(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 49

KIDUSHIN 49-50 - 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.


1) Abaye equates the opinions of Rebbi Shimon, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rebbi Elazar with regard to the principle - 'Mar'eh Makom Hu Lo'.


(a) A Get Mekushar differs from a Get Pashut - inasmuch as the Get begins with a blank line and that (at least three or four times) one leaves every second line of the Sh'tar blank. The witnesses are obligated to sign at the back of each blank space, and one then folds the blank line over the next line of writing. Each fold is subsequently stitched.

(b) Chazal instituted a Get Mekushar - for the benefit of the Kohanim, who tended to be short-tempered, and would sometimes divorce their wives hastily. Then, when their tempers had cooled down, they would be sorry, too late, since they could no longer take them back. So Chazal instituted a Get Mekushar, which would take a long time to write, providing them with the required cooling down period, during which they could retract.

(c) The Tana Kama of the Mishnah in Bava Basra invalidates a Get Pashut whose witnesses signed on the outside and a Get Mekushar whose witnesses signed on the inside. According to Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel - if the witnesses signed on the inside of a Get Mekushar, the Get is Kasher, since all that is needed is not to stitch the folds and it will become a Get Pashut (nor will the blank spaces invalidate the Get - see Tosfos DH 'she'Yachol').

(d) The Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel. In their opinion - a Get Mekushar cannot become a Get Pashut, because they a Get Mekushar was dated for the following year, and a Get Pashut, for the current one.

(a) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel rules 'ha'Kol ke'Minhag ha'Medinah'. The problem with understanding this literally is - that 'ha'Kol ke'Minhag ha'Medinah' is generally an accepted principle, and there are no grounds for the Rabbanan to disagree.

(b) Consequently, in a case where the Minhag ha'Medinah is to write a Get Pashut and the Sheli'ach wrote a Get Mekushar or vice-versa, and gave it to the woman - the Get will be Pasul.

(c) Rav Ashi (or Abaye) establishes the dispute between the Tana Kama and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - in a case where both Minhagim are prevalent, and the man instructed the Sheli'ach to write a Get Pashut. The Rabbanan hold that he meant exactly what he said, and that if the Sheli'ach subsequently writes a Get Mekushar, it is invalid; whereas according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, it is Kasher, because of the principle 'Mar'eh Makom Hu Lo' (seeing as he did not contravene the Minhag).

(d) The Tana Kama in the Mishnah in Gitin rules that if a woman asks her Sheli'ach to receive her Get from a specified place and he received it elsewhere, she is not divorced. According to Rebbi Elazar - she is, because (like Rabbi Shimon and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel), he holds 'Mar'eh Makom Hu Lo', as Rava said).

(a) Rebbi Shimon ('Im Hit'ah li'Sh'vach, Mekudeshes'), speaks about Sh'vach Mamon, says Ula, but not Sh'vach Yuchsin - if for example she agreed to marry him on the understanding that he was a Mamzer (which is a P'sul d'Oraysa), and he turned out to be a Nasin (from the Giv'onim, whom Yehshua appointed as wood-choppers and water-drawers, and whom David subsequently forbade to marry into the community).

(b) The reason for this is - because we assume that she specifically wanted him to be a Mamzer, so that he should be humble, and not treat her with contempt.

(c) We cite a Beraisa in support of Ula. Rav Ashi proves it further from the Seifa of our Mishnah (on the following Amud) 'al-M'nas she'Ani Kohen, ve'Nimtza Levi ... , Nasin ve'Nimtza Mamzer ... ' - from the fact that Rebbi Shimon doesn't argue with this.

(a) Mar bar Rav Ashi counters his father's proof from the Seifa, which also inserts the case 'al-M'nas she'Yesh Li Bas O Shifchah Megudeles, ve'Ein Lo ... *al-M'nas she'Ein Lo ve'Yesh Lo*', which is a case of Sh'vach Mamon (where we know that Rebbi Shimon argues) from which he extrapolates that the Tana did not find it necessary to repeat the fact that Rebbi Shimon argues, because he has already made his point in the Reisha. In that case, it appears that he does not differentiate between Sh'vach Mamon and Sh'vach Yuchsin, but argues in both cases.

(b) Even assuming that 'al-M'nas she'Yesh Li Bas O Shifchah Megudeles' is indeed Sh'vach Mamon, as Mar thought, we counter Mar Rav Ashi's counter proof - by distinguishing between Sh'vach Mamon, where it is unnecessary to repeat the fact that Rebbi Shimon argues, and Sh'vach Yuchsin, where, if he does argue, the Tana should have told us so.

(c) Alternatively, we establish that case too, to be Sh'vach Yuchsin - because 'Shifchah Megudeles' (a grown-up Shifchah) really reads as 'Shifchah Gadeles' (an important Shifchah), whom the woman does not want, because she will gossip with the neighbors, revealing everything she says and making her look a fool in their eyes.

(a) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, the minimum requirements for a man who stipulates that he is a 'Karyana' are - to have Leined three Pesukim in Shul (in those days, whoever was called up to the Torah would Lein).

(b) It is necessary to interpret Rebbi Yehudah's statement 'ad she'Yikra vi'Yetargem' to mean that he must also have given Unklus' translation, because Rebbi Yehudah himself stated that someone who translates Pesukim literally ...

