Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHO MAY PROTEST THE KIDUSHIN

(a) A minor became Mekudeshes without her father's knowledge.
(b) (Rav): She can cancel the Kidushin (herself), so can her father.
(c) (Rav Asi): Her father can cancel the Kidushin (himself), she cannot.
(d) Question (Rav Huna - Beraisa): "Refuse, if her father will refuse (that his daughter marry the man that seduced her into having relations)" - the extra word "refuse" teaches that she can also refuse.
(e) [Version #1 (Rashi)] Answer (Rav, on behalf of Rav Asi): Perhaps the case is, the seducer did not intend to be Mekadesh her through relations.

1. Question: If so, why must a verse teach that they can refuse that she should be Mekudeshes?
2. Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): It teaches that an seducer pays the fine even when she cancels the Kidushin.
3. Support (Rav Yosef - Beraisa): "He will (give her a Kesuvah) to make her his wife" - he must Mekadesh her.

i. If he seduced her to be Mekadesh her, why must he Mekadesh her again?

4. Rejection (Abaye): He must Mekadesh her with the father's consent.]

(f) [Version #2 (Tosfos) Answer #1 (Rav, on behalf of Rav Asi): Perhaps the case is, the seducer did not intend to be Mekadesh her through relations.

1. Question: If so, why must a verse teach that they can refuse that she should be Mekudeshes?

(g) Answer #2 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Really, he intended to be Mekadesh her through relations;

1. The verse teaches that an seducer pays the fine even when she protests the Kidushin (but only the father can nullify the Kidushin).

(h) Question (Rav Yosef - Beraisa): "He will (give her a Kesuvah) to make her his wife" - he must Mekadesh her.

1. If he seduced her to be Mekadesh her, why must he Mekadesh her again?

(i) Answer (Abaye): He must Mekadesh her with the father's consent.]

(a) (Mishnah): A man told a woman: be Mekudeshes to me with this date, be Mekudeshes to me with this (another) date...' - if 1 of them is worth a Perutah, she is Mekudeshes; if not, not.
(b) 'Be Mekudeshes to me with this and this and this' - if altogether they are worth a Perutah, she is Mekudeshes; if not, not.

1. If she was eating them as he gave them to her, she is only Mekudeshes if 1 is worth a Perutah.

(c) (Gemara) Question: In the Mishnah, each time he says 'be Mekudeshes' - as whom is this?
(d) Answer (Rabah): As R. Shimon, who says that one who swears to many people is only liable for 1 oath, unless his says 'oath' to each person.
(e) (Mishnah): If she was eating them as he gave them to her, she is only Mekudeshes if 1 is worth a Perutah.
(f) Question: To which case does this refer?

1. Suggestion: To the first case ('Be Mekudeshes to me with this, be Mekudeshes to me with this...').
2. Rejection: If so, why say that she was eating them - even if she was storing them up, she is Mekudeshes only if 1 of them is worth a Perutah, for each date was a separate Kidushin!

(g) Answer #1: It refers to the second case ('with this and this and this').
(h) Question: Is she really Mekudeshes even if the first date is worth a Perutah?

1. The first date is as a loan!
2. R. Yochanan: We cannot explain the Mishnah.

(i) Answer #2 (Rav and Shmuel): Really, it refers to the first case. ('Be Mekudeshes to me with this, be Mekudeshes to me with this...') - the Mishnah teaches a bigger Chidush:

1. Not only if she was storing them up, she is only Mekudeshes if 1 of them is worth a Perutah -
2. Even if she was eating them, and gets immediately benefit, one might have thought that she makes herself Mekudeshes to him even if no 1 is worth a Perutah - we hear, this is not so.

(j) (Rav Ami): We can defend Answer #1!

1. When the Mishnah says that she is Mekudeshes if 1 is worth a Perutah - it means, if the last 1 is worth a Perutah.

(k) (Rava): We derive 3 laws from R. Ami.

