Previous daf

1)

(a) We ask on Rebbi Meir ('mi'Ch'lal La'av I Atah Shome'a Hein') from the Pasuk "Im Lo Shachav Ish Osach, Hinaki", which doesn't repeat the Hein ("ve'Im Shachav, Lo Sinaki"). Granted, the Pasuk does continue "ve'At Ki Satis ... " - but that does not refer back to the Shevu'ah that precedes it, but to the Shevu'ah with an Alah that follows (in other words, the curse of the Shevu'ah without the Alah is not repeated in form of Hein).

(b) When Rebbi Tanchum replies "Hinaki" K'siv - he means to extrapolate from the fact that the word is spelt without a 'Yud' that 'Chinaki' (a warning that she will be strangled should she be guilty).

(c) Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel, who holds 'mi'Ch'lal La'av Atah Shome'a Hein', explains that without 'Chinaki' we would say - that if she did not commit a sin she is absolved, but if she did, she is guilty, though not necessarily punishable.

(a) Having written in Chukas "ve'Hizah ha'Tahor al ha'Tamei ba'Yom ha'Shelishi u'va'Yom ha'Shevi'i", Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel explains that the Torah nevertheless needs to repeat there "ve'Im Lo Yis'chata ... " - to teach us that it will not suffice to sprinkle the Tamei person on one of the two days, but that he must be sprinkled on both.

(b) And the Torah needs to add ...

1. ... "ve'Hizah ha'Tahor ... ba'Yom ha'Shelishi u'va'Yom ha'Shevi'i" - to teach that, not only may the sprinkling not be performed before the third and the seventh days respectively, but that the second sprinkling must take place four days after the first, whenever the first one took place.
2. ... "ve'Chit'o ba'Yom ha'Shelishi ... " - that all this pertains to permitting the Tamei person to eat Terumah, no less than to eating Kodesh and entering the Mikdash.

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah validate the Kidushin, even if the man only betrothed the woman presuming her to be a Kohenes or a Levi'ah, a poor man or a rich one, and she turns out to be the opposite - because seeing as it was not she who tricked him into believing that, but a figment of his own imagination, as long as he does not make a specific condition to that effect, we apply the principle 'Devarim she'ba'Lev Einam Devarim'.

(b) The Tana there says that if a man betroths a woman ...

1. ... after he or she converts or after he or she is set free - the Kidushin is not valid.
2. ... after her husband or her sister (his wife) dies - the Kidushin is not valid either.

(c) The Tana adds to the list 'le'Achar she'Yachlotz Lach Yevamech', in which case the Tana must hold - that Kidushin with Yevamah le'Shuk is not even effective Bedieved (even though it is only an ordinary La'av).

(d) The final case in the Mishnah is when a man says to his friend 'Im Yaldah Ishtecha Nekeivah, Harei Zu Mekudeshes'. The Kidushin is not valid in all these cases - because, since he is unable to betroth her now, it is a 'Davar she'Lo Ba Le'olam', with which any transaction is not possible.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Reishis "Degancha*" - that only crops that can be gathered into a pile (which is called 'Digun') is subject to Terumos and Ma'asros, but not as long as they are attached.

(b) The Mishnah in Terumos states that if someone separates Terumah from crops that are detached to cover crops that are attached, his Terumah is not valid.

1. The Terumah that he separated - remains Tevel, which the Kohen may then rectify from his own crops.
2. The attached crops which he tried to Ma'aser - must be Ma'asered again after they have been picked.

(c) When Rebbi Asi asked Rebbi Yochanan what the Din will be if someone separates Terumah from crops that are detached to cover crops that are attached (or vice-versa), but stipulates that the Terumah should take effect only after they have become detached - his transaction is valid, seeing as there is nothing to stop him from picking the crops now and Ma'asering them (it is considered as if he had alreay picked them).

(d) Rebbi Yochanan's ruling does not in fact clash with the Tana of our Mishnah, which invalidates the Kidushin in the case of 'le'Achar she'Esgayer O le'Achar she'Tisgayri', which may *appear* to be within their power to remedy immediately, should they so wish - but in fact, this is not the case, due to Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan, who requires a Beis-Din of three experts for conversions, and three expert Dayanim are not always easily come by.

5) From the fact that the Torah writes "Mishpat Echad Yih'yeh Lachem" we learn - that conversions requires a Beis-Din of three (see Tosfos).

