Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) KIDUSHIN WITH STOLEN MONEY

(a) (Mishnah): There was a case of 5 women...
(b) (Rav): We learn 4 laws from this case, but 1 of these is not clear.

1. One who is Mekadesh with fruit of Shemitah - she is Mekudeshes;
2. One who is Mekadesh with stolen property - even if it is her property, she is not Mekudeshes;

i. We learn this from the fact that the Mishnah had to say that the fruits were of Shemitah (and therefore Hefker), even though the women owned the field - had it not been Shemitah, they would not be Mekudashos.

3. Rachel can be an agent to receive Kidushin for Leah, even if through this they become co-wives;
4. The Mishnah also teaches the law of Kidushin that forbids the husband to have relations with her.
5. Question: Why didn't Rav consider this something we clearly learn from the Mishnah?
6. Answer: He was unsure if we explain as Abaye or as Rava (above).

(c) R. Yochanan: Did Rav really say this?!

1. Question: But R. Yochanan himself taught, if Reuven stole something from Shimon, and Shimon has not despaired of getting it back, neither of them can make it Hekdesh.

i. Reuven cannot, because it is not his; Shimon cannot, because he has no control over it.
ii. (Likewise, Reuven cannot Mekadesh with it, because it is not his.)

2. Answer: R. Yochanan was surprised that Rav agreed with him.

(d) Question (Beraisa): A man was Mekadesh a woman with robbed, extorted or stolen property, or he grabbed money from her hand and was Mekadesh her - she is Mekudeshes.
(e) Answer: The case is he was Mekadesh her with property he stole from her.
(f) Question: But the end of the Beraisa says, he grabbed money from her hand - implying, the beginning of the Beraisa speaks of property stolen from others!
(g) Answer: The end of the Beraisa explains the beginning.

1. If he was Mekadesh her with robbed, extorted or stolen property - for example, he grabbed money from her hand and was Mekadesh her...

(h) Question: But our Mishnah speaks of property stolen from the women, and Rav said that they would not be Mekudashos if it was not Shemitah!
(i) Answer: Rav speaks when there was no prior discussion that he would Mekadesh her; the Beraisa is when they had already discussed this.
(j) A woman was washing her feet. Reuven came and grabbed money from Shimon. He threw it to her and said 'you are Mekudeshes to me with this'.

1. (Rava): No one is concerned for R. Shimon's opinion, that a person that is openly robbed immediately despairs of getting it back (therefore, she is not Mekudeshes).

(a) A sharecropper took a handful of onions and was Mekadesh a woman.

1. (Rava): The landowner did not agree that you may take these (therefore, she is not Mekudeshes).
2. This only applies to a handful - but a bundle, the landowner surely agrees (for he will likewise take a bundle - they are partners in the produce).

(b) A beer brewer was Mekadesh a woman with the dregs of beer. The owner found out and said 'Why didn't you give her good beer?'
(c) (Rava): The concept of 'Why didn't you take better ones?' was only said by Terumah.

1. (Beraisa): Sometimes, one can take Terumah without being appointed by the owner: Reuven entered Shimon's field, gathered fruit, and took Terumah without asking Shimon. If Shimon suspects that Reuven wanted to steal, the Terumah is invalid; if not, it is valid.
2. Question: How do we know if he suspects him of theft?
3. Answer: If when Shimon sees him he asks 'Why didn't you take better ones?' - if there really are better fruit, he does not suspect him of theft; if not, he suspects him.

i. If the owners added on more, in either case the Terumah is valid.

(d) But in the case of the brewer - the owner only said 'Why didn't you take better ones?' because he was embarrassed to say that he does not consent!

(a) (Mishnah): A man was Mekadesh with the share of Kodshim he received, whether Kodshei Kodashim or Kodshim Kalim - the Kidushin is invalid.
(b) R. Meir says, if a man was Mekadesh with Ma'aser Sheni - whether or not he knew it was Ma'aser Sheni, the Kidushin is invalid;

1. R. Yehudah says, if he knew it was Ma'aser Sheni, the Kidushin is valid.

(c) R. Meir says, if a man was Mekadesh with Hekdesh - if he knew it was Hekdesh, the Kidushin is valid; if not, not;

1. R. Yehudah says, if he knew it was Hekdesh, the Kidushin is invalid; if not, it is valid.

(d) (Gemara) Suggestion: The Mishnah is not as R. Yosi ha'Galili.

1. (Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Galili): "(A soul) that will transgress (use Hekdesh) in Hash-m (and deny his countryman)" - this includes Kodshim Kalim, which belong to the owner (and also pertain to Hash-m).

(e) Rejection: The Mishnah can be as R. Yosi ha'Galili.

1. R. Yosi ha'Galili only said they belong to the owner when they are alive, not after they are slaughtered.
2. Question: Why not?
3. Answer: They are considered Hash-m's; the owners are allowed to eat from Hash-m's table.

(f) Support (Mishnah): A man was Mekadesh with the share of Kodshim he received (i.e. after it was slaughtered), whether Kodshei Kodashim or Kodshim Kalim - the Kidushin is invalid.
(g) (Beraisa - Sumchus): A man was Mekadesh with the share of Kodshim he received, whether Kodshei Kodashim or Kodshim Kalim - the Kidushin is invalid.

1. Objection (R. Yehudah): Why would a woman be in the Mikdash to receive Kidushin?!
2. R. Yosi: This law needs to be taught - perhaps she made an agent to receive Kidushin! Also - if she happened to enter, we must know the law!