Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHAT IS CONSIDERED ACCEPTANCE OF ENGAGEMENT?

(a) Shimon engaged Rachel with a mattress of myrtle.

1. Onlookers: It is not worth a Perutah!
2. Shimon: She should be engaged with the 4 Zuzim inside.
3. Rachel took it and was silent.

(b) (Rava): Silence after the money was already given has no effect, as we learn from a Beraisa.

1. (Beraisa): Reuven told Leah: Take this money as a deposit; he later said, be engaged to me through it - if he said this at the time he gave it, she is engaged;

i. If he said this after he gave it - if she wants, she is engaged; if not, she is not engaged.

2. Question: What is considered 'wanting' and 'not wanting'?

i. Suggestion: Saying 'yes' or 'no'.
ii. Rejection: This would imply that when he said this at the time he gave it, she is engaged even if she said no - this is absurd!

3. Answer: Rather, 'wanting' is saying 'yes'; 'not wanting' is being silent.

i. This shows that silence after the money was given has no effect.

(c) Question (Chachamim of Fum Nahara, citing Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): The Beraisa is different than our case!

1. In the Beraisa, she took the money as a deposit - since she is responsible for it, she is afraid to throw it back.
2. In our case, the money was given for engagement - if she does not want to be engaged, she should throw it back!
3. Objection (Rav Achai): This question is ill-founded - not all women know the law!

i. She may think that even by engagement, if she throws the money and it is lost, she is responsible!

(d) Question (Rav Acha bar Rav): What is the law in such a case?
(e) Answer (Ravina): We never heard Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua's question, so we rule as Rava (she is not engaged);

1. You (in Fum Nahara) heard his question - you must be concerned, perhaps she is engaged!

(f) A woman was selling belts. A man came and stole one; she asked him to return it.

1. The man: If I do, will you be engaged to me?
2. She took it in silence.

(g) (Rav Nachman): She is not engaged - she can say, I merely took what is mine.
(h) Question (Rava - Beraisa): A man engaged a woman with something he (openly) robbed, extorted, or (secretly) stole, or he grabbed money from her hand and engaged her with it - she is engaged.
(i) Answer: That is when she had previously agreed to be engaged to him.
(j) Question: How do we now that this changes things?
(k) Answer (Beraisa): A man told a woman 'Take this money that I owe you'; he retracted and said 'Be engaged to me with it';

1. If he retracted at the time he gave it, if she wants, she is engaged; if not, not;
2. If he retracted after he gave it, even if she wants, she is not engaged.
3. Question: What is considered 'wanting' and 'not wanting'?
4. Suggestion: 'Wanting' is saying 'yes', 'not wanting' is saying 'no'.
5. Rejection: (The latter statement) implies that had she not said 'no', but rather was silent, she would be engaged;

i. If so, the Beraisa should say, 'She is engaged; if she does not want, she is not engaged'!

6. Answer: Rather, 'Wanting' is saying 'yes', 'not wanting' is being silent.

i. If she is silent, she is not engaged - this is because she can say that she took her property - this contradicts the Beraisa of the thief!

7. (Summation of answer): We must explain that this Beraisa is when she did not previously agree to be engaged to him, the Beraisa of the thief is when she did!

(a) (R. Yakov citing Rav Asi): Just as a woman is not acquired with less than a Perutah, also land.
(b) Question (Rabanan - Beraisa): Even though a woman is not acquired with less than a Perutah, land can be.
(c) Answer (R. Yakov): It can be acquired with less than a Perutah through Chalifin (but not as an acquisition through money).

1. (Beraisa): We may acquire (through Chalifin) with a vessel, even if it is not worth a Perutah.

(d) (Rav Yehudah): Anyone not expert in the laws of divorce and engagement should have no involvement with them.
(e) (Rav Asi): Unqualified people that get involved with them are worse than the generation of the flood.

1. Improper rulings cause Mamzerim; the ensuing destruction affects people, animals birds and fish;
2. The fish were not killed during the flood.

(f) (Mishnah): A woman that brought her sin-offering and died - her heirs bring the burnt-offering that goes with it.
(g) (Shmuel): This is only if she designated the burnt-offering when she was alive - if not, they do not bring it.

1. He holds, mid'Oraisa, there is no lien on a person's property to pay his debts.

(h) (R. Yochanan): The heirs bring the burnt-offering even if she never designated it.

1. He holds, mid'Oraisa, there is a lien on a person's property to pay his debts.

(i) Question: We already heard this argument of Shmuel and R. Yochanan elsewhere (why was it repeated?)!

1. (Rav and Shmuel): An oral loan (i.e. a document was not written) - it cannot be collected from the borrower's heirs, nor from people that bought land from the borrower;
2. (R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish): It can be collected from the heirs or from people that bought land from the borrower.

(j) Answer: It is necessary to hear the argument in both cases.

1. If we only heard by a loan, one might have thought that Shmuel admits by a sacrifice, since that obligation is written in the Torah.
2. If we only heard by a sacrifice, one might have thought that R. Yochanan only makes the heirs pay in such cases, because a debt written in the Torah is as if it is written in a document;

i. But by a loan, he would admit that the heirs and buyers are exempt - we hear, this is not so.

(k) (Rav Papa): The law is, an oral loan can be collected from heirs, but not from those that bought the borrower's land.

1. It can be collected from heirs, because mid'Oraisa, there is a lien on a person's property to pay his debts;
2. (Chachamim enacted that) it can not be collected from those that bought the borrower's land, since buyers were unaware of the loan.

(a) (Mishnah): A woman acquires herself through a Get or death of her husband.
(b) We know the source that a Get permits her - "He will write a Sefer of cutting...";
(c) Question: What is the source that a widow may remarry?
(d) Answer #1: We learn from logical reasoning: since the husband caused her prohibition to other men, now that he is dead, she is permitted.
(e) Objection: But we see from forbidden relatives (i.e. a step-mother), the prohibition remains after the cause of the prohibition (the father) dies!
(f) Answer #2: Rather, the Torah said that if a man dies childless, his widow is prohibited (to all except the Yavam) - we infer, if he dies with children, the widow is permitted!
(g) Rejection: Perhaps the inference is reversed: if he dies childless, his widow is prohibited to strangers and permitted to the Yavam; if he dies with children, the widow is forbidden to all!
(h) Answer #2: Rather, the Torah said that a widow is forbidden to a Kohen Gadol - we infer, she is permitted to a regular Kohen.
(i) Rejection: Perhaps she is forbidden to all by a Chaivei Aseh, and to a Kohen Gadol with an additional Lav!

1. Question: How do we understand such a Chaivei Aseh?

i. If death of the husband removes the Lav (which is punishable by death and Kares) of a married woman - it should also remove the Aseh!
ii. If his death does not remove the Aseh - nor should it remove the Lav!

2. Answer: It only removes the Lav, as we find by sacrifices that became blemished!

i. Before they are redeemed, one who benefits from them transgresses Me'ilah; it is forbidden to shear them or make them work;
ii. After they are redeemed, Me'ilah no longer applies, but it is still forbidden to shear them or make them work.

(j) Answer #4: We learn from "Perhaps he will die in war, and Acher (a different man) will take (his wife)."

1. Question (R. Shisha brei d'Rav Idi): Perhaps the other man referred to is the Yavam!
2. Answer (Rav Ashi): The Yavam would not be called "Acher".

(k) Answer #5 (Rav Ashi): "(Her second husband will divorce her) or die" - the Torah equates death of the husband to divorce.

1. Just as divorce fully permits remarriage, also death of the husband.