Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) [line 1] "YAKRIV OSO LI'RTZONO" - "He shall bring it (the Korban) according to his will." (Vayikra 1:3) - The words "Yakriv Oso" teach that Beis Din must make sure that a person brings the Korban that he pledged to bring (the words "Yakriv Oso" are otherwise extra, since the verse already stated that the person must bring his Korban, "Yakrivenu"). The word "li'Rtzono" teaches that even when being forced to bring his Korban, he must bring it willingly.

2) [line 1] KOFIN OSO - we force him

3) [line 6] KAPARAH (KAPARAS OLAH) - atonement [achieved by bringing a Korban that one vowed to bring]
(a) A Korban that is brought as a voluntary sacrifice (Nedavah) provides some measure of atonement. As such, our Gemara cannot prove that Devarim sheb'Lev Einam Devarim, since a person who is forced to bring a Korban Nedavah benefits in that he achieves some measure of atonement.
(b) The Rishonim differ over the exact atonement afforded by a Korban Nedavah. 1. The Gemara in Zevachim 7b explains that an Olah atones for having failed to perform Mitzvos Aseh. The Gemara (Zevachim 6a) states that this atonement is only provided "mi'Kufya," (lit. in a superimposed or secondary manner). According to the Ramban (Bava Basra 48a) this is the Kaparah to which our Gemara refers. (Perhaps every Korban Nedavah provides some form of Kaparah mi'Kufya.) 2. Alternatively, TOSFOS (Bava Basra ibid. DH Yakriv) writes that the Gemara uses the word "Kaparah" loosely, meaning that the person benefits in that he has fulfilled his vow to bring a Korban and will not transgress the sin of not fulfilling his Neder.

4) [line 7] GITEI NASHIM
(a) The Torah states (Devarim 24:1) that if a man wants to divorce his wife, he must write a Sefer Kerisus (a document that cuts [the bond between them]) and hand it to her in front of two witnesses. In the language of Chazal, this document of divorce is called a Get (pl. - Gitin).
(b) The man must give the Get willingly. If he is forced to give it, the Get is not valid.

5) [line 8] SHICHRUREI AVADIM
(a) A Jew who owns a Nochri slave or maidservant (an Eved Kena'ani or a Schifchah Kena'anis) may release them from bondage in one of two ways: by accepting payment for their release, or by giving them a "Get Shichrur," or bill of release (Kidushin 22b). If they are not released in one of these two ways, they are still considered to be slaves for all Halachic matters (such as with regard to who they are allowed to marry and what Mitzvos they are obligated to keep).
(b) When the master releases his slave or maidservant, he must say words such as "Harei At l'Atzmeich" - "Behold you are [free] to [be the master over] yourself," or the like, indicating that the slave is free of bondage.
(c) The master must give the Shichrur to the Eved willingly. If he is forced to give it, the Shichrur is not valid.

6) [line 18] UVDA HAVAH BEI RAV CHISDA, V'RAV CHISDA BEI RAV HUNA - an incident happened in the study house of Rav Chisda, and Rav Chisda [took it to] the study house of Rav Huna

7) [line 19] PASHTUHA ME'HA - they answered it from this [Mishnah]
8) [line 20] DELUSKEMA - (a) (O.F. tasche) sack (RASHI); (b) chest (RAMBAM Peirush ha'Mishnayos to Me'ilah 6:1); (c) a basket (PEIRUSH KADMON to Me'ilah 21a)

9a) [line 20] AF AL PI SHE'AMAR BA'AL HA'BAYIS, "LO HAYAH LI B'LIBI ELA AL ZEH," KEIVAN SHE'HEVI LO MI'ZEH... - even though the owner said [to the Shali'ach], "I meant only [that you bring me the money from] the other [box or windowsill]," nevertheless, since the Shali'ach brought [the money] from this one (box or windowsill) [and thereby accurately carried out the owner's initial command to him...]

