POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Kidushin 5
1) ENGAGEMENT THROUGH A DOCUMENT
(a) (Beraisa) Question: How do we know that even a document
can make engagement?
2) CAN WE DERIVE 1 METHOD OF ENGAGEMENT FROM THE OTHERS?
(b) Answer #1: We learn from a Kal va'Chomer: money can make
engagement, even though it cannot divorce; a document,
which can divorce, all the more so it can make
(c) Question: Money is a more versatile acquisition than a
document - money can redeem Hekdesh and Ma'aser Sheni, a
document cannot - "He will give the money, it will be
(Chulin) to him;
1. Perhaps money is also stronger regarding engagement!
(d) Answer #2: "She will leave...she will be (engaged)" -
this equates divorce and engagement.
1. Just as a document makes divorce, it can also
(e) Question: We should likewise say that just as money
engages, it also divorces!
(f) Answer #1 (Abaye): The Torah would not make such a law -
people would say, just as money engages, it divorces -
the advocate has become the prosecutor!
1. Question: But a document can engage and divorce, we
are not concerned for this!
(g) Answer #2 (Rava): "He will write for her (a Get)" - a
woman is divorced through writing, not through money.
2. Answer: A document of engagement is not the same as
a Get of divorce.
3. Question: Also money given for engagement is not the
same as money given to divorce.
4. Answer: The coins themselves are the same.
(h) Question: Perhaps the verse teaches differently - she is
divorced through writing, but not engaged through
(i) Answer: "She will leave...she will be (engaged)" - this
equates divorce and engagement (a document also makes
(j) Question: Why learn that a document works for both, and
"He will write for her" teaches that she is not divorced
through money - why not say that money works for both,
and "He will write for her" teaches that a document
(k) Answer: The Torah wrote "He will write for her" in the
context of divorce - presumably, it excludes alternate
methods of divorce, not methods of engagement.
(l) Question: R. Yosi ha'Galili learns a different law from
"He will write for her" (that a Get may not be written on
food or living beings) - how will he learn that a woman
is not divorced through money?
(m) Answer: "A Sefer of cuttings" - only a Sefer cuts her
(n) Question: What do Chachamim learn from that verse?
(o) Answer: That the Get must sever them (without a condition
1. (Beraisa): 'This is your Get on condition that you
will never drink wine', or 'on condition that you
will never go to your father's house' - she is not
2. If the condition is for a limited duration, she is
3. R. Yosi ha'Galili learns this from the fact that the
Torah wrote the plural form "Cuttings".
4. Chachamim say that the plural form does not warrant
expounding an extra law.
(a) We have shown that none of the 3 methods of engagement
could have been learned from 1 of the other 2.
3) CAN CHUPAH MAKE ENGAGEMENT
(b) Question: Can a method be learned from the other 2?
1. Suggestion #1: Let us derive a document from money
2. Rejection: She receives great benefit from money and
relations - we cannot learn to a document.
3. Suggestion #2: Let us derive relations from money
and a document.
4. Rejection: Money and documents acquire many things -
we cannot learn to relations.
5. Suggestion #3: Let us derive money from a document
6. Rejection: A document and relations (sometimes) work
against her will - we cannot learn to money.
i. Suggestion: But money acquires a Yisraelis
slave against her will (Rashi; Tosfos - the
money engages her against her father's will).
ii. Rejection: We do not find money given for
marriage that works against the will of the
(a) (Rav Huna): Chupah makes engagement from a Kal va'Chomer.
1. Money makes engagement, even though it never permits
(the woman) to eat Terumah; Chupah (with a Kohen),
which permits a woman to eat Terumah, all the more
so it makes engagement.
(b) Question: Is it really true that money does not permit a
woman to eat Terumah?
1. (Ula): mid'Oraisa, a Bas Yisrael engaged to a Kohen
may eat Terumah - "A Kohen that acquires a soul with
money" - he acquires a wife through money!
i. Chachamim decreed that she does not eat, for in
her father's house her siblings might come to
partake of the Terumah.
2. Correction: Rather, Rav Huna learns: money makes
engagement, even though it does not complete the
marriage; Chupah, which competes marriage, all the
more so it makes engagement.
(c) Objection: Money is a more versatile acquisition than
Chupah - money can redeem Hekdesh and Ma'aser Sheni,
perhaps money is also stronger regarding engagement!
4) ENGAGEMENT THROUGH MONEY
(d) Answer: We learn from relations - relations make
engagement, even though relations do not make other
(e) Question: We cannot learn from relations - relations
acquire a Yevamah (whereas Chupah cannot).