1. ... detracting from Unklus' translation - is a liar.
2. ... adding to it - reviles Hashem and insults Him.
(c) We confine this Halachah to someone who stipulates that he is a 'Karyana', but if he used he term 'Kara' - then he is expected to be an expert in Torah, Nevi'im and Kesuvim.



(a) According to Chizkiyah, if he stipulates that he is 'Shoneh', he must know Halachos le'Mosheh mi'Sinai (according to the Rif, 'Shoneh' means Mishnah). Rebbi Yochanan says - that he must know Torah (she'bi'K'sav).

(b) Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, explains 'Mishnah' to mean Halachos (le'Moshe mi'Sinai). Rebbi Yehudah says Medrash - meaning Sifra (on Vayikra) and Sifri (on Bamidbar and Devarim).

(c) We reconcile Rebbi Yochanan with the Beraisa - by interpreting Torah to mean Medrash Torah.

(d) 'Shoneh' is equivalent to 'Tanina'. If he stipulates 'al M'nas she'Ani Tana' - he is expected to know Halachos, Sifra, Sifri and Tosefta.

(a) A man who stipulates that he is ...
1. ... a Talmid - is expected to be able to quote a Halachah in whichever Masechta he is learning (even if he is currently learning Maseches Kalah).
2. ... a Chacham - is expected to be able to say a Sevara to explain what he has learned.
3. ... strong - is expected to be instil fear into the hearts of his friends.
4. ... a wealthy man - is expected to be sufficiently wealthy for the people of his town to honor him for his wealth.
(b) Those who are quoted as being ...
1. ... the ideal Talmidim are - ben Azai and ben Zoma (When ben Azai died, Chazal say in Sotah, diligence died with him).
2. ... the Chachmei Yavneh are - Rebbi Akiva and his colleagues.
3. ... the epitome of strength are - Avner ben Ner and Yo'av ben Tzeruyah?
(c) The woman is (Safek) betrothed if the man stipulated that he was ...
1. ... a Tzadik, and turned out to be a Rasha - because he may have done Teshuvah.
2. ... a Rasha, and turned out to be a Tzadik - because he may have had idolatrous thoughts in his heart (of which nobody was aware).
(d) What Rebbi Elazar ben Charsum and Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah have in common is - that they were both extremely wealthy (the former was left by his father a thousand ships and a thousand towns, the latter would Ma'aser twelve thousand calves from his herd each year).
(a) Nine of the ten Kabin of wisdom that came into the world went to Eretz Yisrael, and of beauty, to Yerushalayim. Nine tenths of ...
1. ... the world's wealth - was taken by Rome.
2. ... its poverty - by Bavel.
3. ... conceit - Eilam (neighbors of Bavel).
(b) We reconcile this with Rebbi Yochanan, who, explaining a Pasuk, states that flattery and conceit went to Bavel - by pointing out that, although conceit initially went to Bavel, it moved on from there to Eilam.

(c) We extrapolate this from the Lashon of the Pasuk, which, speaking about the two women, goes on to say "Livnos *Lah* Bayis" (in the singular), implying that one of the two (conceit) did not remain there. Alternatively we extrapolate it from the expression "Livnos", implying that the women wanted to build themselves a house (conceit), but did not actually do it.

(d) We say 'Si'man le'Gasus, Aniyus', in spite of the fact that poverty went to Bavel and conceit, to Eilam - because Aniyus (in this sense, refers to poverty in Torah ('Ein Ani Ela be'Da'as'), whereas the poverty that prevailed in Bavel refers to physical poverty.

(a) Rebbi Yochanan connect the Pasuk "Achos Lanu Ketanah, ve'Shadayim Ein Lah" - to Eilam, whose leaders studied Torah, but failed to teach it (like breasts, which feed the baby milk, to which Torah is compared).

(b) The advantage in this respect, that Bavel enjoyed over Eilam was - that they taught Torah there as well as learning it?

(c) The leaders of ...

1. ... Eilam, who did not teach Torah - were Daniel and Mordechai.
2. ... Bavel, who did - were Ezra (and Nechemyah).
(d) If the Persians took the lion's share of strength, and the Medes, of lice, the one who took the lion's share of ...
1. ... witchcraft - was Egypt.
2. ... leprosy - was the pig.
3. ... immorality - was Arabia.
(a) When the Tana says that Meishan took the bulk of Azus that came down to the world - he means Mamzeirus.

(b) The ones to take the bulk of ...

1. ... chatter - was the women
2. ... drunkenness - the Kushim.
3. ... sleep - the Avadim.
(a) Whether the man stipulated that he lived in a city or in a town, near the bathhouse or far from it, or that he had children or that he didn't, and the reverse is found to be true, the Kidushin is void. Living in a city might be considered a disadvantage to living in a town - due to the markets, which result in high prices, and because of the cramped space caused by the many travelers who frequent it.

(b) Even if the woman subsequently declares that she had in mind to accept him anyway - she will not be betrothed (because she does not have the authority to negate his condition).

(c) If it was the woman who stipulated and the reverse is found to be true - the Kidushin is void, just as it is when the man did.

(a) In the case of the man who sold his property with the intention of going to live in Eretz Yisrael - something happened to prevent his trip.

(b) Despite the fact that he intended to sell it exclusively with that that in mind, Rava did not invalidate the sale - because of the principle 'Devarim she'ba'Leiv Einam Devarim'.

Next daf


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