Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) [line 16] MAKAS MARDUS
Beis Din has the power to inflict lashes upon a person when lashes mid'Oraisa cannot be instituted. These lashes are called Makas Mardus (lit. lashes for rebelliousness) and may be unlimited in number. (See Insights to Chulin 110:1 for a discussion of the various opinions regarding how Makas Mardus is administered.)

2) [line 17] MANGID - gives lashes
3) [line 18] SHUKA - marketplace, street
4) [line 18] SHIDUCHEI - preliminary negotiations before betrothal

5) [line 19] D'MEVATEL GITA (GET: BITUL HA'GET)
(a) According to the Torah, a man who sends a Get (bill of divorce) to his wife with a messenger can revoke it before it reaches the hands of his wife by declaring in front of a Beis Din (i.e. two or three men -- Gitin 32b), "The Get that I have sent is hereby nullified." (MISHNAH Gitin 32a)
(b) The repeal of the Get takes effect even if it is not done in the presence of the woman or the messenger. However, the Chachamim forbade revoking the Get unless it is done in the presence of the messenger or the wife. According to some Amora'im, they feared that if the husband would revoke the Get without the knowledge of the messenger and the wife, his wife may marry another man, relying on the Get, without realizing that the Get was revoked before it was handed to her. In order to prevent this unfortunate situation, the Chachamim decreed that a man may not revoke a Get after sending it to his wife with a messenger unless he (or a second messenger of his) does so in their presence. Other Amora'im maintain that the decree was enacted because men regularly used to cancel Gitin after they dispatched them in order to distress their wives. The Chachamim therefore ruled that the husband (or a second messenger of his) must revoke the Get in the presence of the original messenger or the wife. The husband will not go to such lengths and pursue the original messenger to revoke the Get, just to distress his wife (ibid. 33a and RASHI)
(c) If the husband *does* revoke the Get while not in the presence of the first messenger or the wife (b'Di'eved), the Tana'im argue as to whether his action has any validity (ibid.). The Halachah follows the opinion that the repeal takes effect. However, since with the repeal the husband has transgressed a Rabbinical enactment, he receive Makas Mardus (see above, entry #1) for his action.

6) [line 19] MASAR MODA'A
Moda'a is a legal declaration, made in front of witnesses, that a sale or Get that a person is about to enact is going to be made under duress, and should not take legal effect.

7) [line 20] D'PAKIR SHELICHAH D'RABANAN - who acts brazenly towards an agent of Beis Din

8) [line 21] SHAMTA (Niduy - Excommunication)
(a) The minimum period of Niduy is thirty days in Eretz Yisrael or seven days in Bavel and elsewhere. If the Menudeh does not repent from his ways he is put into Niduy for a second thirty-day period. If he still does not repent, he is then put into Cherem. The laws of Cherem are much more stringent.
(b) No one may come within four Amos of the Menudeh, except for his wife and family. He is not permitted to eat or drink with other people, nor is he included in a Zimun or any other Mitzvah that requires a quorum of ten men. He may not wash his clothes, shave or take a haircut or wear shoes. Learning and teaching Torah, however, are permitted, as well as engaging in work. The last two are not permitted to a Muchram, who must learn by himself and engage in work to the minimum extent that will provide him daily sustenance. People may speak with the Menudeh or the Muchram unless Beis Din specifically prohibits it.
(c) Even if the time of the Cherem or Niduy has finished, a person remains in Niduy or Cherem until he is permitted by three commoners or by an expert sage (SHULCHAN ARUCH 334:27 and REMA 334:24)

9) [line 22] CHASANA D'DA'IR B'VEI CHAMOHI - a son-in-law who lives in his mother-in-law's house

10) [line 23] CHALIF A'BAVA - who passes by the door [of his mother-in-law's house]
11) [line 25] MEIDAM HAVAH DAYIM ME'CHAMASEI - she was suspected of having an affair with her son-in-law

12) [line 48] LAVLAR - a scribe

13) [line 3] D'AGIDA BEI - she is Zekukah to him
14) [line 6] MA'AMAR ILAVEI ZIKAH KA RAMI - Ma'amar is appended to the preexisting Zikah

16) [line 14] EIN KIDUSHIN TOFSIN B'CHAYAVEI LAVIN
(a) There are women whom the Torah prohibits to certain men, however, if these men transgress a Torah prohibition and are Mekadesh (betroth) them the Kidushin are valid. Other women are prohibited to the extent that even if the men are Mekadesh them, the Kidushin are not valid.
(b) The Tana'im argue, based upon differing interpretations of the verses of the Torah (Kidushin 67b-68a), with which women Kidushin are valid and with which women Kidushin are not valid.

