Previous daf

1)

(a) We try to learn Kidushei Sh'tar from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Kidushei Kesef - if Kesef, which does not take a woman out of her husband's domain, yet it does bring her in, then a Sh'tar, which takes her out, should certainly take her in.

(b) We refute this 'Kal va'Chomer' however, on the grounds that Kesef has an advantage over Sh'tar in another area - inasmuch as redeems Hekdesh and Ma'aser Sheini (which a Sh'tar cannot do).

(c) So we learn Kidushei Sh'tar from the Hekesh - "ve'Yatz'ah ve'Haysah", comparing Kidushin to Gitin, where the Torah specifically writes "ve'Kasav Lah Sefer K'riysus".

(a) Abaye refutes the suggestion that we ought to learn from the same Hekesh that a man can divorce his wife with money by virtue of the principle 'Ein Kateigor Na'aseh Saneigor' - by which he means that it would not be appropriate to separate a couple using the same coinage which served to bring them together.

(b) We cannot use the same principle to refute the previous D'rashah (that permits Kidushei Kesef from "Ve'Yatz'ah ve'Haysah") - because, unlike the coinage used for the two transactions (which is exactly the same) the wording in the one documents differs from the wording in the other.

(a) Rava disagrees with Abaye. He learns from the Pasuk "*ve'Kasav Lah* Sefer K'riysus" - (what Abaye learned from the S'vara of 'Ein Kateigor ... ') 'bi'Kesivah Misgareshes, ve'Einah Misgareshes be'Kesef'.

(b) We choose not to switch the D'rashos, to Darshen 'bi'Kesivah Misgareshes, ve'Einah Miskadeshes bi'Kesivah', and learn from the Hekesh of "ve'Yatz'ah ve'Haysah" that one can divorce with money - because it is logical to confine the D'rashah of "ve'Kasav Lah" to Gitin (where it is written).

(c) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learns from "ve'Kasav Lah" that one can write a Get on anything. That a man cannot divorce his wife with Kesef - he learns from "Sefer K'riysus", 'Sefer Korsah, ve'Ein Davar Acher Korsah'.

(a) The Rabbanan learn from "Sefer K'riysus" - that the separation must be complete (that the ex-husband cannot make stipulations that force her to do his bidding after the divorce [effectively binding her to him]).

(b) This does not incorporate a case where the husband gives his wife a Get with the stipulation that she is forbidden to drink wine or visit her father's house for thirty days - because in thirty days time, the condition will no longer apply and the K'riysus will be complete.

(c) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learns this Din from - "Kareis - K'riysus" (implying two D'rashos).

(d) The Rabbanan argue with Rebbi Yossi Hagelili on the grounds - that they do consider "K'riysus" to be two D'rashos.

(a) We then attempt to learn one of the three means of acquiring a woman from the other two (not just because we have two others, but ) - based on the 'Kal va'Chomer' that we cited earlier by each case, before discrediting it with a Pircha. We are now trying to overcome these Pirchos, by using the other two to overrule it.

(b) We cannot learn ...

1. ... Sh'tar from Kesef and Bi'ah - because unlike them, it does not benefit the woman in any way (since the Sh'tar does not even need to be worth a P'rutah, and it only contains the wording of the Kidushin, and not the details of the contract).
2. ... Bi'ah from Kesef and Sh'tar - because it is less common than they are (since one can acquire land and Avadim with them).
3. ... Kesef from Sh'tar and Bi'ah - because there are occasions where they both take effect against the will of the other party (by a Get and a Yevamah, respectively), but not Kesef.

(c) When we ask that we also find Kesef 'Ba'al Korchah' by an Amah ha'Ivriyah, we mean - that the girl is acquired against her will (even though her father gives his consent).

(d) We answer - that nevertheless, we do find the concept of Kesef against the will of the woman in connection with the laws of marriage.

(a) Rav Huna maintains that Chupah also acquires a woman, and he derives it from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Kesef. We initially think - that Chupah enables the newly-wed wife of a Kohen to eat Terumah, which Kesef does not.

(b) We refute this however, from a statement by Ula, who, based on the Pasuk "ve'Kohen Ki Yikneh Nefesh Kinyan Kaspo" - learns that, min ha'Torah, an Arusah may eat Terumah (seeing as she is included in 'Kinyan Kaspo' of the Kohen).

(c) The Rabbanan decreed otherwise - because they were afraid that she might feed her siblings a nice cup of Terumah wine that her Chasan gave her.

(d) The basis of Rav Huna's 'Kal va'Chomer' is - the fact that Chupah concludes the Kinyan, whereas Kesef cannot do that.

7)

(a) We just cited Rav Huna, who learns that Chupah acquires a woman from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Kesef. Bi'ah dispels the Pircha that Kesef acquires Hekdesh and Ma'aser Sheini. We nevertheless need Kesef too. We cannot learn Chupah from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Bi'ah alone - because Bi'ah has the advantage over Chupah that it acquires a Yevamah.

