Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Kidushin, 60

1) "ON CONDITION THAT I GAVE YOU 200 ZUZ"

QUESTION: The Mishnah states that when a man says to a woman, "You are hereby Mekudeshes to me on condition that I give you 200 Zuz" (and he gives her a Perutah at that moment, RASHI), "she becomes Mekudeshes to him, and he must give her 200 Zuz." Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah argue how to understand this ruling. Rav Huna says that when the man gives the 200 Zuz to the woman and fulfills his condition, she becomes Mekudeshes to him retroactively. Rav Yehudah says that she only becomes Mekudeshes to him from the time that he gives her the 200 Zuz and on, and not retroactively.

The Gemara explains that the Machlokes between Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah is how to understand the intention of the man who is being Mekadesh the woman. Does he want the Kidushin to take effect immediately, but contingent upon the fulfillment of a condition later, or does he want the Kidushin to take effect only following the fulfillment of the condition? Both agree that the Kidushin -- when it takes effect -- is the result of the initial money that was given for the sake of Kidushin (i.e. the Perutah), and the requirement to give 200 Zuz is merely a condition that either delays the Kidushin from taking effect (Rav Yehudah) or that is a normal condition, letting the Kidushin take effect with the provision that the condition be fulfilled at some point.

Why, then, does RASHI (DH l'Rav Yehudah Havu Kidushei) say that according to Rav Yehudah, the Kidushin is being performed with the 200 Zuz and that the has no intention to be Mekadesh her with the Perutah? Why does Rashi explain that according to Rav Yehudah the act of Kidushin being performed is an entirely different act than the giving of the initial money? (MAHARSHA)

ANSWER: The MAHARASHA answers that the words of Rashi must be read differently. Rashi does not mean to say that the 200 Zuz is the money of Kidushin (Kesef Kidushin), and that the Kidushin is being made with the 200 Zuz. Rather, Rashi is saying that the Kidushin (indeed made by the initial Perutah that was given) should not take effect until the 200 Zuz is given. When Rashi writes that "he did not intend to be Mekadesh her with the Perutah but with 200 Zuz," he means that the Kidushin should not *take effect* at the time of the giving of the Perutah, but rather at the time of the giving of the 200 Zuz. But when it does take effect, it is because of the initial Perutah that was given.

60b

QUESTION: Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah argue both in a case of Kidushin that is given with a condition, and a case of a Get that is given with a condition. In the case of Kidushin, the man says, "You are hereby Mekudeshes to me on condition that I give you 200 Zuz." Rav Huna says that she becomes Mekudeshes immediately, and the man must fulfill his condition and give her 200 Zuz (that is, the Kidushin takes effect retroactively from the time that he fulfills the condition). Rav Yehudah says that she becomes Mekudeshes only from the time that he fulfills his condition.

In the case of a Get, the man says, "This is your Get on condition that you give me 200 Zuz." Again, Rav Huna rules that the divorce takes effect retroactively when she fulfills the condition, and Rav Yehudah holds that the Get takes effect only at the time that she fulfills the condition, from that point and on.

The Gemara says that the difference between the two opinions in the case of Kidushin is where the woman accepted Kidushin from another man before the first man fulfilled his condition. According to Rav Huna, the second Kidushin does not take effect, because when the first man fulfills his condition, his Kidushin takes effect retroactively and precedes the second man's Kidushin. According to Rav Yehudah, the second man's Kidushin takes effect because it precedes the point at which the first man's Kidushin takes effect.

The Gemara says that the difference between the two opinions in the case of a Get is where the Get was lost or destroyed before the woman gave the money. According to Rav Huna, the Get takes effect retroactively, so it does not need to be present at the time that she fulfills the condition. According to Rav Yehudah, the Get is not valid, because it does not exist at the time that the condition is fulfilled.

Why does the Gemara not give the same "Nafka Mina" for both Kidushin and Gerushin? The Gemara should have said that the difference between Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah in a case of Kidushin is where the money of Kidushin became lost or destroyed, just like the difference it gives for a case of Gerushin! Alternatively, the Gemara should have said that the difference in a case of Gerushin is where the woman accepted Kidushin from another man before the condition of the first husband's Gerushin was fulfilled, just like the difference that it gives for Kidushin!

ANSWER: TOSFOS explains that the Gemara could not have given the difference for Gerushin that it gives for Kidushin, and it could not have given the difference for Kidushin that it gives for Gerushin.

In the case of Kidushin, the Gemara could not have said that the difference is a case where the money was lost, because we learned in the previous Sugya that when a man is Mekadesh a woman with Kidushin, stating that it should take effect only after thirty days, the money is not considered a loan, but rather it is considered the money of Kidushin, and thus the debt that she owes to him (i.e. she owes him the money he gave her for Kidushin) can be used even if the money is no longer present. According to Rav Yehudah, if the Kidushin takes effect only after the fulfillment of the condition, then we view the money of Kidushin in the same way that we view it in a case of "l'Achar Sheloshim Yom," since the money was originally given for the sake of Kidushin.

