(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 46

KIDUSHIN 46-47 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.



(a) If a Ketanah accepted Kidushin without her father's consent, Rav permits either her or her father to retract. Rav Asi restricts the right to the father.

(b) They argue in a case when - after the daughter has retracted from the Kidushin, her father gives his consent.

(c) The Tana of the Beraisa extrapolates from the double Lashon of the Pasuk (in connection with a man who seduces a girl) "Im Ma'ein sYema'ein Avihah Lesitah Lo" - that it is not only the father who can invalidate the Kidushin of the seducer to his daughter, but so can she.

(d) Rav Huna (or Chiya bar Rav) tries to prove Rav Asi wrong from here - because , according to the current interpretation of the Beraisa, it is clear that the initial Kidushin of the seducer has a certain validity (even though it was effected without the father's consent).

(a) Rav defends Rav Asi - by establishing the Pasuk when the initial seduction did not take place as an act of Kidushin (but purely for pleasure).

(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explains how we require a Pasuk to teach us that either she or her father can object (not to the betrothal, which never took place, but) - to a future betrothal, and it comes to teach us that nevertheless, the seducer remains obligated to pay the full penalty.

(c) When Rav Yosef says 'I Hachi, Haynu di'Tenina "Mahor Yimharenah Lo le'Ishah", she'Tzerichah Heymenu Kidushin' - he means to support the previous explanation with this Beraisa, which clearly maintains that the seduction was purely for pleasure and not as a betrothal.

(d) Abaye refutes this proof however - on the grounds that even if it was performed as a betrothal, the Beraisa would be informing us that another Kidushin is necessary, with the express consent of the father.

(a) Our Mishnah rules that, in a case where a man says to a woman ...'
1. ... 'Hiskadshi Li bi'Temarah Zu, Hiskadshi Li be'Zu' - if one of the dates is worth a Perutah, the woman is betrothed.
2. ... 'Hiskadshi Li be'Zu, be'Zu be'Zu' - she is betrothed even if it is only their combined value that amounts to a Perutah.
(b) The author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Shimon (who holds that only 'Hiskadshi' by each date is considered a P'rat (to reckon each date individually, as we discussed above).

(c) The Tana concludes the Mishnah with 'Haysah Ocheles Rishonah Rishonah Einah Mekudeshes ad she'Yehei be'Achas Meihen Shaveh Perutah'. At first glance - this pertains to the Seifa ('Hiskadshi Li be'Zu be'Zu ... '), because as far as the Reisha is concerned ('Hiskadshi Li be'Zu ... Hiskadshi Li be'Zu'), each date is considered a P'rat, even if she did not eat it.

(d) When we ask 'va'Afilu be'Kamaisa' - we mean to ask what will it help if the first date is worth a Perutah, seeing as the Kidushin does not take effect until she has received all the dates, it transpires that, in the meantime, the first dates are on loan, in which case we will apply the principle 'ha'Mekadesh be'Milveh Einah Mekudeshes'? When Rebbi Yochanan commented 'Harei Shulchan, Harei Basar Harei Sakin, ve'Ein Lanu Mah Le'echol', he meant - that we have here a compete Mishnah, but are unable to understand it.

(a) Rav and Shmuel connects 'Haysah Ocheles Rishonah Rishonah ... ' with the Reisha ('Hiskadshi Li be'Zu ... Hiskadshi Li be'Zu') in spite of the Kashya that, in that case, even if she had not eaten the first dates, she would not be Mekudeshes until she had received them all - because the Tana comes to teach us that even when she *did* eat them, she is not Mekudeshes if it is not worth a Perutah, in spite of the fact that she received immediate benefit.

(b) Rebbi Ami connects it with the Seifa. And he answers the Kashya 'va'Afilu be'Kamaysa' - in the negative. The Tana means specifically that the last date is worth a Perutah.

(c) Rava extrapolates from Rebbi Ami that 'ha'Mekadesh be'Milveh, Einah Mekudeshes' - and 'ha'Mekadesh be'Milveh u'Perutah, Da'atah a'Perutah'.

(d) And finally, he infers from his words that 'Ma'os be'Alma Chozrim' - because if the money was a gift, then how could we refer to it as a loan that must be returned? Moreover, there where he concludes the Kidushin, everyone will agree that the date that she ate serves as Kidushin (see Rashash).




(a) According to Rav, if someone betroths his sister, the money is a Pikadon and must be returned. Shmuel says - that the money is a gift.

(b) They both agree - that everyone knows that the Kidushin is not valid.

