Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

11) DECEITFUL DEALINGS

(a) Ravin Chasida went to Mekadesh a woman to his son; he was Mekadesh her to himself.
(b) Question: But the Beraisa said that this is deceitful!
(c) Answer: Her father did not agree to Mekadesh her to Ravin's son.
(d) Question: Ravin should have told his son before being Mekadesh her to himself (to avoid suspicion)!
(e) Answer: He was afraid that someone else would Mekadesh her in the interim.
(f) Rabah bar bar Chanah gave money to Rav to but a certain land; Rav bought it for himself.
(g) Question: But the Beraisa said that this is deceitful!
(h) Answer: The residents of the area were strongarms that would not allow (most) people to buy land by them - they respected Rav and would allow him, but not Rabah bar bar Chanah.
(i) Question: Rav should have told him before buying it for himself!
(j) Answer: He was afraid that someone else would buy it in the interim.
(k) Rav Gidal was looking to buy a land; R. Aba bought it.

1. R. Yitzchak Nafcha (to R. Aba): If a poor man is looking to get something, and someone else takes it - what do we say?
2. R. Aba: The latter is a Rasha.
3. R. Yitzchak Nafcha: So why did you buy the land Rav Gidal wanted?
4. R. Aba: I didn't know he wanted it.
5. R. Yitzchak Nafcha: You should let him buy it from you.
6. R. Aba: It is the first land I bought, it is a bad sign to sell it - he may have it as a gift.
7. Rav Gidal did not want a gift - "One who hates gifts will live"; R. Aba did not want to use it, because Rav Gidal had wanted to by it. The land was left Hefker for Chachamim.

(a) (Mishnah): Similarly: Reuven told Leah, be Mekudeshes to me after 30 days...
(b) Question: What is the law if no one was Mekadesh her in the interim?
(c) (Rav and Shmuel): She is Mekudeshes, even if the Kidushin money has been consumed.

1. This is because there is no problem with the Kidushin money - it is not a loan, nor as a deposit.

i. It is not a deposit - a deposit belongs to the one who gave it, whereas this money belonged to her.
ii. It is not as a (pre-existing) loan - a loan was given to be spent (from the beginning), and when he is Mekadesh her later, he does not give her anything (new) - but here, he gave the money to Mekadesh her!

(d) [Version #1 - Question: What is the law if no one was Mekadesh her in the interim, and she wants to cancel the Kidushin?
(e) Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): She can - her latter words annul her initial words.
(f) Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): She cannot - words cannot annul words.
(g) Question (R. Yochanan - Mishnah): Reuven made Shimon an agent to take Terumah, and cancelled the appointment - if he cancelled before Shimon took Terumah, the Terumah is invalid.

1. We see, words (the cancellation) can annul words (the appointment)!

(h) Answer: Giving Kidushin money to a woman is not mere words, it is like an action;

1. Words cannot annul an action.

(i) Question (Mishnah): Reuven made an agent (Shimon) to give a Get to Reuven's wife. Reuven caught up with Shimon, or sent Levi to tell him that the Get is invalid - it is invalid.

1. But giving a Get to an agent is like giving Kidushin money to a woman, and words can annul it!

(j) Answer: No - The whole time the Get did not reach his wife, it is only as words - words can annul words.
(k) Question (Reish Lakish - Beraisa): All vessels can become able to receive Tum'ah through thought; they only leave the status of receiving Tum'ah when an action is done to change them.

1. An action can annul actions and words; thought cannot annul neither action nor thought.
2. It is agreed, thought cannot annul action - but according to R. Yochanan, thought should annul thought!

(l) Answer: Regarding Tum'ah, thought is considered as action, as we see by Rav Papa's law.

1. Contradiction (Rav Papa): It says "When he will put (water on food, it becomes Huchshar to receive Tum'ah)" but we read this as "When will be put"!
2. Answer: It suffices that 'water is put' similar to "he will put", i.e. the owner of the food wants the water to be put.]

(a) [Version #2 (according to Rav Zvid - Mishnah): Similarly, if Leah authorized an agent to Mekadesh her to a man (and the agent did this), and Leah also accepted Kidushin from a man - whichever Kidushin came first is valid.
(b) Question: What is the law if neither of them received Kidushin for her, and she wants to cancel the authorization of the agent?
(c) Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): She can - her latter words annul her initial words.
(d) Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): She cannot - words cannot annul words.
(e) Question (R. Yochanan - Mishnah): Reuven made Shimon an agent to take Terumah, and cancelled the appointment - if he cancelled before Shimon took Terumah, the Terumah is invalid.
(f) Answer (Rava): The case is, Reuven himself took Terumah before Shimon - all agree, an action can cancel words.
(g) Question (Reish Lakish - Beraisa): All vessels can become able to receive Tum'ah through thought; they only leave the status of receiving Tum'ah when an action is done to change them.

