(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 44

KIDUSHIN 44 - dedicated by Rav Mordechai Rabin (London/Har Nof), on the day of the Yahrzeit of his mother (28 Sivan).



(a) We amend Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who now attributes Rebbi Yochanan's reason (that the Rabbanan concede that the Na'arah may not receive her own Kidushin) to the fact that Kidushin requires Da'as, unlike a Get, which a husband may give against her will (so it makes no difference who receives it). Again the problem from Ma'amar is - that Ma'amar, like Kidushin, can only be performed with the Yevamah's Da'as, yet the Tana permits even the Na'arah herself to accept it.

(b) We therefore establish the case of Ma'amar (which she may also receive) like Rebbi - who validates Ma'amar Ba'al Korchah.

(c) The Chachamim - require Ma'amar to be with the Da'as of the Yevamah.

(a) Rebbi learns Ma'amar Ba'al-Korchah from the Bi'ah of a Yevamah (which may also be performed Ba'al Korchah). The Rabbanan's source is - a regular Kidushin (which requires the woman's Da'as).


1. Rebbi declines to learn like the Rabbanan -- because he prefers to learn matters that concern a Yevamah from matters that concern a Yevamah.
2. The Rabbanan do not learn like Rebbi - because they prefer to learn Kidushin from Kidushin.
(c) The Mishnah about Ma'amar says in conclusion - 'Mah she'Ein Kein be'Kidushin'.

(d) This is not however, a proof for Rebbi Yochanan (in whose opinion the Rabbanan restrict their dispute with Rebbi Yehudah [about two Yados] by Gitin, but not by Kidushin) - because Resh Lakish (who maintains that the Rabbanan argue by Kidushin too) will establish the Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah.

(a) Despite the fact that the author of this Mishnah is Rebbi Yehudah, he says 'Mah she'Ein Kein be'Kidushin' (rather than 'Mah she'Ein Kein be'Gerushin') - because 'Kidushin is more similar to Ma'amar than Gerushin.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah differentiates between Gerushin and Ma'amar (despite the fact that are both are Ba'al Korchah) - on the grounds that by Ma'amar, since the Yevamah is already bound to the Yavam, anything is goof enough to conclude the transaction.

(c) That being the case, we can make the distinction to reestablish Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina's explanation in Rebbi Yochanan (distinguishing between Kidushin which takes her out of her father's domain, and Gerushin, which brings her in) - to refute the Kashya we asked as to why Ma'amar (which also takes her out), should be valid even through the Na'arah). However, we can now make the same distinction between Kidushin and Ma'amar as Rebbi makes between Gerushin and Ma'amar.

(a) We can extrapolate from our Mishnah '*ha'Ish* Mekadesh es Bito ke'she'Hi Na'arah Bo u'vi'Shelucho' - 'Bo u'vi'Shelucho In, Bah u'vi'Sheluchah, Lo' (a Kashya on Resh Lakish).

(b) In order to reconcile the Mishnah with Resh Lakish - we initially establish it like Rebbi Yehudah.

(c) The Seifa of our Mishnah (later in the Perek) states 'ha'Omer le'Ishah Hiskadshi Li bi'Temarah Zu, Hiskadshi Li be'Zu Im Yesh be'Achas Meihen haveh Perutah, Mekudeshes'. The author of the Mishnah be Rebbi Shimon - because he is the one who requires 'Hiskadshi' by each P'rat, for the Kidushin to be effective (like in the case where someone responds to five people who claim an article that they deposited with him with 'Shevu'ah she'Ein Lecha be'Yadi Lo Lecha, ve'Lo Lecha', where he rules 'Eino Chayav Ela Achas' because the accused did not say 'Shevu'ah' to each one).

(a) Rebbi Meir says in a Beraisa 'Zeh ha'K'lal; K'lal, Eino Chayav Ela Achas, P'rat, Chayav al Kol Achas ve'Achas'. Rebbi Yehudah says in a case of 'Shevu'ah Lo Lecha, Lo Lecha, Lo Lecha' - Chayav al Kol Achas ve'Achas' (even though he did not say Shevu'ah to each one [like the opinion of Rebbi Shimon]).

(b) To be Chayav a Shevu'ah to each one, according to Rebbi Elazar - he would have to add a 'Vav' 'Lo Lecha, Lo Lecha, Lo Lecha *ve'Lo* Lechah Shevu'ah'.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah's opinion here affects our proposal to establish our Mishnah ('*ha'Ish* Mekadesh Bo u'vi'Shelucho') like Rebbi Yehudah - inasmuch as, having just proved from the Seifa, that the author must be Rebbi Shimon (with whom Rebbi Yehudah argues), the author can no longer be Rebbi Yehudah.

(d) In order to avoid being faced with a discrepancy between our Mishnah and the Rabbanan therefore - Resh Lakish establishes our Mishnah like Rebbi Shimon, who holds like Rebbi Yehudah by Shelichus (i.e. that the father can receive his daughter's Kidushin, but not the daughter herself).

(a) When Rebbi Asi, who had not attended the Beis-ha'Medrash the previous day, asked Rebbi Zeira what they had learned there, he replied - that he had not attended either, but that Rebbi Avin who had, had informed him of what had been said there.

