Resources for Kesubos daf 39

1.     The גמרא  asks in the name of רבא  whether there is “בגר בקבר”. According to רש"י  in ד"ה יש בגר, the גמרא  originally understood the question to be whether a lady who was נאנסה when she was a נערה, died, and now would have been a בוגרת  had she been alive could be מוריש  theקנס  to her son or whether the father was still entitled to it. The גמרא  later switched to say that the woman couldn’t possibly have had a son and the question was if the מאנס  was פּטור  because the קנס  goes only to the woman and there is noדין ירושה   for קנס  or is he חייב  since it is the father who is entitled to the money and he is still alive. תוספות  in ד"ה יש בגר  asks on the first part of the גמרא that even if the woman had a son a person cannot be מוריש קנס לבניו  as we see from the second half of the גמרא, so what was the גמרא  thinking when it asked whether a woman could give it to her child? תוספות  answers from the ר"י  that the גמרא  was really only asking if she could give בושת ופּגם  to her child. Theריטב"א  answers that not all קנסות are equal. If the קנס  is something you have because of someone else like your daughter then you can’t be מוריש that over to someone else. However, if the קנס is something you have because of yourself like in the case of the lady, then she can give that over to her son because יורש כרעא דאבוה הוא. The קובץ שיעורים  in סימן י"ב  in answering for רש"י  says something somewhat similar. He explains that there are two ways a child can get what is entitled to the parents. One way is via ירושה from the father. The other way is by taking over the place of the father. For example, if the father is supposed to inherit his own father but dies first, the grandson inherits as if he was the direct יורש of the grandfather since he is קם תחתיו. If so, there is no question on רש"י. In the first part of the גמרא we are discussing a woman who died before she could get her קנס. However, her child can be קם תחתיו  and get it as if they are the parent themselves. In the end of the גמרא where there is no child, then the only way for the father to inherit is via regular ירושה  and one can’t be מוריש  this type of קנס  to their child.

2.     The גמרא  brings a מחלוקת תנאים  whether a woman is allowed to use a מוך. רש"י explains that ר"מ  holds that the three women mentioned in the ברייתא  may use a מוך and the חכמים hold they may not. As to the danger to life of these women the חכמים   say they should rely on שומר פּתאים ה. The obvious question is how and where could or should one apply this? Surely one cannot run in front of a truck and say שומר פּתאים ה (and such a person certainly qualifies as a פּתי!) Because of this question the ריטב"א disagrees with רש"י  (as does תוספות) and says that these three women must use a מוך and all other women may use a מוך. The קובץ שיעורים  in אות קל"ו  explains for רש"י that what the חכמים are telling us is that one has a right to do a dangerous action if that is the דרך ארץ  meaning a risk that people normally are willing to take. So a possible example would be riding in a car which is technically a dangerous act but one accepted by society. Rav Moshe ז"ל in אגרות משה חו"מ חלק ב סימן ע"ו  says that שומר פּתאים ה can only be applied where the majority of people who engage in this risk do not suffer any consequences. However, if most people are harmed and they do it anyway that would not be a היתר.

New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters

Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder

Daf HaShavua Choveres - compiled by Rabbi Pinchas Englander