(b) Neither can we learn Chupah from these two alone, because the woman receives benefit from them both, which she does not do from Chupah. So we bring Sh'tar into the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh'. We cannot learn Chupah from Sh'tar alone - because Sh'tar has the advantage over Chupah that it sends away a married woman.

(c) The Tzad ha'Shaveh of them all is that they acquire elsewhere (not by Kidushin). Chupah acquires - the woman regarding nullifying her Nedarim whilst she is alive, and inheriting and burying her after her death.

(d) The Chachamim disagree with Rav Huna, because they have a Pircha on his 'Kal va'Chomer'. Kesef, Sh'tar and Bi'ah they argue, can all apply against the will of the other person, whereas Chupah cannot. Rav Huna counters this Pircha - with the argument that we do not find *Kesef* acquiring against the will of the other party with regard to marriage (as we learned earlier).

(a) Rava asks two Kashyos on Rav Huna: Firstly, he asks, our Mishnah specifies three ways of acquiring, and not four. Secondly - how can Rav Huna learn that Chupah should acquire without Kesef from the fact that it acquires with Kesef?

(b) Abaye refutes Rava's first Kashya. He justifies the Tana's omission of Chupah from the list - by virtue of the fact that the Tana only lists the methods of acquiring that are mentioned explicitly in the Torah (but precludes Chupah, which is derived from a D'rashah).

(c) And he refutes his second Kashya by pointing out that this is precisely what Rav Huna meant - if Kesef, which cannot complete the Kinyan after it (Kesef) began the process, nevertheless acquires, then Chupah, which can, should certainly acquire.

(a) The Tana says - that if a man gives a woman money or value of money to a woman and says 'Harei At Mekudeshes Li', 'Harei At Me'ureses Li', Harei At Li li'Intu', then she is betrothed.

(b) In the Seifa, he says that in the event that she gives him the money and says 'Hareini Mekudeshes Lecha ... ', she is not Mekudeshes?

(c) Rav Papa points out that the implication from the Reisha (that in the case of 'Nasan Hu ve'Amrah Hi', the woman is *not Mekudeshes*), clashes with the implication from the Seifa (that she *is*).

(a) We reject the suggestion that the Tana was specific in the Reisha, but not in the Seifa (where the Tana speaks about 'Nasnah Hi ve'Amrah Hi', but really means to incorporate 'Nasan Hu ve'Amrah Hi') - on the grounds that a Tana should not have written a Lashon which incorporates other things, if the Lashon itself, by virtue of its implication, clashes with another section of the Beraisa.

(b) We initially reconcile the Reisha with the Seifa - by explaining the Beraisa the Seifa to mean - that 'Nasan Hu ve'Amrah Hi' is considered as ineffective as 'Nasnah Hi ve'Amrah Hi'.

(c) Alternatively, both the Reisha and the Seifa are specific, and there is no discrepancy - because 'Nasan Hu ve'Amrah Hi' is a Safek, fitting neither into the Reisha nor into the Seifa.

(d) The Halachah by 'Nasan Hu ve'Amrah Hi' is - Chayshinan mi'de'Rabbanan, and she requires a Get from both men (Note: The Lashon 'mi'de'Rabbanan' is unclear. See Ran).

(a) Shmuel says that, if a man gives a woman a P'rutah and says to her ...

1. ... 'Harei At Mekudeshes; 'Harei At Me'uereses; 'Harei At le'Intu - Mekudeshes - Mekudeshes'.
2. ... 'Hareini Ishech; 'Hareini Ba'alech, 'Hareini Arusech - Ein Ka'an Beis Michush'.

(b) Similarly, Shmuel concludes that if a man says to his wife - 'Eini Ishech; 'Eini Ba'alech; 'Eini Arusech ... Ein Ka'an Beis Michush'.

(c) The ramifications of 'Ein Ka'an Beis Michush' by ...

1. ... Kidushin are - that she is not even Safek Mekudeshes, and does not therefore require a Get from the man.
2. ... Gerushin are - that she is permitted to marry a Kohen.

(a) Rav Papa asked Abaye whether Shmuel really holds 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos Havyan Yadayim' - because in the first three cases of Kidushin, he ruled 'Mekudeshes', despite the fact that the man omitted the word 'Li' (with possible connotations of his having betrothed her to someone else).

(b) Shmuel established the Mishnah in Nazir 'ha'Omer Ehei, Harei Zeh Nazir' - when a Nazir was walking in front of him.

(c) Otherwise - he might have meant 'Ehei be'Ta'anis'. And we extrapolate from there - that in fact, Shmuel holds 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos, Lo Havyan Yadayim'.

(d) In order to resolve the obvious discrepancy between Shmuel's two statements, we amend his first statement to include 'Li' in all the statements of Kidushin.

1. ... by Kidushin - because the Torah writes "Ki Yikach Ish Ishah", 've'Lo she'Yikach es Atzmo'.
2. ... Gerushin is - because the Torah writes "ve'Shilchah", 've'Lo she'Yishlach es Atzmo'.