ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kidushin 7
KIDUSHIN 7-10 - Dedicated by an admirer of the work of the Dafyomi
Advancement Forum, l'Iluy Nishmas Mrs. Gisela (Golda bas Reb Chaim Yitzchak
Ozer) Turkel, A"H.
(a) The Halachah that if ...
1. ... a woman says to a man 'Ten Manah li'P'loni ve'Akadesh Ani Lecha', she
is Mekudeshes (even though she did not receive anything) - is based on the
Din of an Areiv (a guarantor for a loan) who obligates himself to pay the
loan, even though he receives nothing in exchange.
(b) In the second of the three above-mentioned cases, it is possible for
Reuven to betroth a woman on behalf of Shimon, even with his own money - if
he appointed him a Sheli'ach.
2. ... a man says to a woman 'Heilech Manah, ve'Hiskadshi li'P'loni', she is
Mekudeshes (even though the Mekadesh has not given anything away) - is based
on the Din of an Eved Cana'ani, who goes free on the basis of money that
others pay on his behalf (as we shall see later in the Perek).
3. ... a woman says to a man 'Ten Manah li'P'loni va'Akadesh Ani Lo', she is
Mekudeshes (even though neither did she receive anything, nor did he
receive) - is based on the Din of an Areiv and that of an Eved Cana'ani
(a) Rava asked whether, if the woman gives the man a Manah and says to him
'Heylech Manah va'Akadesh Ani Lecha', the Kidushin will be effective. The
man, in turn - accepted the money and said 'Hiskadshi Li ... '.
(b) Mar Zutra quoting Rav Papa, says - 'Mekudeshes'.
(c) We object to this ruling - on the basis of the Mishnah later, which
teaches that one can acquire Metaltelin Agav Karka, and not vice-versa, as
would appear from Rav Papa.
(d) As a matter of fact, we misunderstood Rav Papa, who is not referring to
Kinyan 'Agav' at all. What Rav Papa is referring to - is an Adam Chashuv,
who gives her a P'rutah's worth of pleasure by merely accepting her money
(in any event, she gains the P'rutah she would be willing to pay someone to
get him to accept her money).
(a) Rava, who taught us earlier by Kidushin 'mi'Din Areiv and mi'Din Eved
Cana'ani, adds 've'Chein le'Inyan Mamona'. This will apply to ...
1. ... Din Areiv - where Reuven says to Shimon 'The Manah that you give to
Levi will acquire my field for Shimon'.
(b) Had Rava made his statement (with regard to Din Areiv) by ...
2. ... Din Eved Cana'ani - where Levi gives Reuven a Manah and says to him
'Let this Manah acquire your field for Shimon.
3. ... Din Sh'neihem - where Reuven says to Levi 'Let the Manah that you
give to Shimon acquire my field for him.
1. ... Kidushin - where a woman wants to get married to such an extent, that
she will be willing to give herself to a husband even when she receives
nothing in exchange (and we have already learned a number of times that the
basis of Kinyanim is the Da'as (the genuine consent) of both parties for the
transaction to take place, we would not have applied it in the case of a
sale - where the owner does not really mean to part with his field unless it
is he who receives the money.
(c) We have a principle that the desire of a woman to get married - is
stronger than that of a man. In fact, based on the motto 'Tav le'Meisav Tan
Du mi'le'Meisav Armelu' ('It is better to live with anyone else than to
remain a widow [on one's own]'), she is even prepared to marry someone who
is not suitable. Note: It is possible that, nowadays, with the radical
change in the age of marriage, and due to other factors, this principle does
not apply to the same degree as it did then.
2. ... Mamona - where a person has the authority to forego the money of the
sale (and where, as a result, we consider the seller as having given his
field to the purchaser as a gift), we would not have applied it to
Kidushin - where the woman has no authority to forego the money of Kidushin.
(a) Rava maintains that if a man says 'Hiskadshi li le'Chetzyi' - the woman
is Mekudeshes, whereas if he says 'Chetzyech Mekudeshes Li' - she is not.
(b) Based on the words "Ki Yikach *Ish* *'Ishah*", Abaye asked Rava - that
just as "Ishah" implies "Ishah", 've'Lo Chatzi Ishah', so too, does "Ish"
imply "Ish", 've'Lo Chatzi Ish'?
(c) Rava replied that Abaye had misunderstood him, and - that it was not
from the Pasuk that he learned his Din, but from a S'vara. The reason for
his distinction lies in the fact - that whereas a woman cannot be married to
two men, a man can have two wives.
(d) What the man therefore meant when he said 'Hiskadshi Li le'Chetzyi'
was - that he reserves the right to marry a second woman.
(a) If someone declares the leg of a Kasher animal Hekdesh - the Kedushah
spreads to the entire body (which one then brings as a Korban).
(b) Even those who argue here, will concede that the Kedushah would spread -
were he to declare Hekdesh the heart or any other organ without which the
animal could not survive.
(c) We cannot however, apply the same S'vara in the case of 'Chetzyech
Mekudeshes Li', and say that the Kidushin automatically spreads to the
entire woman rendering her Mekudeshes - because the woman herself only
agreed to half of her being Mekudeshes, and the Kidushin cannot spread
against her will (as opposed to an animal, whose Da'as is not required).
(a) We compare Kidushin to the case cited by Rebbi Yochanan, of the partner
who declared his half of the animal Hekdesh. Rebbi Yochanan says that,
should he ...
