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 13
KIDUSHIN 13 (27 Iyar) - Dedicated by Gitle Bekelnitzky in honor of
the Yahrzeit of her father, Zev ben Ephraim v'Chaya Krause
1) WHAT IS CONSIDERED ACCEPTANCE OF ENGAGEMENT?
(a) Shimon engaged Rachel with a mattress of myrtle.
2) TEACHINGS OF RAV ASI
1. Onlookers: It is not worth a Perutah!
(b) (Rava): Silence after the money was already given has no
effect, as we learn from a Beraisa.
2. Shimon: She should be engaged with the 4 Zuzim
3. Rachel took it and was silent.
1. (Beraisa): Reuven told Leah: Take this money as a
deposit; he later said, be engaged to me through it
- if he said this at the time he gave it, she is
(c) Question (Chachamim of Fum Nahara, citing Rav Huna brei
d'Rav Yehoshua): The Beraisa is different than our case!
i. If he said this after he gave it - if she
wants, she is engaged; if not, she is not
2. Question: What is considered 'wanting' and 'not
i. Suggestion: Saying 'yes' or 'no'.
3. Answer: Rather, 'wanting' is saying 'yes'; 'not
wanting' is being silent.
ii. Rejection: This would imply that when he said
this at the time he gave it, she is engaged
even if she said no - this is absurd!
i. This shows that silence after the money was
given has no effect.
1. In the Beraisa, she took the money as a deposit -
since she is responsible for it, she is afraid to
throw it back.
(d) Question (Rav Acha bar Rav): What is the law in such a
2. In our case, the money was given for engagement - if
she does not want to be engaged, she should throw it
3. Objection (Rav Achai): This question is ill-founded
- not all women know the law!
i. She may think that even by engagement, if she
throws the money and it is lost, she is
(e) Answer (Ravina): We never heard Rav Huna brei d'Rav
Yehoshua's question, so we rule as Rava (she is not
1. You (in Fum Nahara) heard his question - you must be
concerned, perhaps she is engaged!
(f) A woman was selling belts. A man came and stole one; she
asked him to return it.
1. The man: If I do, will you be engaged to me?
(g) (Rav Nachman): She is not engaged - she can say, I merely
took what is mine.
2. She took it in silence.
(h) Question (Rava - Beraisa): A man engaged a woman with
something he (openly) robbed, extorted, or (secretly)
stole, or he grabbed money from her hand and engaged her
with it - she is engaged.
(i) Answer: That is when she had previously agreed to be
engaged to him.
(j) Question: How do we now that this changes things?
(k) Answer (Beraisa): A man told a woman 'Take this money
that I owe you'; he retracted and said 'Be engaged to me
1. If he retracted at the time he gave it, if she
wants, she is engaged; if not, not;
2. If he retracted after he gave it, even if she wants,
she is not engaged.
3. Question: What is considered 'wanting' and 'not
4. Suggestion: 'Wanting' is saying 'yes', 'not wanting'
is saying 'no'.
5. Rejection: (The latter statement) implies that had
she not said 'no', but rather was silent, she would
i. If so, the Beraisa should say, 'She is engaged;
if she does not want, she is not engaged'!
6. Answer: Rather, 'Wanting' is saying 'yes', 'not
wanting' is being silent.
i. If she is silent, she is not engaged - this is
because she can say that she took her property
- this contradicts the Beraisa of the thief!
7. (Summation of answer): We must explain that this
Beraisa is when she did not previously agree to be
engaged to him, the Beraisa of the thief is when she
(a) (R. Yakov citing Rav Asi): Just as a woman is not
acquired with less than a Perutah, also land.
(b) Question (Rabanan - Beraisa): Even though a woman is not
acquired with less than a Perutah, land can be.
(c) Answer (R. Yakov): It can be acquired with less than a
Perutah through Chalifin (but not as an acquisition
1. (Beraisa): We may acquire (through Chalifin) with a
vessel, even if it is not worth a Perutah.
(d) (Rav Yehudah): Anyone not expert in the laws of divorce
and engagement should have no involvement with them.