b) [line 21] BA'AL HA'BAYIS MA'AL - the owner transgresses the prohibition of Me'ilah (ME'ILAH / KORBAN ME'ILAH)
(a) It is forbidden to derive personal benefit from anything that is Hekdesh, as the Torah states, "Lo Suchal le'Echol b'Sha'arecha...u'Nedarecha Asher Tidor" - "You may not eat in your settlements...and your pledges [to Hekdesh] that you will pledge" (Devarim 12:17) (RAMBAM Hilchos Me'ilah 1:1-3; see Insights to Me'ilah 2:1). The minimum amount for which one transgresses this prohibition is a Perutah's worth of benefit.
(b) If someone benefited from Hekdesh intentionally, he receives Malkos and must pay to Hekdesh the amount that he benefited. However, the object from which he benefited remains Hekdesh.
(c) If someone benefited from Hekdesh unintentionally, the object loses its Kedushah. He must bring a Korban Me'ilah and repay Hekdesh the value of his benefit plus an additional *fifth* (of the ensuing total, or a *quarter* of the original value). This is true of any object that has Kedushas Damim (i.e. it's value is consecrated to Hekdesh). An object that has Kedushas ha'Guf (i.e. an object with intrinsic Kedushah, such as the utensils used in the Beis ha'Mikdash or a live Korban that is used in the Beis ha'Mikdash "as is") does not lose its Kedushah under any circumstances (Rosh Hashanah 28a).

10) [line 23] DEL'MIFTAR NAFSHEI MI'KORBAN KA'AMAR - for he is merely saying [that he meant that the Shali'ach should take the money from the other place] in order to exempt himself from [the obligation to bring] a Korban

11) [line 26] SALIK, V'LO ISDAR LEI - he went up [to Eretz Yisrael], but it was not livable for him (either because of lack of sustenance or because he could not find a dwelling in which to live -- RASHI)

12a) [line 36] B'HAI ASRA, RACHAMU LI - in this place, people are merciful to (lit. love) me
b) [line 36] V'LO MEMALEI MILEI ILAVAI - and they will not speak [bad] words about me

13) [line 40] V'NIMTZE'U ALEHA NEDARIM - and it was discovered that she had made Nedarim

14) [line 40] KANSAH SETAM - he married her without any conditions
15) [line 42] MUMIN - blemishes/defects

16) [line 43] KOL HA'MUMIN HA'POSLIN B'CHOHANIM, POSLIN B'NASHIM (BA'AL MUM) - all blemishes that invalidate Kohanim, invalidate women (i.e. prevent the marriage from taking effect if a condition was stipulated that she not have any blemishes)
See Background to Kidushin 21:13 regarding the invalidating of a Kohen due to a Mum.

17) [last line] SAVLONOS - the gifts that a man sends to his fiancee

18) [line 6] MESHADER - he sends
19) [line 9] LO KIM LEHU L'INSHEI - people are not expert
20) [line 13] CHOSHESHIN L'SAVLONOS - we are concerned [that the gift he sent to the woman was] for Savlonos (a) and he intended to be Mekadesh her with that gift (RASHI); (b) and he had *previously* betrothed her in front of witnesses who subsequently went away (RABEINU CHANANEL, TOSFOS)

21) [line 22] LO NACHIS L'SORAS KIDUSHIN KELAL - he did not go into the discussion of Kidushin at all (i.e. he never thought about Kidushin -- RASHI)

22) [line 25] MAI HEVI ALAH? - What is the conclusion with regard to this?
23) [line 27] MEKADSHI V'HADAR MESABLEI, PESHITA - [in a place where] they usually betroth [a woman] first, and then send gifts of Savlonos, it is obvious [that we must be concerned that the gift is an act of Kidushin]!
(See above, entry #20:b and alternate Girsa of RABEINU CHANANEL in TOSFOS DH Hachi Garsinan.)

24) [line 28] LO TZERICHA D'RUBA MEKADSHI V'HADAR MESABLEI - no, it was necessary -- for a case where *most* [but not all] people betroth [a woman] first, and then send gifts of Savlonos (see alternate Girsa of RABEINU CHANANEL in TOSFOS)

25) [line 32] HUCHZAK SHTAR KESUVAH BA'SHUK - if a Kesuvah document was found in the marketplace [naming a certain woman as the wife of a certain man]

26) [line 33] V'CHI MIPNEI SHE'MACHZIK SHTAR KESUVAH BA'SHUK - and just because a Kesuvah document was found in the marketplace [we must assume that the woman is married to that man]?!

