions a person who is בא על אחותו has to pay a קנס. The גמרא in סנהדרין דף ע"ג ע"ב asks that you are allowed to kill a בועל to prevent him from being בא על אחותו, so why don’t we apply the principle of קים ליה בדרבה מיניה and say he is exempt from the קנס? The גמרא answers with various אוקימתות such that our משנה is talking about a case where you could stop him from sinning without killing him. Theרמב"ם  in הלכות נערה פּרק א הל׳ י"א says that בא על אחותו has to pay a קנס without any qualifications. The חתם סופר asks how he can ignore that question and אוקימתא from the גמרא in סנהדרין? He has a fascinating answer: there is a question as to why you can kill a person before he does certain עברות —is it to save him from sinning or save her from being violated? If it is to save him, why should he be פּטור from קנס? The fact that someone could kill him is not a punishment but rather for his good! However, if it is to save her then we understand that it is similar to an עונש and we would say קים ליה ברדבה מיניה.  He proves from the גמרא’s מסקנא that it is אסור to kill him if you can stop him in some other way that it must be for his benefit and not as an עונש. If so, קים ליה בדרבה מיניה should not apply. Therefore, the רמב"ם  paskened בא על אחותו always gets קנס. 

New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters

Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder

Daf HaShavua Choveres - compiled by Rabbi Pinchas Englander

Rabbi Yaakov Blumenfeld - Shakla Vetarya