Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) MISTAKEN KIDUSHIN

(a) In the following cases, she is not Mekudeshes:

1. 'On condition that I am a Kohen', and he was found to be a Levi, or vice-versa;
2. 'On condition that I am a Nasin', and he was found to be a Mamzer, or vice-versa;
3. 'On condition that I am a city dweller', and he was found to dwell in the great city, or vice-versa;
4. 'On condition that my house is close to the bathhouse', and it was found to be far, or vice-versa;
5. 'On condition that I have a daughter or Shifchah Megudeles', and he was found not to have, or vice-versa;
6. 'On condition that I have no children', and he was found to have, or vice-versa.

(b) In all these cases, even if she says 'I intended to be Mekudeshes to him even if it was false', she is not Mekudeshes;

1. The same applies when she tricked him.

(c) (Gemara): A man sold his property, intending to settle in Eretz Yisrael; he did not say this at the time of the sale.

1. (Rava): Thoughts in the heart have no bearing in law.

(d) Question: From where does Rava know this?
(e) Answer #1 (Mishnah): "He will offer it" - this teaches that Beis Din forces a man to bring a burnt-offering.

1. Suggestion: Perhaps we force him against his will.
2. Rejection: "Willingly".

i. We force him until he says that he wants to bring it.

3. Question: Why is this valid - in his heart he does not want!
4. Suggestion: We deduce, thoughts in the heart are ignored.

(f) Rejection: That case could be different - surely, the man wants to bring the sacrifice to get atonement.
(g) Answer #2 (Mishnah): The same applies to Gitin of divorce and freedom - we force the husband or master until he says 'I want to give it'.

1. Question: But he was forced, he does not really want!
2. Answer: It must be, thoughts in the heart have no bearing in law.

(h) Rejection: Perhaps that is different, for it is a Mitzvah to listen to Chachamim.
(i) Answer #3 (Rav Yosef - Mishnah): A man was Mekadesh a woman, and later said 'I thought she was a Bas Kohen', and she is really a Bas Levi (or vice-versa), 'I thought she was poor', and she is rich (or vice-versa) - she is Mekudeshes, because she did not trick him.

1. Question: But he erred, he did not want to be Mekadesh such a woman!
2. Answer: It must be, thoughts in the heart have no bearing in law.

(j) Rejection (Abaye): Perhaps the Mishnah only says that we are stringent to consider her Mekudeshes.
(k) Answer #4 (Abaye - Mishnah): In all these cases, even if she says 'I intended to be Mekudeshes to him even if it was false', she is not Mekudeshes;

1. Question: But she says that she wanted to be Mekudeshes!
2. Answer: It must be, thoughts in the heart have no bearing in law.

(l) Rejection: There, he stipulated - perhaps thoughts in the heart cannot uproot a stipulation, but normally, they have bearing.
(m) Answer #5 (R. Chiya bar Avin): There was a case by Rav Huna of thoughts in the heart - he resolved the question from the following Mishnah.

1. (Mishnah): Reuven told Shimon: 'Bring me from the window or from the bag' (and Shimon brought him Hekdesh) - even though Reuven says that he intended for a different window or bag, Reuven transgressed Me'ilah.
2. Question: But he says that he didn't want from that window or bag!
3. Answer: It must be, thoughts in the heart have no bearing in law.
4. Question: Perhaps we suspect that Reuven is lying (to avoid bringing a sacrifice) - but if he really did not intend, he would be exempt!
5. Answer #1: If so, he should have said that he intended to use the Hekdesh (this would certainly exempt him).
6. Objection: A person does not want to say that he intentionally sinned!
7. Answer #2: Rather, if he was trying to avoid the sacrifice, he should have said that he remembered that it was Hekdesh (after having appointed Shimon to bring it).

i. (Beraisa): If the sender remembered, but not the agent - the agent transgressed Me'ilah.

(n) A man sold his property with intention to ascend to Eretz Yisrael. He went, but was unable to settle there.

1. [Version #1 (Rava): Anyone that goes intends to settle - since he was not able, the sale is void.]
2. [Version #2: He stipulated that he was going to Eretz Yisrael - this was fulfilled (the sale stands).]

(o) A man sold his property with intention to ascend to Eretz Yisrael. He never went.

1. [Version #1 (Rav Ashi): He could have gone if he wanted (so the sale stands).]
2. [Version #2: Nothing stopped him from going! (So the sale stands).]
3. Question: What is the difference between the 2 versions?
4. Answer: There were problems (surmountable, with difficulty) on the way. (According to Version #1, the sale stands; according to Version #2, it is void.)

(a) (Mishnah): 'Go Mekadesh Leah to me, in Peloni (a place)' - the agent was Mekadesh her somewhere else - she is not Mekudeshes;
(b) 'Go Mekadesh Leah to me, she is in Peloni' - the agent was Mekadesh her somewhere else - she is Mekudeshes.
(c) (Gemara - Mishnah): 'Give this Get to my wife, in Peloni' - the agent gave it elsewhere - the Get is invalid;
(d) 'Give this Get to my wife, she is in Peloni' - the agent gave it elsewhere - the Get is valid.
(e) It is necessary to teach both Mishnayos.