1. One who is Mekadesh with a loan, the Kidushin is invalid;
2. One who is Mekadesh with a loan and also gives a Perutah - the woman intends to become Mekudeshes through the Perutah (so the Kidushin is valid);

3. In general, if Kidushin does not take effect, she must return the Kidushin money.

(a) A man was Mekadesh his sister.
(b) (Rav): She must return the money.
(c) (Shmuel): The money is a gift.

1. Rav says she must return it - a man knows that he cannot Mekadesh his sister, he must have given it as a deposit.
2. Question: If so, he should have said that he is giving her a deposit!
3. Answer: He was afraid that she would refuse to guard it.
4. Shmuel says the money is a gift - a man knows that he cannot Mekadesh his sister, he must have given it as a gift.
5. Question: If so, he should have said that he is giving her a gift!
6. Answer: He was afraid that this would embarrass her.

(d) Question (Ravina - Mishnah): One who separates Chalah from flour (before kneading the dough) - it is not considered Chalah, if the Kohen keeps it, it is considered theft.

1. According to Shmuel, we should say that a man knows that he cannot separate Chalah from flour, he must have given it as a gift!

(e) Answer: Indeed, letter of the law, the Kohen should keep it; it was enacted that he return it to avoid a terrible mistake.

1. If the Kohen thinks that the flour he received is exempt from Chalah, he might add it to a dough made with less than 5 Reva'im of flour (the size that requires one to separate Chalah),
2. He will not realize that he must separate Chalah (if the combined dough is 5 Reva'im), and will eat it as Tevel!

(f) Question: But we said that a man knows that he cannot separate Chalah from flour (so the Kohen will not err)!
(g) Answer: Many people know the law, but not the reason.

1. He knows that a person should not separate Chalah from flour - but he assumes, this is for the Kohen's benefit (so the Kohen will receive dough ready to bake); it follows, if the Kohen agrees, it is Chalah!

(h) Question: We should say that the flour is treated as Chalah, but it may not be eaten until separating Chalah on it!

1. (Mishnah): A man took produce from a porous flowerpot (whose produce must be tithed) to be Terumah on produce from a non-porous flowerpot (whose produce is exempt from tithes) - we treat what he separated as Terumah, but it may not be eaten until separating Terumah on it!

(i) Answer #1: There, the produce came from different vessels, so the Kohen will agree that the Terumah is invalid, and he will separate Terumah on it;

1. By the flour, the Kohen will not agree that it is not Chalah, and he will not separate Chalah on it!

(j) Answer #2: Really, the Kohen will agree even by flour;

1. We are concerned that the Yisrael who gave the flour will think that it was valid Chalah - he will not agree to separate Chalah again after kneading, he will eat his bread as Tevel!

(k) Question: But we said that a man knows that he cannot separate Chalah from flour!
(l) Answer: Many people know the law, but not the reason.

1. He knows that a person should not separate Chalah from flour - but he assumes, this is for the Kohen's benefit; it follows, if the Kohen accepts it, it is Chalah!

(m) Question: We should say that the flour is treated as Chalah, but the Yisrael must again take Chalah after kneading!

1. (Mishnah): A man took produce from a non-porous flowerpot to be Terumah on produce from a porous flowerpot - we treat what he separated as Terumah, but he must separate more Terumah on it (from a porous flowerpot)!

(n) Answer: As we said above - there, since the produce came from different vessels, the man will agree that the Terumah is invalid, and he will separate proper Terumah;

1. By flour, he will not agree!
2. Question: This is not true!

i. (Mishnah): One who takes a gourd to be Terumah and finds that it is bitter, or he separates a melon and finds that it is spoiled - what he took is Terumah, he must take Terumah again.

3. Answer: That case is different, for mid'Oraisa, what he separated is Terumah.

i. (R. Ilai): "You will not bear sin if you take the best part to be Terumah" - this implies, you will bear sin if you take the worst part;
ii. It follows, if one selects the bad produce to be Terumah, it becomes Terumah.