1. ... not buy the second half from his partner - the Kedushah will not
spread to the other half (because the Da'as of the second partner prevents
it from doing so). In fact, only Kedushas Damim would take effect
(obligating him to pay the value of his half to Hekdesh.
(b) If he then declares another animal a Temurah on this one - his
declaration is effective ...
2. ... buy his partner out and declare the second half of the animal
Hekdesh - then the entire animal will be Hekdesh Kedushas Damim but cannot
be brought as a Korban.
(c) ... but the Temurah, whose Kedushah came only from a rejected Kedushah -
is Kedushas Damim, like the original animal, It cannot be brought as a
(a) We learn three things from Rebbi Yochanan's previous statement. We learn
1. ... 'Ba'alei Chayim Nidachin'. Others say - that only a Shechted animal
can be rejected, but not a live one.
(b) According to them, the moment the first partner bought out the second
one and declared the other half Hekdesh (and perhaps even that is
unnecessary [see Me'iri), the entire Kedushah spreads to the other half, and
it is brought as a Korban.
2. ... 'Dichuy Me'ikara Havi Dichuy'. Others say - that only something that
was Kasher before being rejected, can be permanently rejected.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan's third Chidush is - that even an animal that is
initially sanctified only for its value (Kedushas Damim) is also subject to
being permanently rejected.
(a) Rava asked whether a woman will be betrothed if the man said 'Chetzyech
... be'Chatzi P'rutah, ve'Chetzyech be'Chatzi P'rutah'. She might ...
1. ... not be betrothed - because he is trying to effect two transactions
with half a P'rutah each.
(b) Based on the assumption that, in the previous She'eilah, he was counting
the half-P'rutos (and she is betrothed), Rava asks what the Din will be if
the man said 'Chetzyech bi'P'rutah, ve'Chetzyech bi'P'rutah'. Perhaps here,
where he specifies a whole P'rutah for each half, he thinks that he can
acquire her in halves (unlike in the previous case, where everyone knows
that one cannot acquire a woman with half a P'rutah (even in two lots).
2. ... nevertheless be betrothed - because he is counting out two
half-P'rutos to effect the Kidushin with one P'rutah.
(c) Assuming that whatever he says on the same day is considered counting
(and she is betrothed), he then asks what the Din will be if he said
'Chetzyech bi'P'rutah ha'Yom, ve'Chetzyech bi'P'rutah le'Machar'. The
Kidushin might be effective even though he specifically asks for the second
P'rutah to take effect the next day - because what he may have meant was
that the Kidushin should begin today and conclude tomorrow.
(d) Rava's last She'eilah in this set, which he remains with 'Teiku', is -
'Sh'nei Chetzyech bi'Prutah'. In his previous stance, there would have been
no question at all that, in this case, where he made the statement in one
go, the woman would have been betrothed. Now however, he contends with the
possibility that any mention of 'half' will invalidate the betrothal.
(a) In a second set of She'eilos, Rava asks 'Sh'tei Benosayich li'Sh'nei
Banai Mahu'? It was the (grown-up) sons themselves - who gave their father
the authority to arrange their betrothal, by appointing him a Sheli'ach.
(b) The two sisters might ...
1. ... not be betrothed - because we go after the ones on whose behalf the
money is being given (in which case, seeing as the father is receiving the
money for the betrothal of two daughters, there is only half a P'rutah for
2. ... nevertheless be betrothed - because we go after the recipient (in
which case there is a P'rutah - seeing as the money for both of them goes to
(a) Rav Papa asked what the Din will be in the case of 'Bitcha u'Parascha
bi'P'rutah'. If the man meant to acquire the woman with one half of the
P'rutah and to pay for the cow with the other half (see Tosfos DH 'Bitcha'),
it is obvious that the woman would not be betrothed. The other side of the
She'eilah is - that he meant to acquire the woman with the 'P'rutah and the
cow with the Meshichah that he had yet to make (and to pay the going market
price for the cow).
(b) Rav Ashi asks a similar She'eilah regarding acquiring a woman and a
piece of land - whether he intends to acquire the woman with half a P'rutah
and the land for the other half, or the woman with the P'rutah and the land
with the Chazakah that he had yet to make (and pay the market price for the
piece of land).
(c) The outcome of both She'eilos is - 'Teiku'.
(a) In a case where a man betrothed a woman with silks, Rabah did not
require their assessment prior to the Kidushin - Rav Yosef did.
In the second Lashon, they even argue over a case where he stipulated that
he is betrothing her irrespective of how much they were worth. Rav Yosef's
reason for invalidating the Kidushin in such a case is - because Shaveh
Kesef, like Kesef, must be of fixed value at the time of Kidushin.
(b) If the man had specifically stipulated that he is betrothing her with
1. ... irrespective of their value - they would both agree that no
assessment was necessary.
(c) We therefore establish Rabah and Rav Yosef's dispute - when he
stipulated that the silks were worth fifty Zuz, and they were subsequently
found to be worth fifty Zuz.
2. ... provided they were worth fifty Zuz, and they were found to be worth
less - then even if there had been an assessment, the Kidushin would be
(d) Rav Yosef's reasoning (bearing in mind that the silks were worth fifty
Zuz) is - due to the fact that the woman, who is generally not an expert in
assessing, does not rely on his assessment, unless it is backed up by
official assessors (and whenever there is no Da'as on the part of one of the
parties, the Kinyan is Batel).