6)

(a) The Kidushin will not be valid, according to Rebbi Yochanan (who says that whenever the man has the power to change the situation now, the Kidushin is valid) in the case of someone who gave a Perutah...

1. ... to his Shifchah, stipulating that the Kidushin will only take effect after he has set her free - because whereas when he gave her the Perutah she had no Da'as of her own (like an animal), when the Kidushin is due to take effect, she has (and there is no bigger change than this).
2. ... to his wife, stipulating that the Kidushin will only take effect after he has divorced her - because seeing as, after the divorce, his wife has the right to refuse the Kidushin, it is not called 'be'Yado' (presumably, we could have answered this in the previous case, too).

(b) We cannot however, use this case to resolve Rav Oshaya's She'eilah whether, if a man gives two Perutos to a woman as Kidushin, one to take effect immediately, the other, after he has divorced her, the second Kidushin takes effect or not - because in this case, the second Kidushin may well take effect on account of the first one (with a 'Migu' [ meaning that since the first Kidushin takes effect, so does the second]).

(c) We know that the Halachah is like Rebbi Yochanan - because he has the support of a Beraisa, where the Tana Kama rules that if someone says 'Peyros Arugah Zu Telushin Yih'yu Terumah Al Peyros Arugah Zu Mechuberes le'che'Yitaleishu, Devarav Kayamin'.

(a) In the same Beraisa (of 'Ein Tormin min ha'Talush al ha'Mechubar ... '), Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov even validates the Terumah in a case of 'Peyros Arugah Zu Telushin Yih'yu Terumah Al Peyros Arugah Zu Mechuberes le'che'Yavi'u Sh'lish' (despite the fact that it is not within his power to achieve this) - because he holds that one can declare Hekdesh and sell something even though it is not yet in the world.

(b) We Darshen from the Pasuk "ve'Asas es ha'Tevu'ah *li'Shelosh* ha'Shanim" - ('al Tikri "li'Shelosh" Ela 'li'Shelish') that produce that has grown one third is considered produce.

(c) According to Rabah, Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov only says this when, at the time of the declaration, the produce has already grown 'be'Shachas', but not 'be'Agam'.

1. ... 'be'Shachas' means - when it has grown sufficiently to be able to pick it and feed it to the animals.
2. ... 'be'Agam' - when it is still no more than tender shoots, just long enough to be able to bend the top to touch the root. And we learn this from the Pasuk, Rebbi Elazar explains "ha'Lachof ke'Agmon Rosho", which means 'Will you bend your head like a reed (in mock humility)'?

(d) The reason for this difference is - because crops that have reached the stage of 'be'Shachas' are sufficiently significant to be sold, but not 'be'Agam'. And, according to Rabah, even Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov requires the article that is being sold to at least have some significance.

(a) According to the first Lashon - Rav Yosef establishes Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov even by be'Agam.

(b) Rebbi Chanina qualifies our Mishnah, 'ha'Omer la'Chaveiro Im Yaldah Ishtecha Nekeivah Mekudeshes Li, Lo Amar K'lum' to where she is not yet pregnant, but where she is, the Kidushin is valid.

(c) Rabah establishes Rebbi Chanina in turn - when the pregnancy is recognizable, whereas Rav Yosef establishes it - even when it is not.

(d) It is important to establish the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov - because of the principle 'Mishnas Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov Kav ve'Naki' (for which reason we always rule like him [see also Tosfos DH 'va'Amar])

(a) In the second Lashon, Rav Yosef agrees with Rabah that Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov requires be'Shachas'. However, Rabah restricts Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov to Shachas de'Bei Kivsha, whereas Rav Yosef extends it to Shachas de'Bei Shakya.

1. 'Shachas de'Bei Kivsha' - is a Sadeh Beis ha'Ba'al, which is watered by the rain
2. ... 'Shachas de'Bei Shakya' - is a Beis ha'Shalachin, which needs to be watered manually.

(b) The reason for this distinction is - because, in the event that the field is not watered properly, the crops in a Shachas de'Bei Shakya might still become spoilt; whereas in the case of a Shachas de'Bei Kivsha, which relies on rain from Heaven, this is unlikely.

(c) In this case, both Rabah and Rav Yosef will agree - that the author is Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, and Rav Yosef will establish Rebbi Chanina when the pregnancy is visible (just like Rabah).

(d) And even Rabah will agree that the Kidushin is valid - because since she is entirely in the Hands of Hashem, the case is comparable to Shachas de'Bei Kivshi.

Next daf