Resources for Kesubos daf 36

1.     The גמרא brings a ברייתא that says שניות don’t get a קנס. The גמרא asks that if שניות are only מדרבנן then they should be considered ראויה לו לאשה מדאורייתא and they should get a קנס! The גמרא’s question is a very interesting concept. It seems to be saying that things that are אסור מדרבנן don’t affect דינים דאורייתא. The שיטה מקובצת here asks that if this is true why does the גמרא on דף כ"ט ע"ב say that according to רבי שמעון בן מנסיא a נתניה (which is an איסור דרבנן according to רש"י) doesn’t get קנס since she isn’t ראויה? Our גמרא just said an איסור מדרבנן is considered ראויה for קנס! He answers that not all דיני דרבנן are the same. When חז"ל said שניות were אסורות it was just a סייג to keep people away from עברה (and not really an איסור חפצא) so it doesn’t make her אינה ראויה. However, by נתינים, since the גזרה was so that they shouldn’t come into the קהל, they made her into the kind of person who isn’t ראויה לבוא בקהל (an איסור חפצא).  That makes her אינה ראוי לאשה even for קנס דאורייתא. He is מדייק that this is the reason why רש"י explained שניות here as "להרחיק מן העברה" to emphasize exactly this point. It is a beautiful חילוק. However, the משנה למלך in הלכות נערה פּרק א׳ הל׳ ה׳ does not like this חילוק for some reason and has a different answer. The משנה למלך is discussing the רמב"ם  that says that if one was מאנס  a שניה  they aren’t allowed to marry them. The כסף משנה asks why are שניות not considered ראויה לו like our גמרא says and you should need to marry her?! He answers that all איסורי דרבנן are really based on לא תסור and therefore are like a דין דאורייתא. The משנה למלך quotes מהר"א ששון who is surprised by this answer since the גמרא says explicitly that שניות are included in קנס since it’s only דרבנן. The משנה למלך answers that the גמרא on our דף was not asking that there should be a קנס because it’s only אסור מדרבנן but rather because the גמרא assumed that the ברייתא was going according to שמעון התימני who holds that anyone with whom קידושין is תופס gets a קנס. If that is the case then the גמרא certainly has a good question since even if שניות were considered דאורייתא there should be a קנס since קידושין is תופס. This is also answers the שיטה מקובצת’s question. In other words, all דיני דרבנן are really the same. The גמרא on דף כ"ט only said that נתינה doesn’t gets קנס according to רבי שמעון בן מנסיא and according to the משנה למלך our גמרא that says שניות do get קנס was going in שמעון התימני who holds there is קנס by all cases of תפיסת קידושין.

2.     The גמרא quotes the ברייתא that says a ממאנת doesn’t get קנס. תוספות in ד"ה ממאנת asks that of course she doesn’t get קנס since she is a בעולה! He answers that the גמרא means that he was מאנס her when they were still married, prior to the מיאון. We know that מיאון uproots the marriage retroactively to the extent that they can even marry each other’s קרובים. If so, it turns out he was מאנס a regular unmarried בתולה and you might think he owes the קנס, so the גמרא needs to teach you he doesn’t owe it in that case. תוספות doesn’t say why you in fact don’t owe it. The קובץ שיעורים here suggests that we can understand this with רב חיים מבריסק זצ"ל’s יסוד from הלכות אישות פּרק ב׳ הל׳ ט at the end. There Rav Chaim explains that a ממאנת is only עוקר her marriage retroactively מכאן ולהבא. This of course sounds like a contradiction in terms. What he means is that anything that happened in the past stays as it was. However, for anything that happens in the future, we look at it as if the marriage was uprooted from the beginning. Therefore, if they want to marry each other’s relatives now, they can since the marriage was uprooted retroactively. However, if he was מאנס her in the past, then we don’t relitigate the past and say he owes a קנס now.

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