Previous daf

1)

(a) Abaye extrapolates from Rav - that in a case where three men betrothed a woman on the same day; the first one 'me'Achshav u'le'Achar Sheloshim Yom', the second one, 'me'Achshav u'le'Achar Esrim Yom' and the third one, 'me'Achshav u'le'Achar Asarah Yamim' - the first and the last ones require a Get, but not the middle one.

(b) The reason for this is - because, if 'u'le'Achar Asarah Yamim' is a clause, then Kidushin of the first one will be valid; whereas if it is a retraction, then the last one will be valid. Either way, there is no room for the middle Kidushin to be valid.

(c) Abaye finds it necessary to teach us this - because we might otherwise have thought that Rav also contends with the possibility that one of the Kidushin is a clause and the other one a retraction. In that case, we would have to contend with the possibility that the first one was a retraction and the second one a clause, in which case the second one would require a Get, too. So Abaye teaches needs to tell us that Rav's uncertainty lay in the doubt whether 'me'Achshav u'le'Achar ... ' implies the one or the other, but not both.

(a) Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Rav. When he says 'Afilu Me'ah Tofsin Bah' - he means that in fact, even if there were a hundred men in the above sequence, each one would have to give the woman a Get, seeing as each Kidushin would take effect.

(b) He cannot mean that each one is a Safek Kidushin, by way of the explanation that Abaye just rejected - because then he would not have said 'Afilu Me'ah *Tofsin' (which means that all of them take effect), whereas according to that explanation, only one of them would actually take effect, but we are not sure which one.

(c) Rav Mesharshaya B'rei de'Rav Ami explained this to Rav Asi - by comparing it to rows of bricks, where, when placing the first brick of the second row, one does not place it entirely on top of the one below (since this would result in all the rows falling), but protruding beyond the end of the lower row, so that the second brick covers half the first brick and half the second one and so on. According to Ula too, the first Kidushin begins immediately, but is only completed in thirty days, leaving the second Kidushin to begin its growth from the point where the first Kidushin has not yet taken effect (and so with each subsequent Kidushin).

(a) The Beraisa states 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Miysah, Get ve'Eino Get. ve'Im Meis - Choletzes ve'Lo Misyabemes'.

(b) The Tana of this Beraisa supports the opinion of Rav. Shmuel reconciles his opinion with the Beraisa - by establishing the author as the Rabbanan, whereas he holds like Rebbi.

(c) According to Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan - the Get ought to be invalid, because the Torah writes "K'riysus", invalidating any Get that does not divide the couple completely.

(d) Abaye refutes Rava's suggestion that since both a Get and death take a woman out of her husband's jurisdiction, her husband's death will conclude what the Get began - on the grounds that whereas a Get takes her out of the Yavam's domain, her husband's death brings her in!

(a) So Abaye explains the Beraisa (which requires Chalitzah and not Yibum, by 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Miysah') according to Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan - mi'de Rabbanan, on account of 'me'Hayom Im Meisi' (which is a clause and), where the Get is consequently valid retroactively should he die.

(b) The reason that we do not then require Chalitzah in the case of 'me'Hayom Im Meisi' on account of 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Miysah' is - because we are afraid that, once we we require Chalitzah, they may go on to perform Yibum.

(c) This fear is not however real in the case of 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Miysah' - because, since strictly speaking, they are permitted to perform Yibum, we have nothing to worry about.

(a) The Tana says that in a case where a man stipulates 'Harei At Mekudeshes Li al-M'nas she'Etein Lach ...

1. ... Masayim Zuz' - she is Mekudeshes, and he is obligated to give her the money.
2. ... Masayim Zuz mi'Ka'an ve'ad Sheloshim Yom' - she is Mekudeshes, provided he gives her the money within thirty days.

(b) If he stipulated 'al-M'nas she'Yesh Li Masayim Zuz', the Tana says that she is betrothed if he has it. If he stipulated that he will show her two hundred Zuz, then she is betrothed as long as the money that he shows her is his own - but not if he is a banker, and the money he shows her lying on his table belongs to somebody else.

(c) According to Rav Huna, the woman is betrothed immediately provided he gives her the two hundred Zuz, whenever that will be. According to Rav Yehudah, she is betrothed - only from the moment that he gives it to her.

(d) The ramifications of their Machlokes will be - in a case, where she receives Kidushin from someone else before the first man has given her the money.

(a) They repeat their Machlokes with re. to Gitin. The ramifications of this Machlokes cannot be in a case where she received Kidushin from another man before the condition in the Get has been fulfilled (like we learned by Kidushin) - because even according to Rav Huna, she would not be permitted to marry, in case the condition is not ultimately fulfilled rendering the Get Batel.

(b) Its ramifications are - in a case where the Get became torn or lost before the condition was fulfilled (according to Rav Huna, the Get is nevertheless valid).

(c) Despite the fact that Rav Huna already argues with Rav Yehudah in the case of ...

1. ... Kidushin, he nevertheless finds it necessary to repeat the Machlokes by Gitin - because since there, the husband comes to separate from his wife, we might have thought that Rav Huna will concede to Rav Yehudah that he really wants to delay the Get.
2. ... Gitin, he nevertheless finds it necessary to repeat the Machlokes by Kidushin - because, since there, the woman (ho does not know the man yet) is embarrassed to claim the money from him, we might have thought that he concedes to Rav Yehudah, that the woman does not agree to the Kidushin until she actually receives it.

