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


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Kidushin 3

KIDUSHIN 2-4 - sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor. Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.



(a) We learned in a Mishnah in Bikurim that an Esrog tree has the Din of a regular tree in three ways, Orlah, Neta Revai - and Shevi'is.

(b) The stage that determines the years in all these cases is - their turning ripe.

(c) The Esrog tree is compared to a vegetable with regard to - Ma'asros - regarding whether needs to separate Ma'aser Sheini (in the first, second, fourth and fifth years of the six year cycle) or Ma'aser Ani (in the third and sixth years).

(a) Initially, we explain the Tana's use of 'Sheloshah Derachim' (rather than 'Devarim') to the fact that in the Seifa, he concludes 'u'le'Yerek be'Derech Echad', where he chose the word 'Derech' (rather than 'Davar') - because the Halachic comparison derives from the fact that an Esrog tree has the characteristic of vegetables inasmuch as it grows on 'all water' (which will be explained shortly).

(b) What determines the year of Ma'aser regarding wheat and wine is - the year in which they grew to one third of their growth.

(c) Vegetables are determined by when they are picked, because 'Darkan Ligadel al Kol Mayim', and wheat and wine, by the previous year, because 'Darkan Ligadel al Rov Mayim'. The meaning of ...

1. ... 'Darkan Ligadel al Kol Mayim' - means that they need to be watered manually, even after the rain season has terminated.
2. ... 'Darkan Ligadel al Rov Mayim' - means that they grow on rain water alone.
(d) The source for the obligation to Ma'aser fruit-trees - is mi'de'Rabbanan.
(a) The Mishnah in Bikurim discusses the comparisons and differences between a Koy and other animals. A 'Koy' is an animal that is Safek Beheimah, Safek Chayah.

(b) A Koy is like ...

1. ... a Chayah - inasmuch as it requires 'Kisuy ha'Dam' after Shechitah.
2. ... a Beheimah - inasmuch as one is forbidden to eat its Cheilev.
3. ... both a Beheimah and a Chayah - inasmuch as it requires Shechitah.
4. ... neither - inasmuch as it is forbidden to cross-breed with either.
(c) According to our previous interpretation of 'Derech', why does this Tana use the Lashon 'Derachim' throughout.

(d) We ask the same Kashya from the Mishnah in Gitin 'Zu Achas min ha'Derachim she'Shavu Gitei Nashim le'Shichrurei Avadim'. The Tana there is comparing a Sh'tar Shichrur to a Get with regard to the obligation of a Sheli'ach ha'Get to say 'be'Fanai Nichtav u've'Fanai Nechtam'.

(a) What does finally determine the Tana's use of the word 'Derachim' as opposed to 'Devarim' is - the fact that there are diverse Halachos (things that apply to one but not to the other).

(b) We prove this from Rebbi Eliezer in the Mishnah in Bikurim - who says 'Esrog Shaveh le'Ilan le'Chol Davar' (and not 'Derech' [because his opinion contains no diverse Halachos]).

(c) By virtue of the use of the word 'Derachim', with regard to ...

1. ... Kidushin - the Tana precludes Chupah, which does not acquire.
2. ... Zav - the Tana precludes any other O'nes besides any of the seven listed (which will not negate the Zivus).
3. ... Get - the Tana precludes a case where the man appointed a Sheli'ach to give his Eved a Sh'tar, where he cannot retract, whereas in the equivalent case of Get, his wife is not divorced and he can retract.
(d) The basis for the distinction between Get and Sh'tar Shichrur in the previous case is - the fact that whereas a Get is considered a liability (and 'Ein Chavin le'Adam she'Lo be'Fanav'), a Sh'tar Shichrur is a Z'chus (and 'Zachin le'Adam she'Lo be'Fanav').
(a) The number ('Sheloshah Derachim') in the Reisha of our Mishnah comes to preclude Chupah, as we just learned. This does not concur however, with the opinion of Rav Huna, who says - that Chupah does acquire a woman.

(b) According to Rav Huna, the number in our Mishnah comes to preclude - Chalipin.

(c) Chalipin - is another name for a Kinyan Sudar, where Reuven acquires Shimon's object (not necessarily to keep), and in exchange, Shimon acquires Reuven's object wherever it is.

