Resources for Kesubos 106

1.     The גמרא says that רב ענן sent someone to רב נחמן to have his case judged and רב נחמן erroneously assumed it was a relative of רב ענן. Because of this, רב נחמן honored him by taking his case before an orphan’s case. When the other litigant saw the honor רב נחמן gave his opponent he was unable to put up a good legal case and lost. This caused רב נחמן to be punished. The פּני יהושע asks a basic question: where do we ever find that there is an obligation to honor the relative of a תלמיד חכם? The שבות יעקב brought in the פּתחי תשובה in חו"מ סימן ט"ו agrees with the פּני יהושע and says the reason רב נחמן gave the man precedence is because רב ענן had sent him to רב נחמן which he took to mean רב ענן himself was requesting this man to take precedence. The ריטב"א (brought by the פּני יהושע himself) disagrees and says that it is a מצוה דרבנן to honor the relative of a ת"ח. The רמ"א in חו"מ סימן ט"ו סעיף א paskens like the ריטב"א that there is a מצוה to honor the relative of a ת"ח. However, as the ריטב"א himself explained, that is only before the court case started. However, once the court case started there is a דין דאורייתא to judge whoever came first as it saysכקטן כגדול תשמעון. In that case only a ת"ח himself would come first as עשה דכבוד התורה עדיף. The case of רב נחמן was prior to the court case starting and that is why being a relative of a ת"ח was enough.

The רמ"א explains the reason that a ת"ח comes first is שלא יתבטל מלימודו. The הפלאה asks that this reason seems unnecessary. Our גמרא says the reason is עשה דכבוד התורה עדיף…why do need to add the fact that it is also so he gets back to his learning? He answers a brilliant תירוץ: Our גמרא said that the עשה דכבוד תורה is דוחה the עשה of judging whoever came first. However, we know from earlier in כתובות that if a woman was נאנסה by someone who is an איסור לאו we don’t say he must marry here because of עשה דוחה ל"ת because she can just say she isn’t interested and then the עשה goes away. If so, in our case the ת"ח can just be מוחל on his כבוד and then the יתום’s case can come first and we won’t need to be דוחהthe עשהof כקטן כגדול תשמעון. Therefore, the רמ"א tells us that the ת"ח should not be מוחל because it will cause ביטול תורה, in which case his עשה will be in tact to be דוחה the עשה of כקטן כגדול תשמעון.

2.     The גמרא lists many workers, including מגיהי ספרים, that were paid from theתרומת הלשכה. תוספות in וכי גבו explains that we don’t need to come on to the concept of לב ב"ד מתנה עליהם for this since this was a normal use of the funds and everyone understood when they were מקדש their money that it may be used for side reasons associated with the מקדש. The מקדש דוד in סימן ל"ה אות ג has a beautiful מערכה about our סוגיא as to: when do we say that בנ"י had the purpose in mind originally; when do we say לב ב"ד מתנה עליהם; and when do we say הפקר ב"ד הפקר . He explains that even though the מחצית השקל collected every year was a חיוב and therefore should not be up to the donators as to what they intended it to go to, תוספות is still correct because the חיוב of מחצית השקל was for any צורכי ציבור, so כלל ישראל could decide which צורכי ציבור they wanted to give it to. This also explains the following: the גמרא in מנחות says that כהנים could use the salt of הקדש because of לב ב"ד מתנה עליהם. Why didn’t the גמרא just say it was because it’s a normal use and the donators have it in mind? It must be that saying it is a normal use does not help if it isn’t part of צורכי ציבור. For that you need לב ב"ד מתנה. On the other hand, there seems to be a סתירה between our תוספות which says you just need the בנ"י to have it in mind and the תוספות in מעילה on the bottom of דף י"ד ע"א that says that things like paying workers works with לב ב"ד מתנה. He answers this סתירה by saying that you actually need both. In order to allow someone to use what בנ"י donated you need their permission. However, even if you have their permission, it doesn’t make it חולין. For that you need לב ב"ד מתנה to make it retroactively חולין once it’s used to pay the מגיהי ספרים. רש"י in explaining the מגיהי ספרים says that it works through הפקר ב"ד הפקר (not like תוספות). The מקדש דוד explains that הפקר ב"ד הפקר can say who owns the money, but it can’t take away קדושת הגוף, so while הפקר ב"ד הפקר can work by תרומת הלשכה it can’t work by a קרבן for example which is why we sometimes need לב ב"ד מתנה.