7)

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa cites a case of 'Harei Zeh Gitech al-M'nas she'Titni Li Masayim Zuz, Af-al-Pi she'Niskara ha'Get O she'Avad ...

1. ... 'Harei Zu Megureshes'.
2. ... 'le'Acher Lo Tinasei ad she'Titein'.

(b) In another Beraisa, the Tana Kama rules that, if, in the same case, the husband then dies before she has fulfilled the condition, she is subject to the Mitzvah of Yibum. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - validates the Get provided she hands the money to her deceased husband's brother, father or to one of his close relatives.

(c) The basis of their Machlokes is - whether, when her husband said 'to me', he incorporates his heirs too (Raban Shimon ben Gamliel) or not (the Rabbanan).

(d) The first Beraisa is clearly a support for Rav Huna. We can extrapolate Rav Huna's opinion even from the second one - inasmuch as even the Tana Kama will agree that, had the husband specifically incorporated his heirs, then the Get would be valid retroactively, like Rav Huna.

(a) Rav Yehudah reconciles his opinion with the two Beraisos which we just discussed (and both of which support Rav Huna) - by establishing them like Rebbi (whom Rav Huna initially quoted), whereas he holds like the Rabbanan (who, in his opinion, disagree with Rebbi).

(b) When Rebbi Zeira lived in Bavel, he maintained that Rav Huna Amar Rebbi's statement 'Kol ha'Omer al-M'nas ke'Omer me'Achshav Dami' was indeed the opinion of Rebbi alone, and that the Rabbanan disagrees with him. After he arrived in Eretz Yisrael however, he learned from Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan - that Rav Huna Amar Rebbi's opinion is unanimous ...

(c) ... and the Rabbanan argue with Rebbi re. 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Miysah' (where they have a Safek whether it is a clause or a retraction, as we discussed above).

(d) We actually support Rebbi Yochanan's opinion - by citing a Beraisa, which presents their Machlokes by 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Miysah' (and not by 'al-M'nas').

(a) According to Rav Yehudah, who maintains that they also argue by 'al-M'nas', the Tana of the Beraisa only cite the case of 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Miysah' - to teach us that even there (where he inserted 'after death' into the stipulation), Rebbi also validates the Get.

(b) He does not rather cite the case of 'al-M'nas' to teach us that even there, the Rabbanan invalidate the Get - because of the principle 'Ko'ach de'Hetera Adif' (and Rebbi, who permits the woman to marry, is the one who is lenient).

(c) The Tana finds it necessary to teach us that, if, in the case of 'al-M'nas she'Etein Lach Masayim Zuz mi'Ka'an ve'Ad Sheloshim Yom', and he fails to fulfill the condition, the condition is not valid - because we may otherwise have thought that the woman does not really mind receiving the money a little later, and she only specified thirty days in order to twist his arm a little.

(d) And when the Tana says ...

1. ... 'al-M'nas she'Yesh Li Masayim Zuz, Harei Zu Mekudeshes ve'Yesh Lo' (implying that, otherwise, she would not), what he really means is - that otherwise, she would not be Vaday Mekudeshes, only Safek (because we suspect that he may possess two hundred Zuz, without our being aware of it (as indeed, is stated in a Beraisa).
2. ... 've'Im Her'ah Lah al ha'Shulchan, Einah Mekudeshes' - he means that he shows her money that he received to invest, and whose profits he shares with the owner (Nevertheless, she is not Mekudeshes, because the money does belong to him, which is what she really had in mind when she asked for condition to be inserted).

(a) When the Tana of our Mishnah rules 'al-M'nas she'Yesh Li Beis Kur Afar, Harei Zu Mekudeshes ve'Yesh Lo' (implying that, otherwise, she would not be).

1. A Beis Sa'ah - is fifty Amos by fifty Amos.
2. A Beis Kur (which is thirty Sa'ah) - is one thousand five hundred Amos times fifty Amos.

(b) In terms of a square - this is two hundred and seventy three Amos (plus five and a bit Tefachim) square.

(c) When the Tana implies that, if he did possess a Beis Kur of earth, she would not be Mekudeshes - he is referring to Vaday Kidushin. She is however, Mekudeshes mi'Safek (because we suspect that he may possess two hundred Zuz, without our being aware of it, as indeed, is stated in a Beraisa).

(d) Having just taught us this very same Halachah by Metaltelin, the Tana finds it necessary to repeat it by Karka - because we would otherwise have thought that, based on the fact that Karka, unlike Metaltelin, cannot be hidden, had he really owned Karka, we would have known about it, and seeing as we do not, she should not even be Safek Mekudeshes either.

(a) The Tana needs to inform us that if he stipulated that he had earth in one place, and he has it in another, she is not betrothed because we might otherwise have thought - that he can say to her 'What difference does it make to you where the earth is? I can always go to the trouble of transporting it to wherever you want it'!

(b) If he stipulated 'al-M'nas she'Ar'ech Beis Kur Afar', he is obligated to show her his own, the Tana of the Beraisa explains, because that is what she had in mind when she asked for this condition to be inserted in the Kidushin (as we learned earlier). We establish the final case in the Mishnah 've'Im Her'ah be'Bik'ah, Einah Mekudeshes' - when he was an Aris (a share-cropper). Nevertheless, she is not Mekudeshes, because he is not the owner of the land, which is what the woman had in mind when she asked for this stipulation to be inserted.