1. According to most of the Tana'im, Kidushin are valid with women who are prohibited only with a Lav and/or an Aseh. Kidushin are not valid with women who are prohibited with an Isur Kares (such as the Arayos that the Torah prohibits in Parshas Acharei Mos, Vayikra 18:6-23).
2. Rebbi Akiva and other Tana'im are more stringent, ruling that Kidushin are not valid even with those women who are prohibited with an Isur Lav. The Tana'im argue further with regard to the opinion of Rebbi Akiva, as to whether Kidushin are not valid only with some of the Chayavei Lavin (those women who were never permitted to the man in question), or with all of them. Additionally, one Tana claims that according to Rebbi Akiva, Kidushin are not valid with Isurei Aseh either (see "Mamzer," Background to 46:8).

17) [line 24] ASMACHTA
(a) At times, when Chazal make a Derashah (extrapolate a Halachah or other teaching) from a word in the Torah, it happens that the Halachah or teaching is not mid'Oraisa at all, but rather mid'Rabanan. When this happens, the Gemara usually states that the Halachah is mid'Rabanan, and "Kera Asmachta b'Alma," i.e. that the verse is only cited as a "support" for the Halachah mid'Rabanan, but its source is not actually from the Torah. (TOSFOS to Bava Basra 66b DH Michlal d'She'ivah writes that in many instances, Derashos of Chazal in the Midreshei Halachah, such as Toras Kohanim, which appear to be from the Torah, are only Asmachta'os.)
(b) A second type of Asmachta applies even to a Halachah which actually is mid'Oraisa. When Chazal find a hint in the Torah to a Halachah which has its basis in the Oral Tradition, they call this an Asmachta as well (Eruvin 5a, Chulin 77a).
(c) The Rishonim argue as to the reason why Chazal, in these instances, used verses to support their teachings.

1. From the words of the RAMBAM (Introduction to his Perush ha'Mishnayos) it appears that Asmachta'os are only mnemonic devices. (It is possible that he writes this only with regard to the latter type of Asmachta, Asmachta'os for Isurei Torah.)
2. MAHARIL (in Likutei Maharil) writes that Chazal used the device of Asmachta in order to make people regard certain Halachos mid'Rabanan as if they were actually mid'Oraisa, so that they should not treat them lightly.
3. The RITVA (to Rosh Hashanah 16a, see Be'er ha'Golah of the MAHARAL, Be'er 1) states that when Chazal present an Asmachta, it means that the Torah meant to suggest that it is fitting to implement such a Halachah, but that it did not choose to make it obligatory. The Torah empowered the Chachamim to enact it should they see the need for it arise. Similarly, the SHELAH (in Torah she'Be'al Peh, entry titled "Rabanan") writes that when the Chachamim utilized a hint from a verse, it means that they learned a particular approach of reasoning from this verse. Accordingly, it appeared to them that there was a need to decree this particular Halachah.
4. The MESHECH CHOCHMAH (Parshas Shoftim) claims that when Chazal present an Asmachta, it means that *after* Chazal instituted a particular Halachah or enacted a particular decree, they studied the Torah and found that the Torah had already hinted to that future decree in its eternal wisdom.

18) [line 36] ODER - one who hoes

19) [line 36] NICHSEI HA'GER
(a) When a Jew dies, his closest relatives inherit his estate (according to the hierarchy established by the Torah as recorded in Bamidbar 27:8-11). Since all of the Jews are related to each other (at least through Yakov Avinu and his sons), every Jew must have at least one heir. A convert, however, may have no heirs (since his non-Jewish relatives do not inherit his estate). When a convert dies without heirs, his estate becomes Hefker (ownerless). The first person who takes possession of his belongings becomes their owner.
(b) In order to take possession of the estate of a convert who dies without any heirs, one must make a Ma'aseh Kinyan (a formal Halachically-binding act of possession), as in all cases of taking possession of items that are Hefker. The forms of Ma'aseh Kinyan that may be used are: for Metaltelin (movable goods) - 1. Hagbahah, i.e. lifting an item; 2. Meshichah (lit. pulling), i.e. causing an item to move; 3. Chatzer, i.e. bringing the item into one's domain; for Mekarka'in (real estate) - Chazakah, i.e. performing an act that is normally performed by an owner.
(c) Examples of Chazakah are Na'al (locking), Gadar (fencing in) and Paratz (making a breach in a fence to create an entrance) or any act that is done to *enhance* the land, such as digging to improve a field and the like (MISHNAH Bava Basra 42a).

Next daf