Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE STATUS OF ESROGIM

(a) Question: A Mishnah teaches, 'An esrog has the law of a tree in 3 Derachim' - it should say 'Devarim'!
(b) Answer: It says 'Derachim' for parallel structure to the end of the Mishnah, which says that it is as vegetables in 1 Derech.
(c) Question: The end of the Mishnah should also say 'Davar"!
(d) Answer: The end of the Mishnah teaches that an esrog has the nature of vegetables;

1. Just as vegetables grow from the rain that falls the entire time they grow, and we take Ma'aser according to the year in which they are picked, also Esrogim.

(e) Question: Why do the following Mishnayos say 'Derachim' rather than 'Devarim'?

1. (Mishnah): A Kvi in some Derachim is as a wild animal, in some ways as a domestic animal, in some ways as both, in some ways as neither.
2. (Mishnah): This is one of the Derachim in which Gitin of divorce are as Gitin or freedom.

(f) Answer: Wherever there are different ways, the Tana teaches 'Derachim'; when all ways are similar, he says 'Devarim'.

1. Support (Mishnah): R. Eliezer says, an esrog is as a tree in all Devarim.

(a) Question: The Mishnah says 'A woman is acquired in any of 3 (and no more!) ways, and acquires her independence through either of 2 (and no more!) ways' - what ways might we have thought also work?
(b) Answer (part 1): She is acquired in any of 3 ways - but not by Chupah.

1. Question: Rav Huna says that Chupah makes engagement - what is excluded?
2. Answer: It excludes Chalipin (acquisition through exchange).

i. One might have thought, since we learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Kichah-Kichah" from the sale of Efron's field - just as a field may be acquired through Chalipin, also a woman - we hear, this is not so.
ii. Question: Why doesn't Chalipin work?
iii. Answer: Chalipin works with less than the value of a Perutah - a woman does not let herself be acquired (Rashi; Tosfos - she cannot be acquired) through such an acquisition.

3. Answer (part 2): She acquires her independence through either of 2 ways - but not Chalitzah.

i. One might have thought, a Kal va'Chomer teaches that Chalitzah works.
ii. A Yevamah is not permitted by a Get, but Chalitzah permits her - a wife is permitted by a get, all the more so, through Chalitzah - we hear, this is not so.
iii. Question: Why not?
iv. Answer: "A Sefer of cutting" - a Sefer cuts her off and nothing else.

(a) (Mishnah): With money...
(b) Question #1: How do we know that money makes engagement?
(c) Question #2 (Mishnah): 'A man may engage his daughter (a minor) through money, a document or relations' - how do we know that money works, and that the father gets the money?
(d) Answer (Rav Yehudah): "A slave goes free (when she becomes a Na'arah), no money is paid" - her master is not paid, but someone else that has dominion over her (her father) is paid (when she leaves her father, at engagement).
(e) Question: Why not learn differently - no money is paid when she goes free, but money is paid when she leaves her father, and she gets the money!
(f) Answer: We know that the father can engage her - "I gave my daughter to this man";

1. One cannot say that the father engages her, and she gets the money!

(g) Question: Perhaps this is only regarding a minor, for she herself cannot accept engagement - but a Na'arah, who can accept engagement, she can engage herself and keep the money!
(h) Answer #1: "While a Na'arah, in her father's house" - all money that comes to a Na'arah goes to her father.

1. Question: But Rav Huna taught "When a man will sell his daughter as a slave" - just as a salve's earnings belong to her master, a girl's earnings belong to her father;

i. Why isn't this learned from "While a Na'arah, in her father's house"?

2. Answer: You must say, that verse only applies to vows, not to earnings;

(i) Rejection: Likewise, the verse only applies to vows, not to engagement!

1. Suggestion: Even though the verse was said by vows, we should learn that it applies to engagement as well.
2. Rejection: We cannot learn monetary laws from prohibitions.
3. Suggestion: We should learn, just as the fine that a rapist or enticer pays goes to her father, also the engagement money.
4. Rejection: We do not learn standard monetary laws from fines.
5. Suggestion: We should learn, just as the money that a rapist or enticer pays for the embarrassment and blemish he caused, goes to her father - also, engagement money.
6. Rejection: We cannot learn from those payments, the father receives them because the embarrassment and blemish also affect him!

(j) Answer #2: Rather, the verse excludes a similar departure (when a slave leaves her master, her master gets no money, but when a girl leaves her father by engagement, the father gets money).
(k) Objection But these departures are not similar!

1. A slave totally leaves her master's jurisdiction - but an engaged Na'arah does not totally leave her father's jurisdiction until Chupah!

(l) Answer: Regarding vows (her father can no longer annul her vows himself), she is no longer in his jurisdiction.

1. (Mishnah): The father and husband jointly annul the vows of an engaged Na'arah.