(c) Even though he wanted to give her the money ...

1. ... as a Pikadon, according to Rav, he not say so - because he figured that she might not want to accept the responsibility (though it is hard to understand then, what he thought when he gave it to her, seeing as she did not accept it as a Pikadon, in which case she will be Patur from all liability.
2. ... as a gift, according to Shmuel, he not say so - because he thought that she would be too embarrassed to accept it.
(a) We know that Chalah must be taken from dough and not from flour - the Pasuk in Sh'lach Lecha 'Reishis Arisoseichem".

(b) The Mishnah in Chalah says that if someone separates Chalah from flour and gives it to the Kohen, not only has he not fulfilled his obligation, but the Kohen is obligated to return it - a Kashya on Shmuel, according to whom one would have expected the Tana to say that, since everyone knows that one cannot take Chalah from flour, the flour is a gift in the hands of the Kohen.

(c) We reply that Chalah is different, inasmuch as not returning the flour will result in the Kohen sinning - because he may go on to combine it with less than a Shiur of flour to make a dough with a Shiur. However, he will mistakenly believe the flour that he received to be Chalah, in which case his fresh dough will not be Chayav Chalah (whereas in reality, his dough is real Tevel).

(d) Even though we said earlier that everyone knows that one does not take Chalah from flour - they will not necessarily know why. The Kohen will think that the flour really is Chalah, only Chazal decreed otherwise for the Kohen's benefit (a benefit which he is happy to forego).

(a) We learn from the Pasuk in Beshalach "ve'ha'Omer Asiris ha'Eifah Hu" - the Shiur Chalah (which we see here, was the regular dough in the Desert, and was what the Torah referred to when it wrote "Reishis Arisoseichem").

(b) There are ...

1. ... three Sa'ah in an Eifah.
2. ... six Kabin in a Sa'ah.
3. ... four Lugin in a Kav.
4. ... six Beitzim in a Lug (the Si'man for this is 'Gudu').
(c) They subsequently added to the measurements ...
1. ... a sixth in Yerushalayim (though we would refer to this as a fifth).
2. ... a sixth in Tzipori (which again, we would refer to as a fifth).
(d) The Shiur Chalah in terms of ...
1. ... the Yerushalmi Shiur - is six Lugin.
2. ... the Tzipori Shiur - is five Lugin.
(a) The Mishnah in D'mai rules in the case of 'min ha'Nakuv al she'Eino Nakuv Terumah', to which the Tana adds - ve'Yachzor ve'Yitrom.

(b) Initially, we explain that the Tana in Chalah did not issue the same ruling as the Tana in D'mai - because when the discrepancy occurs in one vessel, the current owner will not take such a ruling seriously, and will not respond.

(c) Alternatively, it is not the Kohen we are worried about, but that the Yisrael who gave him the flour might sin - by assuming that the flour that he subsequently baked was duly rectified, and going on to eat Tevel.

(d) We are ...

1. ... worried about the Yisrael (in spite of what we said earlier (that everyone knows that one cannot separate Chalah from flour) - because he may make the mistake of thinking that it is the Rabbanan who negated the Din Chalah from the flour to spare the Kohen the extra work, and that he has the right override their decree, by undertaking to bake it for him (in which case the Chalah is valid).
2. ... not worried about the Kohen making a mistake - due to the principle 'Kohanim Zerizim Heim'.
(a) The Tana in D'mai rules in a case of 'min she'Eino Nakuv al ha'Nakuv - Terumah ve'Yachzor ve'Yitrom'.

(b) The reason that the Tana in Chalah makes the Kohen return the Chalah (rather than issuing the same ruling as the Tana in D'mai) is - because the discrepancy occurred in one vessel, as we just explained.

(c) The Tana in T'rumos rules in the case of 'ha'Torem Kishos ve'Nimtza Marah, Avati'ach, ve'Nimtza Saru'ach - Terumah ve'Yachzor ve'Yitrom', and he learns it from the Pasuk in Korach "ve'Lo Sisa Alav Chet, be'Harimchem es Chelbo Mimenu" ('Im Eino Kadosh, Nesi'us Chet Lamah'?)

(d) Indeed we just said that when the discrepancy occurs in one vessel (such as here), the owner will not respond if he is told to separate a second time - but not here, because min ha'Torah, his separation was valid, in which case, were we to declare it Tevel, he may replace it with the rest of his crops to separate Terumah a second time. On the other hand, we do need to worry that he might transgress an Isur d'Oraysa by not taking Terumah again.

Next daf


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