(e) (Rav Asi): Unqualified people that get involved with them
are worse than the generation of the flood.
1. Improper rulings cause Mamzerim; the ensuing
destruction affects people, animals birds and fish;
2. The fish were not killed during the flood.
(f) (Mishnah): A woman that brought her sin-offering and died
- her heirs bring the burnt-offering that goes with it.
3) A WIDOW MAY REMARRY
(g) (Shmuel): This is only if she designated the
burnt-offering when she was alive - if not, they do not
1. He holds, mid'Oraisa, there is no lien on a person's
property to pay his debts.
(h) (R. Yochanan): The heirs bring the burnt-offering even if
she never designated it.
1. He holds, mid'Oraisa, there is a lien on a person's
property to pay his debts.
(i) Question: We already heard this argument of Shmuel and R.
Yochanan elsewhere (why was it repeated?)!
1. (Rav and Shmuel): An oral loan (i.e. a document was
not written) - it cannot be collected from the
borrower's heirs, nor from people that bought land
from the borrower;
(j) Answer: It is necessary to hear the argument in both
2. (R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish): It can be collected
from the heirs or from people that bought land from
1. If we only heard by a loan, one might have thought
that Shmuel admits by a sacrifice, since that
obligation is written in the Torah.
(k) (Rav Papa): The law is, an oral loan can be collected
from heirs, but not from those that bought the borrower's
2. If we only heard by a sacrifice, one might have
thought that R. Yochanan only makes the heirs pay in
such cases, because a debt written in the Torah is
as if it is written in a document;
i. But by a loan, he would admit that the heirs
and buyers are exempt - we hear, this is not
1. It can be collected from heirs, because mid'Oraisa,
there is a lien on a person's property to pay his
2. (Chachamim enacted that) it can not be collected
from those that bought the borrower's land, since
buyers were unaware of the loan.
(a) (Mishnah): A woman acquires herself through a Get or
death of her husband.
(b) We know the source that a Get permits her - "He will
write a Sefer of cutting...";
(c) Question: What is the source that a widow may remarry?
(d) Answer #1: We learn from logical reasoning: since the
husband caused her prohibition to other men, now that he
is dead, she is permitted.
(e) Objection: But we see from forbidden relatives (i.e. a
step-mother), the prohibition remains after the cause of
the prohibition (the father) dies!
(f) Answer #2: Rather, the Torah said that if a man dies
childless, his widow is prohibited (to all except the
Yavam) - we infer, if he dies with children, the widow is
(g) Rejection: Perhaps the inference is reversed: if he dies
childless, his widow is prohibited to strangers and
permitted to the Yavam; if he dies with children, the
widow is forbidden to all!
(h) Answer #2: Rather, the Torah said that a widow is
forbidden to a Kohen Gadol - we infer, she is permitted
to a regular Kohen.
(i) Rejection: Perhaps she is forbidden to all by a Chaivei
Aseh, and to a Kohen Gadol with an additional Lav!
1. Question: How do we understand such a Chaivei Aseh?
(j) Answer #4: We learn from "Perhaps he will die in war, and
Acher (a different man) will take (his wife)."
i. If death of the husband removes the Lav (which
is punishable by death and Kares) of a married
woman - it should also remove the Aseh!
2. Answer: It only removes the Lav, as we find by
sacrifices that became blemished!
ii. If his death does not remove the Aseh - nor
should it remove the Lav!
i. Before they are redeemed, one who benefits from
them transgresses Me'ilah; it is forbidden to
shear them or make them work;
ii. After they are redeemed, Me'ilah no longer
applies, but it is still forbidden to shear
them or make them work.
1. Question (R. Shisha brei d'Rav Idi): Perhaps the
other man referred to is the Yavam!
(k) Answer #5 (Rav Ashi): "(Her second husband will divorce
her) or die" - the Torah equates death of the husband to
2. Answer (Rav Ashi): The Yavam would not be called
1. Just as divorce fully permits remarriage, also death
of the husband.