(b) According to Rebbi Avin - the Rabbanan had issued a ruling like Rebbi Yochanan (differentiating between Gitin and Kidushin), to which, Resh Lakish had cried out like a crane "ve'Yatz'ah ve'Haysah" (but nobody took any notice).

(c) When Rebbi Asi queried Rebbi Avin's reliability, Rebbi Zeira replied - 'ke'Min Yama le'Tigni', by which he meant that Rebbi Avin's information had been so close to the event ('like a fish from the sea straight into the frying-pan'), that irrespective of how reliable he was, there was not sufficient time for him to have forgotten any of the details.

(d) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said that he did not know whether thr Rebbi Avin was Rebbi Avin bar Chiya or Rebbi Avin bar Kahana (because he was told 'Rebbi Avin' Stam). The difference as to which Rebbi Avin it was, was important - so as to be able to point out a discrepancy in the words of whichever Rebbi Avin might have made a statement to the contrary.




(a) Rava asked Rav Nachman whether a Na'arah could appoint a Shelia'ch to receive her Get from her husband - depending on whether the daughter receives her Get in the capacity of her father's 'Yad' (in which case she can appoint a Sheli'ach just like her father can), or in the capacity of his Chatzer (in which case she will not be divorced until the Get reaches her hand).

(b) Rava said - that if a husband placed a Get into the hands of his wife's Eved whilst he was asleep and his wife was guarding him, she is divorced.

(c) She would not however, be divorced if he did so whilst the Eved was awake, proving that she acts in the capacity of her father's 'Yad' (because otherwise, she would not be divorced even if the Eved was asleep).

(d) So we subsequently amend the She'eilah to read - whether, even as her father's 'Yad', she has the authority to appoint a Sheli'ach or not?

(a) Rav Nachman resolved Rava's She'eilah by categorically declaring - 'Ein Osah Sheli'ach'.

(b) Rav Nachman establishes the Beraisa 'Ketanah she'Amrah Hiskabel Li Giti Eino Get ad she'Higi'a Get le'Yadah' (implying that in the case of a Na'arah, it would be a Get) - when the girl has no father.

(c) In a case where the Ketanah's father appointed a Sheli'ach le'Kabalah, the Seifa of the Beraisa rules - that the father is not permitted to retract once the Sheli'ach has the Get in his hands.

(d) Rav Nachman nevertheless establishes the Reisha when there is no father - by simply adding a piece to the Mishnah 'Bameh Devarim Amurim, ke'she'Ein Lah Av, Aval Yesh Lah Av, ve'Amar Avihah ... '.

(a) What Karna found strange about Shmuel's statement 'Ketanah she'Niskadshah she'Lo le'Da'as Avihah, Tzerichah Get u'Tzerichah Miy'un' - was that the two seemed to clash, because a woman who makes Miy'un does not generally require a Get, and one who does receive one, does not require Miy'un.

(b) The reason that they sent Shmuel's statement to Mar Ukva in Kafri rather than ask Shmuel in Neherda'a whether he really said such a thing - was because the latter lived too far away.

(c) Mar Ukva subsequently sent to Rav (though it is unclear why he did not send to Shmuel - see also Rashash), but he switched the opinions of Shmuel and Karna.

(d) When Rav heard this version of the Machlokes between Shmuel and Karna - he expressed great surprise that Shmuel should query 'Karna's' ruling (with which he agreed).

(a) Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ika explains - that the Ketanah requires a Get, in case the father agrees to the Kidushin, and Miy'un, in case he doesn't.

(b) Rav Nachman qualifies this Din - by establishing it when the couple was already engaged ('be'she'Shidchu'). Otherwise, they would require neither a Get nor Miy'un.

(a) Ula disagrees with Rav and Shmuel. He says - 'Afilu Miy'un Einah Tzerichah'.

(b) We answer the Kashya 'Af-al-Gav de'Shidchu?' - by establishing Shmuel when there was no Shiduch (not like Rav Nachman).

(c) In the second Lashon - Ula states independently that a Ketanah who accepted Kidushin without her father's consent, does not even require Miy'un (even if this was preceded by a Shiduch).

(a) The Mishnah in Yevamos (with re. to Tzaros Ervah) states 've'Chulan Im Meisu, O Miy'anu O Nisgarshu O she'Nimtze'u Aylonis, Tzaroseihen Mutaros'. The Tana cannot be speaking when the father (to whom the Tzarah now falls) betrothed his daughter to his brother - because in that case, she would require a Get and not just Miy'un.

(b) He must therefore be speaking when - the daughter betrothed herself.

(c) Ula, in whose opinion a girl who betroths herself does not even require Miy'un, will explain - that she became betrothed to her father's brother, when she was already a Yesomah be'Chayei ha'Av (meaning that her father had already her to someone else previously, at which point she left her father's jurisdiction).

(d) Despite the fact that she is after all, a Ketanah, the Rabbanan nevertheless gave the right to a Yesomah be'Chayei ha'Av to betroth herself - so that she should not be at the mercy of men who will otherwise abuse her.

Next daf


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