Previous daf

1) When the Mishnah follows 'Keitzad?' with the explanation of Get Achar Ma'amar - it is not referring to 'Get Achar Get ... ' of the Reisha (which our Mishnah takes for granted, but which is explained in the Beraisa); but it is merely explaining the Din of a Yavam and Yevamah (as Rashi explains in the Mishnah).

2)

(a) Rav Huna says that the Mitzvah of Yibum comprises Ma'amar and Yibum. There is no proof for this from our Mishnah, which says 'Asah Ma'amar u'Ba'al, Harei Zu ke'Mitzvasah' - since our Mishnah could well mean '*Af* Zeh ke'Mitzvasah'.

(b) We might otherwise have thought that Ma'amar and then Bi'ah should not be acceptable - because of Rabah, who said above ,that, when a Yavam makes Ma'amar with his Yevamah, the Zikah of Yabmin leaves her, and that of Eirusin or Nisu'in replaces it. Consequently, we may have thought that the subsequent Yibum is no longer a Mitzvah.

(c) We amend the continuation of Rav Huna's statement 've'Im Ba'al ve'Asah Ma'amar, Kanah' - to read 've'Im Ba'al be'Lo Ma'amar, Kanah'.

(d) When we ask 've'ha'Tanya, Lokin'? - we mean to ask that seeing as 'Lokin' (referring to the previous case [of 've'Im Ba'al be'Lo Ma'amar']) implies that Ma'amar is a Chiyuv d'Oraysa (as that is the normal connotation of 'Lokin'), how can Rav Huna then say 'Kanah'?

(a) We answer the previous Kashya by establishing 'Lokin' to mean Makas Mardus - which the Rabbanan instituted because it is considered 'Kalus Rosh' (frivolous).

(b) Rav would give Makas Mardus for three breaches of moral conduct connected with Kidushin: for betrothing with Bi'ah - for betrothing in the public domain and for betrothing directly, without a Shiduch.

(c) He would also give Makas Mardus for someone who negated a Get that he had sent his wife through a Sh'li'ach, or who secretly informed two witnesses that the Get he was giving his wife was not valid because he had been forced to write it - because in both cases, his wife, not knowing that the Get had been nullified, would use what she believed to be a Kasher Get to remarry (when in fact, she was still married to her first husband) See also Tosfos DH 'de'Masar'.

(a) He also instituted Makas Mardus for someone who treated a Sh'li'ach Beis-Din (sent by Beis-Din to invite him to a Din Torah) with contempt, or who retained a Shamta de'Rabbanan (a form of Niduy) - meaning that he was not concerned about the Shamta placed on him by the Beis-Din, without bothering to go to Beis-Din within thirty days and ask them to pardon him and rescind the Shamta.

(b) Finally, he gave Malkos to someone who slept over in the house of his father-in-law to be. Rav Sheishes gave Malkos even to someone who just passed in front of the house - because that was a case where there were rumors that he was having an affair with his future mother-in-law.

(c) According to the Neherda'i, Rav only administered Makas Mardus to someone who betrothed a woman with Bi'ah and without a Shiduch. Others quote them as saying that Rav only administered Makas Mardus to someone who betrothed a woman without a Shiduch (even with Kidushei Kesef or Sh'tar).

(a) Ma'amar can be performed with money or with a Sh'tar. One performs it with ...

1. ... money - through money itself (at least a Perutah) or with something that has the value of a Perutah.
2. ... a Sh'tar - by writing on paper or on clay (even though it is worth less than a Perutah) 'Harei At Mekudeshes Li ... ' (like one writes on a Sh'tar Kidushin).

(b) Kidushei Ma'amar could not possibly be effective min ha'Torah - because 'Ein Kidushin Tofsin be'Chayvei Kareis'.

(c) The Yavam writes in the Kesubah of his Yevamah 'Ana P'loni bar P'loni Kabeilis Alai la'Zun u'le'Farnesah Kara'uy'.

(d) Although initially, the Kesubah comes out of the deceased brother's estate, Chazal obligated the Yavam to provide the money, should his brother not have left sufficient funds - to prevent him from finding it too easy to divorce her later.

(a) A Get which contains a phrase restraining his wife from marrying anybody else - is invalid.

(b) The reason for saying that such a Get given by the Yavam to his Yevamah, should ...

1. ... also be invalidate is - because whatever the Rabbanan instituted, they generally gave the same Din as the equivalent case of d'Oraysa.
2. ... be valid - because otherwise, the Yavam might think that the Get that one gives to a Yevamah is invalid, too (and go on to perform Yibum after having given his Yevamah a Get).

(c) When Abaye asked Rabah this She'eilah - he replied that the latter Tzad was the correct one.

(d) If, on the other hand, the Yavam were to give his Yevamah a blank piece of paper, it would not be valid - because, unlike the former case, which has a certain validity (inasmuch as a Kohen who gave it to his wife, disqualifies her from marrying a Kohen), a blank piece of paper has no validity at all.

(a) If someone writes a Get with the intention of giving it to his betrothed after they are married - the Get *is valid*, because he *had the option* of giving it to her immediately; whereas if he writes it before the betrothal, it is *not*, since he did *not*.

