ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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.
(c) The Mishnah about Ma'amar says in conclusion - 'Mah she'Ein Kein
2. The Rabbanan do not learn like Rebbi - because they prefer to learn
Kidushin from 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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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