(f) Answer: We see from money that ability to acquire a
Yevamah is not essential to make engagement.
1. Money and relations have different strengths. The
common side is, they acquire in other places and
(g) Objection: We cannot learn from money and relations, for
they give greater benefit to the woman than Chupah!
2. Also Chupah acquires in other places (after
engagement) - we derive, also Chupah makes
(h) Answer: We see from a document that giving benefit is not
essential to make engagement.
(i) Objection: We cannot learn from a document, for a
document can divorce!
(j) Answer: We see from money and relations that ability to
divorce is not essential to make engagement.
1. Money, relations, and a document have different
strengths. The common side is, they acquire in other
places and make engagement;
(k) Objection: We cannot learn from money, relations and a
document, for all of them sometimes work against the will
of the recipient!
2. Also Chupah acquires in other places - it also
should make engagement!
(l) Answer (Rav Huna): We never find that money makes
engagement against the will of the recipient.
(m) (Rava): There are 2 difficulties with Rav Huna's law.
1. Question #1: The Mishnah says that there are (only)
3 ways to engage.
2. Question #2: We only know that Chupah acquires after
engagement - how can we learn that Chupah should
work without prior engagement?
3. Answer (to Question #1 - Abaye): The Tana listed the
3 forms of engagement explicit in the Torah; there
may be others not explicit in the Torah.
4. Answer (to Question #2 - Abaye): The Kal va'Chomer
teaches that Chupah works without prior engagement!
i. Money cannot complete marriage, yet it makes
engagement - Chupah, which completes marriage,
all the more so it makes engagement!
(a) (Beraisa): A man gave to a woman money or something worth
money and said 'You are Mekudeshes (sanctified) to me',
or 'You are Me'oreses (engaged) to me', or 'You are to me
as a wife' - she is engaged;
(b) If she gave (money to him) and said 'I am Mekudeshes to
you', 'I am Me'oreses to you', or 'I am to you as a wife'
- she is not engaged.
(c) Objection (Rav Papa): In the first clause, she is engaged
because he gave the money and did the talking - we infer,
had she done the talking, she would not be engaged;
1. In the second clause, she is not engaged because she
gave the money and did the talking - we infer, had
he given the money, she would be engaged!
(d) Answer #1: The first clause is precise; the second clause
is not, it was only taught to parallel the first case.
(e) Objection: Would the Tana teach something that
contradicts the first case?!
(f) Answer #2: Rather, the Beraisa says as follows: If he
gives the money and did the talking, clearly she is
1. If he gave the money and she did the talking, it is
as if she have the money and did the talking, and
she is not engaged.
(g) Answer #3: The Beraisa says as follows: If he gives the
money and did the talking, she is engaged;
1. If she gave the money and did the talking, she is
(h) (Shmuel): If a man gave a woman money or something worth
money and said 'Behold, you are Mekudeshes', or 'Behold,
you are engaged', or 'Behold, you are as a wife' - she is
2. If he gave the money and she did the talking, the
law is unclear; mid'Rabanan, we are stringent and
consider her doubtfully engaged.
1. If he said 'I am your husband', or 'I am your
betrothed', she is not even doubtfully engaged.
(i) Similarly regarding divorce: if a man gave his wife a Get
and said 'Behold, you are sent', or 'Behold, you are
divorced', or 'Behold, you are permitted to any man' -
she is divorced;
1. If he said 'I am not your husband', or 'I am not
your betrothed', she is not even doubtfully
(j) Question (Rav Papa): Shmuel seems to hold that Yados
(incomplete expressions) that are ambiguous are valid
Yados (he did not specify to whom he engages her,
nevertheless she is engaged to him) - if so, he
1. (Mishnah): A man said 'I will be' - this is
acceptance of Nezirus.
(k) Answer (Abaye): Shmuel (here) spoke in the case when he
said '(you are engaged or divorced) to (or from) me.'
2. Question: Why is this - perhaps he meant, 'I will
(be in a) fast'!
3. Answer (Shmuel): The case is, a Nazir passed in
front of him when he said this.
i. Inference: If a Nazir was not around, it would
not be acceptance of Nezirus (because ambiguous
Yados are invalid)!
(l) Question: If so, obviously she is engaged or divorced -
what does Shmuel teach?
(m) Answer: That the latter languages (of engagement and
divorce) are invalid.
1. By engagement, it says "When a man will take a
woman" - not that he will take himself (to be
married to her);
2. By divorce, it says "He will send her" - not that he
will send himself from her.