1. An action can annul actions and words; thought cannot annul neither action nor thought.
2. It is agreed, thought cannot annul action - but according to R. Yochanan, thought should annul thought!

(h) Answer (R. Yochanan): Regarding Tum'ah, thought is considered as action (as we see by Rav Papa's law).

1. Contradiction (Rav Papa): It says "When he will put (water on food, it becomes Huchshar to receive Tum'ah)" but we read this as "When will be put"!
2. Answer: It suffices that 'water is put' similar to "He will put", i.e. the owner of the food wants the water to be put.

(i) Question (R. Yochanan - Mishnah): Reuven made an agent (Shimon) to give a Get to Reuven's wife. Reuven caught up with Shimon, or sent Levi to tell him that the Get is invalid - it is invalid.

1. This refutes Reish Lakish.]

(j) The law is as R. Yochanan, even according to Version #1.

1. Even though one could say that giving Kidushin money to a woman is like an action, words can annul it.

(k) Contradiction: We said, the law is as R. Yochanan - but the law is as Rav Nachman (as follows)!

1. Question: When a man annulled a Get he gave to an agent - can he later use the Get?
2. Answer #1 (Rav Nachman): Yes.
3. Answer #2 (Rav Sheshes): No.

i. The law is as Rav Nachman (his latter words cannot annul the power of the Get to divorce)!

(l) Answer: The husband didn't intend to annul the Get itself, only the authority of the agent.

(a) [Version #1 (Mishnah): She is Mekudeshes to the second man (Moshe).
(b) (Rav): She is forever Mekudeshes to Moshe.
(c) (Shmuel): She is Mekudeshes to him until the 30 days end - then Moshe's Kidushin vanishes, and the Kidushin of the first man (Reuven) is completed.]
(d) Question (Rav Chisda): How does Moshe's Kidushin vanish?!
(e) Answer (Rav Yosef): You find this difficult because you learned that Rav and Shmuel argue on the middle case of the Mishnah (after 30 days) - Rav Yehudah learns that they argue on the last case, he has no difficulty.
(f) [Version #2 (Mishnah): 'From now and after 30 days' - she is Mekudeshes and not Mekudeshes.
(g) (Rav): She is forever Mekudeshes and not Mekudeshes.
(h) (Shmuel): She is Mekudeshes and not Mekudeshes until the 30 days end - then Moshe's Kidushin vanishes, and Reuven's Kidushin is completed.]

1. Rav is unsure whether 'after 30 days' is a condition (you are Mekudeshes to me from now on condition that I do not retract within 30 days), or a retraction (of 'from now');
2. Shmuel is sure that 'after 30 days' is a condition - since Reuven did not retract within the 30 days, she is Mekudeshes to him.

(i) Rav and Shmuel argue as the following Tana'im.

1. (Beraisa): '(You are divorced with this Get) from now and after my death' - she is divorced and not divorced;
2. Rebbi says, such a Get is valid.

(j) Question: Rav should have said, 'the law is as Chachamim'; Shmuel should have said, 'the law is as Rebbi' (so we will know that not everyone agrees to the law)!
(k) Answer: It would not suffice to say that.

1. Had Rav said, 'the law is as Chachamim', one might have thought that this is only by divorce, since he comes to separate from her (perhaps he wants to delay it, and retracted from 'from now') - but by Kidushin, surely he wants it to take effect immediately, 'after 30 days' is only a condition!
2. Had Shmuel said, 'the law is as Rebbi', one might have thought that this is only by divorce, since a Get cannot work after death (he surely wants it to work from now) - but by Kidushin, perhaps he retracts and wants it to take effect after 30 days!
3. (Abaye): According to Rav, if Reuven said 'You are Mekudeshes to me from now and after 30 days', then David said 'You are Mekudeshes to me from now and after 20 days', then Moshe said 'You are Mekudeshes to me from now and after 10 days' (and she wants to marry someone else) - she only needs a Get from the first and last man, not from the middle man.

i. (This is because) either way we judge it, she is Mekudeshes to the first or last man: if it is a condition - she is Mekudeshes to the first man; if it is a retraction, she is Mekudeshes to the last man.

4. Question: This is obvious!
5. Answer: One might have thought, the language 'from now and after 30 days' has both connotations, by each man we have an independent doubt which he meant, so she needs a Get from every man;

i. We hear, this is not so, it means the same for every man.