(d) We would otherwise have thought that one can acquire a woman with Chalipin - because as we already learned, we derive Kinyan Kesef by a woman from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from 'S'dei Efron (which will soon be clarified), and a field can be acquired with Chalipin (so a woman should be acquired with Chalipin, too).

(a) A woman cannot be acquired with Chalipin - because, seeing as the object that is used for Chilipin need not be worth a P'rutah, a woman will not give herself to a man under such circumstances because it is degrading (even if she says that she agrees).

(b) Even if the object is worth a P'rutah, she cannot be acquired with Chalipin (see Ran).




(a) The number in the Seifa ('ve'Konah es Atzmah bi'Sh'tei Derachim') comes to preclude - Chalitzah, by means of which a woman cannot acquire herself.

(b) We would otherwise have thought that a woman can acquire herself with Chalitzah from a 'Kal va'Chomer' - from a Yevamah, who acquires herself with Chalitzah, even though she cannot acquire herself with a Get, 'Kal va'Chomer' a married woman, who can acquire herself with a Get, should acquire herself with Chalitzah.

(c) We learn from the Pasuk in "ve'Kasav Lah Sefer K'risus" - that a woman goes free from her husband with a Get, but not with anything else (such as Chalitzah [thereby overriding the 'Kal va'Chomer']).

(a) We ask both for the source of Kidushei Kesef generally and for the source of Kidushei Kesef of a girl who is betrothed by her father - and that this money goes to her father (and not to herself).

(b) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav extrapolates from the Pasuk "ve'Yatz'ah Chinam *Ein Kesef*" - 'Ein Kesef le'Adon Zeh (the master from whom she is going free), Aval Yesh Kesef le'Adon Acher' (her father), which teaches us that a girl's father receives the money of her Kidushin.

(c) Despite the fact that the Torah does not write "Ein *Lo* Kesef", we know that the money goes to her father, and not to herself - because it makes no sense to say that after accepting the money (to effect the Kidushin), her father should be obligated to hand it to her.

(d) We nevertheless need to quote the Pasuk "bi'Ne'urehah Beis Avihah" - to teach us that the above Halachah extends to the father of a Na'arah (even though she has a Yad with which she could effect the Kidushin herself), and is not confined to a Ketanah.

(a) We know that a father has the right to effect the Kidushin of his daughter from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei (written in connection with Motzi Shem-Ra) "es Biti Nasati la'Ish ha'Zeh".

(b) Despite the fact that the Pasuk is speaking about a Na'arah, we initially restrict the Halachah of a father receiving his daughter's Kidushin to a Ketanah - because although she is a Na'arah now, the Kidushin (referred to in the phrase "es Biti Nasati la'Ish ha'Zeh") may well have taken place when she was a Ketanah.

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav learns from the superfluous word "ve'Chi Yimkor Ish es Bito *le'Amah*" - that just as what an Amah ha'Ivriyah produces belongs to her master, so too, do the products of a daughter belong to her father.

(b) This Pasuk must be speaking about a Ketanah - because a Na'arah cannot be sold.

(c) We nevertheless learn from there that a father acquires the Ma'aseh Yadehah of a Na'arah, too - because the Pasuk is not needed to teach us this Din by a Ketanah, since we already know it from a 'Kal va'Chomer, from the fact that he is able to sell her.

(a) The previous D'rashah ("ve'Chi Yimkor Ish ... ") dispenses with our D'rashah from "bi'Ne'urehah Beis Avihah" - inasmuch as, if we really would learn from "bi'Ne'urehah ... " that all the benefits of a Na'arah belong to her father, then why would we need "ve'Chi Yimkor Ish ... "?

(b) It is therefore clear - that "bi'Ne'urehah Beis Avihah" refers to the father's right to annul his daughter's vows, and to nothing else.

(c) We cannot learn from a father's rights to annul his daughter's vows that he also receives the money of her Kidushin - because of the principle 'Mamona me'Isura Lo Yalfinan' (one cannot learn money matters from matters of Isur.

(d) Neither can we learn it from ...

1. ... K'nas (the fifty Shekel that the father receives from the man who raped his daughter) - because of the principle 'Mamona mi'K'nasa Lo Yalfinan'.
2. ... Boshes u'P'gam (the depreciation of the girl, for whom men will now be willing to pay less to her father, which the rapist has to pay in addition) - because the father already has rights in them (evdaughter to a leper, should he so wish [see Tosfos ha'Rosh]).
Next daf


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