(b) A 'Get Yashan' refers to a case, where - after the husband wrote the Get for his wife (but before he actually gave it to her), they were secluded in the same room.

(c) The Get is nevertheless valid in the former case - because even a Get Yashan is only forbidden (to divorce with) Lechatchilah, but Bedi'eved, the Get is Kasher.

(d) Rami bar Chama asked whether a Get that a Yavam writes to give his Yevamah after they are married *will also be valid*, seeing as he is bound to her (in a similar way to a betrothed woman). On the other hand, it might *not* - because, since he did not make Ma'amar, it cannot be comparable to a regular betrothal.

8)

(a) Rav Chananyah asks whether a Get that a Yavam gives his Yevamah to remove the Zikah but not the Ma'amar that he made, or vice-versa, is valid or not.
It would ...

1. ... not be valid - if we were to hold that the Ma'amar is an extension of the Zikah (and becomes part of it), because then, giving a Get for one but not the other would be like giving a Get to half a woman, which is not valid.
2. ... be valid however - if the Zikah and the Ma'amar were considered two separate entities.

(b) Assuming that the Get *is* valid - then, if he wrote it to remove the Zikah, the Yevamah will be forbidden to all the Yevamin, because of the principle 'Keivan she'Banah ... '; whereas if he wrote it to remove the Ma'amar, she will be forbidden to him alone, but permitted to the other Yevamin (as we will explain immediately).

(c) Rava says that a Get that the Yavam gives to remove his Ma'amar permits the Tzarah to the Yavam, but not the Ba'alas Ma'amar herself - whom we forbid in case they confuse it with a Yavam who gives a Get to remove the Zikah or to remove the Zikah and the Ma'amar. Rav Chananel does not resolve the She'eilah from Rava - because what Rava took for granted, *he* was uncertain.

(d) The final ruling in both of these She'eilos - is 'Teiku'.

(a) Our Mishnah says 'Chalatz ve'Asah Ma'amar, Ein Achar Chalitzah K'lum'. Rav Yehudah Amar Rav establishes this like Rebbi Akiva, who holds that Kidushin does not take effect on Chayvei La'avin; according to the Rabbanan, Ma'amar would be effective even after Chalitzah.

(b) Rebbi Akiva learns from the Pasuk "Lo Yuchal Ba'alah ha'Rishin *Asher Shalchah* ... " - that if the Yavam gives a Get to his Yevamah, she becomes forbidden to him forever.

(c) In fact, if the Yavam gives a Get to his Yevamah, she becomes forbidden to him only mi'de'Rabbanan (even according to Rebbi Akiva) - which explains why the Reisha of our Mishnah writes 'Nasan Get ve'Asah Ma'amar, Tz'richah Get va'Chalitzah' (meaning that Ma'amar is effective after Get), despite the fact that the author is Rebbi Akiva.

(a) Rebbi agrees with the Chachamim, who hold 'Yesh Achar Chalitzah K'lum' - though he restricts this to when he betroths her as a wife, but should he betroth her with Ma'amar (as a Yevamah), the Kidushin is completely ineffective (because there is no Zikah left for Ma'amar to have any meaning).

(b) According to the Chachamim, either way, she requires a Get.

(a) If someone was digging in ground that he thought was his, but which really belonged to his neighbor who was a Ger, and the neighbor died - in spite of the premise that digging is a Kinyan (Chazakah), the ground that he was digging is not his, because he did not intend to acquire it.

(b) Rav Yosef uses this case as a Mashal (parable) to explain Rebbi: Just like in the Mashal, he says, he does not acquire the land; similarly, if the Yavam wants to acquire his Chalutzah through Ma'amar, which is not eligible, he will not acquire her either. Abaye refutes this however -on the grounds that the Yavam is different than the digger in the Mashal, since *he intended* to acquire his Chalutzah, unlike the digger in the parable, who did *not*.

(c) Abaye therefore illustrates Rebbi's case - with a man who thought he was digging in one Ger's property, and he later discovered that it was the property of another Ger.

(a) Abaye establishes the Machlokes between Rebbi and the Chachamim when the Yavam said after the Chalitzah 'Hiskadshi Li be'Ma'amar Yabmin'. The reason of ...

1. ... Rebbi, who says that she is *not Mekudeshes* is - because, in his opinion, Ma'amar is an extention of the Zikah. Consequently, where the Zikah has already been removed by means of Chalitzah, there is nothing for the Ma'amar to become attached to. So she does not require a Get.
2. ... the Chachamim, who say that she *is* - maintain that Ma'amar is a separate entity. Consequently, it is effective even after Chalitzah.

(b) According to Rava, even Rebbi would agree in this case that she is Mekudeshes. He establishes the Machlokes when the Yavam said 'Hiskadshi Li be'Zikas Yabmin', and the basis of their Machlokes is whether 'Yesh Zikah' or 'Ein Zikah'.

1. Rebbi holds - 'Yesh Zikah'. Consequently, Ma'amar using this Lashon is only applicable before Chalitzah, whilst the Zikah still remains. whereas once the Zikah has been removed, it is meaningless.
2. The Chachamim hold - 'Ein Zikah', in which case the Lashon 'Hiskadshi Li *be'Zikas* Yabmin' is only arbitrary after the Chalitzah, just like it is before it.