27) [line 39] SAFRA HU D'ISRAMI - he happened upon a scribe

28) [line 40] ISHAH U'VITAH - a woman and her daughter
A man may not marry two women who are mother and daughter (Vayikra 18:17).

29) [line 40] ISHAH V'ACHOSAH - a woman and her sister
A man may not marry his wife's sister during his wife's lifetime (Vayikra 18:18).

30) [line 43] KALKALAH SHEL TE'ENIM - a basket of figs
31) [line 43] SHELAHEN HAYESAH - it belonged to the women (he took it from them without permission)

32) [line 44] V'SHEL SHEVI'IS HAYESAH - the figs were grown during the Shevi'is year (SHEVI'IS)
The Torah requires that farmers desist from working the land every seventh year, as described in Vayikra 25:1-7. The fruits that grow during the seventh (Shevi'is) year are holy to the extent that 1. they must be considered ownerless; anyone may come into any field and pick the fruit that he intends to eat. 2. The fruits may not be bought and sold in a normal fashion (see Insights to Sukah 39:2). 3. The Torah requires that the fruits of Shevi'is be used only for eating or drinking (in the normal manner of eating for that type of fruit) or for burning to provide light (in the case of oil). They may not be wasted or used for medicinal purposes or animal fodder, etc.

33) [line 46] "ISHAH EL ACHOSAH LO SIKACH LI'TZROR" - "A woman as well as her sister do not marry, to make them quarrel." (Vayikra 18:18)

34) [line 47] TZAROS - co-wives
35) [line 48] "V'NICHRESU HA'NEFASHOS HA'OSOS MI'KEREV AMAM" - "And the souls that do this (any of the forbidden relationships) will be cut off from within their nation." (Vayikra 18:29)

36) [line 50] KOL SHE'EINO B'ZEH ACHAR ZEH, AFILU B'VAS ACHAS EINO
(a) Any two actions that cannot take effect when done consecutively, cannot take effect when done simultaneously either. That is, any transaction or operation that cannot take effect when done after a given transaction or operation has already been done, also cannot take effect when done at the same time as the first operation (i.e. the two operations cannot take effect at once).
(b) Not only can these two things not take effect at one time, but even if one wanted only *one* of them to take effect (and not both of them) but he did not specify *which one* should take effect, in such a case neither one takes effect at all, because of the principle that any two acts that cannot take effect consecutively, also cannot take effect simultaneously. For example, when a father (or husband) of a Na'arah states about her Neder that it should be both *endorsed* and *annulled* at one and the same time, neither status results. (Another example is that when a person makes an Eruv Techumin (see Background to Kesuvos 64:26), he cannot be Koneh Shevisah in more than one set of four Amos. If one attempts to make his Makom Shevisah underneath a tree which covers an area of eight Amos, but he does not specify in which four Amos of the eight his Shevisah will be, he does not acquire Shevisah *anywhere*. Since one cannot make an additional Makom Shevisah of four Amos if one already made a Makom Shevisah, he also cannot make his Makom Shevisah underneath the tree in "four [unspecified Amos] out of eight Amos." In such a case, even one set of four Amos does not become his Makom Shevisah.)
(c) The logic behind this principle ((b) above) is that since the person did not specify which of the two things should take effect, but he said vaguely that *one of the two* should take effect, it must be that his intention is that *each* one of the two take effect, at least in part. Since it is not possible for them to take effect at once, neither one of them takes effect at all. For this reason, in cases such as the separation of Ma'aser, even though the Ma'aser can only take effect on 10% of the grain, nevertheless since it can take effect on part of each and every particle, or half-particle, of grain and it is not necessary for the 10% to take effect all in one area, the 10% of Ma'aser *can* take effect even though the person did not specify upon which part of the product it should take effect.

Next daf