In the case of Gerushin, the Gemara could not have said that the difference is a case where the woman accepted Kidushin from another man before the condition of the Get was fulfilled, because, Tosfos explains, Rav Yehudah is in doubt regarding the intention of the man who is marrying the woman, and, in the case of the Get, the intention of the man who is divorcing her. Rav Yehudah does not hold that the Kidushin or Gerushin *certainly* does not take effect immediately, but rather he is in *doubt* that perhaps the man's intention was for the Kidushin to take effect only after the fulfillment of the condition. Hence, when a Get was given "on condition that you give me 200 Zuz," and then the woman accepted Kidushin from someone else before the condition of the Get was fulfilled, both Rav Huna and Rebbi Yehudah agree that the woman must receive a Get (according to Rav Huna, it is a Get for a Vadai Kidushin, while according to Rav Yehudah it is a Get for a Safek) from the [second] man who was Mekadesh her if she wishes to marry someone else. In the case of Kidushin, however, there is a clear difference according to Rav Huna, and there is no need for a Get to be given by the second Mekadesh. According to Rav Yehudah, however, since there is a Safek, the woman must receive a Get. (See MAHARSHA.)

QUESTION: The Gemara challenges Rav Yehudah's ruling from two Beraisos. In the second Beraisa, the Tana Kama and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel argue in a case where a man said to his wife, "This is your Get on condition that you give me 200 Zuz," and then he died, with no children, before she fulfilled the condition. The Tana Kama says that the Get does not effect and she must do Yibum. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says that she may give the money to her husband's heirs and thereby make the Get take effect retroactively, freeing her from the obligation of Yibum.

The Gemara explains that the Tana Kama and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel agree that if the condition is fulfilled, the Get takes effect retroactively (in opposition to the view of Rav Yehudah). They argue only with regard to what the husband meant. Did he mean that she could fulfill the condition by giving the money *only* to him (Tana Kama), or did he mean that she could fulfill the condition even by giving the money to his heirs (Raban Shimon ben Gamliel?

Why does the Gemara assume that the point of difference between the Tana Kama and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel is whether the man's condition included his heirs or not, and therefore cite the Beraisa as proof against Rav Yehudah? Perhaps everyone agrees that even the heirs were included in the condition, and the point of the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel revolves around whether the meaning of the man's statement of "on condition" implies that the Get should take effect "me'Achshav," from now (which would be the view of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel), or only later, at the time that the condition is fulfilled (which would be the view of the Tana Kama)? If his intention was "me'Achshav," then the Get was given, and took effect, while he was still alive, but if his intention was not "me'Achshav," then the Get does not take effect because "Ein Get l'Achar Misah" (a Get cannot take effect after the man's death).

ANSWER: TOSFOS answers that even Rav Yehudah agrees that there is a *doubt* that perhaps the man meant "me'Achshav," from now, when he gave the Get on condition that the woman give him 200 Zuz. The Beraisa states that according to the Tana Kama, if the woman did not give the money, then she is obligated to do Yibum. This implies that if she wishes she can perform Yibum. This is true, however, only if we can assume that the Get *certainly* (Vadai) did not take effect, but if it is in a situation of doubt (Safek) then even Rav Yehudah will agree that Yibum cannot be performed. Since there is a doubt whether the man's intent was "me'Achshav," the Get might have taken effect while he was still alive, and thus she cannot do Yibum, even according to Rav Yehudah. Therefore, the only conclusion the Gemara could make was that all of the Tana'im agree with Rav Huna, and the Get certainly takes effect retroactively, and they are arguing about a different point (i.e. whether the man included his heirs in his condition).

The Rishonim offer another proof to the opinion of Tosfos from the continuation of the Sugya. The Gemara quotes a Beraisa that discusses a case of "me'ha'Yom ul'Achar Misah" ("this is your Get from today, and after death"). The Tana'im argue in that case whether the Get certainly takes effect, or whether it only takes effect out of doubt. The Gemara then asks that according to Rav Yehudah, why does the Tana choose such an odd case of "me'ha'Yom ul'Achar Misah" and not a normal case of a condition? We can conclude from here that Rav Yehudah would apply his opinion to the Machlokes in the Beraisa, and Rav Yehudah would hold like the Chachamim, while Rav Huna would hold like Rebbi. The Chachamim state clearly that the Get is a Safek, and hence Rav Yehudah, too, holds that there is a doubt what the man's intention was -- perhaps he meant that the Get should take effect only later, when the condition is fulfilled, but it is still possible that he meant "me'Achshav," and the Get took effect while he was still alive, and thus the Get is in doubt.