(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof

Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Gitin 73

GITIN 73-75 - Anonymously dedicated by an ardent supporter who wants the Zechus of spreading Torah throughout the world.

(a) Under certain specific circumstances, the Rabanan "uprooted" Kidushin which were valid mid'Oraisa in order to protect a man or woman from the effects of a Get or Kidushin that might cause them permanent torment. The reason the Rabanan are able to uproot Kidushin in this manner is because of the principle of "Kol d'Mekadesh...." This principle teaches that every man who is Mekadesh a woman (by means of Kesef, Shtar or Bi'ah, see Kidushin 2a) bears in mind that if (either at present or in the future) the Rabanan do not approve of his Kidushin, it should retroactively (see Insights to Kesuvos 3:1) not be valid. (Even if a person claims, or announces, that he is an exception to the rule, and he does not have in mind such a condition, it makes no difference -- RITVA to Kesuvos 3a.) It is for this reason that we announce, upon effecting a Kidushin, that the Kidushin is being done "k'Das Moshe v'Yisrael" (i.e. in accordance with Torah law and with Rabbinical enactments), as Rashi and the Rishonim (ibid.) explain.
(b) The Rabanan only retroactively uprooted Kidushin with the principle of "Kol d'Mekadesh" when a man gave a Get (divorce document) to his wife but for some reason it was not valid mid'Oraisa. When no Get at all was given, though, the Rabanan did not retroactively uproot the Kidushin (RASHBA and Rishonim ibid.). According to some (RASHI Shabbos 155b), the Rabanan also uprooted Kidushin (when necessary) in cases where evidence was presented that the husband died but the evidence was not acceptable mid'Oraisa.
(c) Sometimes the Rabanan saw reason to annul the Kidushin from its onset (that is, for the future, as opposed to retroactively) because the husband effected the Kidushin in an unjust manner. In such cases, they annulled the Kidushin even though no Get at all was presented. According to some, it is not even necessary to evoke the principle of "Kol d'Mekadesh" to revoke the Kidushin in such cases. Since the husband acted unjustly, the Rabanan were able to revoke his Kidushin by "overriding" the Torah law. (See Yevamos 90b, and TOSFOS Bava Basra 48b DH Teinach.)

2) [line 11] V'AFKE'INHU RABANAN L'KIDUSHIN - and the Chachamim uprooted the Kidushin [retroactively]

3) [line 16] HIKISHO NACHASH - a snake bit him
4) [line 19] SHALCHU MI'TAM - the Chachamim sent [a teaching] from there (from Eretz Yisrael to Bavel)

5) [line 19] ACHLO ARI, EIN LANU - [in a case where] a lion ate him, we do not have [any reason to assume that the Get is valid] (RASHI). The RAMBAM (Hilchos Gerushin 9:18) says that although they had no reason to validate the Get, they also had no reason to invalidate it, and thus it remains a doubtful Get.

6a) [line 20] D'ZAVIN AR'A L'CHAVREI - who sold land to his friend
b) [line 20] KABIL ALEI KOL ONSA D'MISYALID - he accepted upon himself any accident that might come about

7) [line 21] APIKU BAH NAHARA - they brought through it (the land) a river (at the king's order)

8) [line 22] ZIL SHAFI LEI - go be at peace with him (i.e. let the buyer have the land)
9) [line 24] ONSA D'LO SHECHI'ACH - it is an accident that is rare
10) [line 25] IGALGEL MILSA - the matter went around (unanswered)
11) [line 30] LO MOSVINAN TIYUVTA MINEI - we cannot ask a contradiction from it?!

12) [line 33] MESHABESHTA - it is faulty, incorrect
13) [line 33] SEVARA - logic
14) [line 34] ZAVAN SHUMSHEMEI A'GIDA D'NEHAR MALKA - bought sesame seeds on the bank of the River Malka

15) [line 35] AGUR MALACHEI L'ABURINHU - they hired boaters to transport them
16) [line 37] ISTAKAR - (O.F. escluse) [the river] became stopped-up
17) [line 37] AGURU CHAMAREI - hire donkey drivers
18) [line 38] AFKE'INHU NIHALAN - bring them (the sesame seeds) to us
19) [line 40] KAKEI CHIVREI MESHALCHEI GELIMEI D'INSHEI - you white geese (i.e. old men) who strip the shirts off of people's backs

20) [line 43] LIBAH GAS BAH - she (the wife) is familiar with her (i.e. her maidservant, and thus would not be embarrassed to do private things in her presence)


21) [line 3] AFEILAH - in the dark
22) [line 4] TACHAS MARGELOS HA'MITAH - beneath the legs of the bed
23) [line 11] ESNANAH - her payment as the wage of a harlot
24) [line 18] MIDI KESAFIM KETANI? - does the Mishnah mention anything about money?

25) [line 31] D'LO K'CHAD - it is not like any of the opinions (that appear in the Beraisa)

26) [line 36] ME'ES SHE'ANI BA'OLAM - from the [last] moment that I am in the world (i.e. alive)

27) [line 37] BA'ALAH ZAKAI B'METZI'ASAH UV'MA'ASEH YADEHA - her husband is entitled to receive any objects that she finds (that a finder is allowed to keep) and her Ma'aseh Yadayim (her earned income)

28) [last line] HAFARAS NEDAREHA (HAFARAS NEDARIM) - the annulment of her vows
(a) A man has the right to annul certain vows of his wife and his young daughter, as the Torah states in Bamidbar 30:6, 9, 13-14. He accomplishes this by stating, on the day that he hears the vow, "Mufar Lach" ("[the vow] is annulled"). There is an argument among the Tana'im whether the vow must be annulled before nightfall on the day the husband/father heard it, or before 24 hours pass from when he heard it (Nedarim 77a); the former is the Halachic opinion.
(b) A father may annul his daughter's vows while she is young, starting from the age at which her vows are valid (11 years old) until she becomes a Bogeres (six months after she becomes a Na'arah by growing two pubic hairs). If the father marries her off before she becomes a Bogeres, during the period of Eirusin both the father *and* the husband, or "Arus," must annul the vows in order for the annulment to be effective. After the consummation of the marriage through Nisu'in, the husband may annul the vows by himself. The father no longer has rights over her vows after her marriage, even if she is divorced before becoming a Bogeres.
(c) If the father or husband is "Mekayem" the vow even before the day is over (i.e. he upholds or endorses the vow; this is also referred to as "Kiyum" or "Hakamah"), by stating "[the vow] is endorsed," he can no longer be Mefer the vow. His wife or daughter must abide by her vow. (There is a disagreement among the Poskim as to whether the wife or daughter can remove the Neder through *Hataras* Nedarim after Hakamah, see Insights to Nedarim 69:1:a:1.)

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,