1. If only Kidushin was taught - one might have thought, since he is coming close to her, he is insistent to be Mekadesh her in a place where he is popular and people will speak nicely about him;

i. But by divorce, he separates from her, he doesn't care what people will say about him.

2. If only divorce was taught - one might have thought, since this is an embarrassment, he is insistent where the divorce take place;

i. But by Kidushin, he doesn't care where it is.

3. By teaching both Mishnayos, we see that he is insistent in both cases.

(f) (Mishnah): A man was Mekadesh a woman on condition that she is not bound by any vows, and found that there are vows on her - she is not Mekudeshes;
(g) If he made Nisu'in with her, without stipulating (again), and found that there are vows on her - she does not receive a Kesuvah;
(h) 'On condition that she has no blemishes', and she is found to have blemishes - she is not Mekudeshes;
(i) If he made Nisu'in with her, without stipulating, and found blemishes on her - she does not receive a Kesuvah;

1. Any blemish that disqualifies a Kohen, it disqualifies a Kidushin.

(j) (Gemara): This Mishnah is also taught in Maseches Kesuvos!

1. Here, the Tana teaches about Kidushin - by the way, he gives the law of the Kesuvah;
2. There, the Tana teaches about Kesuvos - by the way, he gives the law of Kidushin.

(a) (Mishnah): A man was Mekadesh 2 women with 1 Perutah, or 1 woman with a half-Perutah - even if he later sent Savlanos (gifts), she is not Mekudeshes, because he thought that she was already Mekudeshes (and did not intend to be Mekadesh her with the Savlanos);

(b) The same applies to a minor that was Mekadesh a woman (and sent Savlanos after he grew up).
(c) (Gemara): It is necessary to teach all 3 cases.

1. If we only taught the first case - we would think, people err and think the Kidushin was valid, since he gave a Perutah, which is considered money;

i. But we would think that everyone knows that less than a Perutah cannot Mekadesh, and in the second case, he sent Savlanos to be Mekadesh her.

2. If we only taught these 2 cases - we would think, people are not so exacting about the difference between a Perutah and less than a Perutah (so they err);

i. But we would think that everyone knows that a minor cannot Mekadesh, and in the third case, he sent Savlanos to be Mekadesh her.
ii. We hear, this is not so (even in this case, he errs, and thinks that she is already his wife).

(d) (Rav Huna and Rabah): We are concerned for Savlanos.
(e) [Version #1 - Question (Rabah, on himself - Mishnah): Even if he later sent Savlanos, she is not Mekudeshes.
(f) Answer (Abaye): The Mishnah gives the reason - because he thought that she was already Mekudeshes!]
(g) [Version #2 (Rabah): We learn our law from the Mishnah.

1. (Mishnah): (She is not Mekudeshes) because he thought that she was already Mekudeshes!
2. If not for the mistake, she would be Mekudeshes!

(h) Objection (Abaye): This is no support - the Mishnah teaches a bigger Chidush.

1. In a normal case, when a man never expressed intent to be Mekadesh, surely we are not concerned for Savlanos;
2. In our Mishnah, when he intended to be Mekadesh, one might have thought that we are concerned for Savlanos - we hear, this is not so.]

(i) Question: What was the final decision?
(j) [Version #1 (Rashi) Answer (Rav Papa): In an area where people Mekadesh and later send Savlanos, we are concerned (that he already was Mekadesh her).

1. In an area where people Mekadesh after sending Savlanos, we are not concerned.
2. Question: This is obvious!
3. Answer: There is a minority that Mekadesh and later send Savlanos. One might have thought, we are concerned for the minority - we hear, this is not so.]

(k) [Version #2 (Tosfos) Answer (Rav Papa): In an area where people Mekadesh and later send Savlanos, we are concerned (that he intended to be Mekadesh her with the gifts).

1. In an area where people Mekadesh after sending Savlanos, we are not concerned.

(l) Question: The first law is obvious!

1. Answer: There is a minority that Mekadesh before sending Savlanos. One might have thought, we assume he is from the minority (and did not intend to be Mekadesh her) - we hear, this is not so.]

(m) [Version #3 (R. Chananel, in Tosfos) Answer (Rav Papa): In an area where people Mekadesh and later send Savlanos, we are concerned;

1. In an area where people Mekadesh after sending Savlanos, we are not concerned.
2. Question: The first law is obvious!
3. Answer: Only a minority Mekadesh and later send Savlanos. One might have thought, we are not concerned for the minority - we hear, this is not so.]

(n) Question (Rav Acha bar Rav Huna): If people saw that a Kesuvah was written - are we concerned that she is Mekudeshes?
(o) Answer (Rava): Will we forbid a woman just because a Kesuvah was written?!
(p) Question: What was the final ruling?
(q) Answer (Rav Ashi): In an area where people Mekadesh and later write the Kesuvah, we are concerned;

1. In an area where people write the Kesuvah before the Kidushin, we are not concerned.
2. Question: The first law is obvious!
3. Answer: The case is, scribes are hard to find. One might have thought, since he found a scribe, he seized the opportunity (even though he did not yet Mekadesh) - we hear, we do not rely on this.