ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kidushin 50
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.
(a) The Mishnah in Erchin learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Yakriv Oso" - that, if need be, Beis-Din will force a person to
fulfill his Neder and bring his Korban.
(b) We reconcile the two seemingly contradictory Pesukim - by combining the
two, permitting the Beis-Din to beat him until he agrees to bring his
2. ... "li'Retzono" - that he must bring it of his own freewill.
(c) Despite the fact that he has been forced and doesn't really want to
bring the Korban, we nvertheless refute Rava's proof ...
1. ... from there that 'Devarim she'ba'Leiv Einam Devarim" - on the grounds
that deep down, he really wants to attain an atonement (and bring his
Korban). Consequently, once he is beaten into submission, he really does
agree to bring it wholeheartedly.
2. ... from the Seifa which issues the same ruling with re. to Gitei Nashim
and Shichrurei Avadim (in cases where he is obligated to give his wife a Get
or to set his slave free) - because there too, he really wants to perform
the Mitzvah of obeying the words of the Chachamim.
(a) Rav Yosef attempts to prove that 'Devarim she'ba'Leiv Einam Devarim'
from the Mishnah in ha'Omer 'ha'Mekadesh es ha'Ishah ve'Amar Lah ke'Savur
Hayisi she'Hi Kohenes ve'Harei Hi Leviyah ... - which concludes
(b) Abaye refutes Rav Yosef's proof from there however - on the grounds that
there, the Tana does not mean to say that she is definitely Mekudeshes (in
which case the proof would be sound), but that she is Safek Mekudeshes, and
will still require a Get should someone else betroth her.
(a) We also refute Abaye's proof from the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Af-al-Pi
she'Amrah be'Libi Hayah Lehiskadesh Lo, Af-al-Pi Kein Einah Mekudeshes',
implying 'Devarim she'ba'Leiv Einam Devarim' - on the grounds that the
reason there could well be because she does not have the authority to negate
his condition (as we explained there).
(b) Rav Chiya bar Avin quotes Rav Chisda who quotes Rav Huna who finally
proves that 'Devarim she'ba'Leiv Einam Devarim' from the Mishnah in Me'ilah.
The Tana say there that if a Sheli'ach, following instructions, brought
Hekdesh money from a specific window or from a specific container - the
Meshale'ach is Mo'el, even if he claims that he really meant the Sheli'ach
to bring it from a different location (in which case the Sheli'ach would be
(c) We try to refute Rav Huna's proof from there on the grounds that his
claim is based on an attempt to exempt himself from bringing a Korban (and
that is why we cannot believe him [not on account of ('Devarim she'ba'Leiv
...']). We ...
1. ... initially counter this argument however - on the grounds that if that
were so, he would have claimed that he was a Meizid (i.e. he asked the
Sheli'ach to fetch the money in the knowledge that it was Hekdesh money,
since Me'ilah is confined to Shogeg).
(d) This Halachah is based on what we learnd earlier, that as opposed to
other Mitzvos, by Me'ilah we say 'Yesh Sheli'ach li'D'var Aveirah'.
Consequently - provided the Meshale'ach is a Shogeg and the Sheli'ach does
not change the Shelichus, the Meshale'ach is Moel. Otherwise, it is the
Sheli'ach who is Mo'el.
2. ... counter the argument that a person would not portray himself as a
Rasha - by interpreting 'Meizid' to mean that he remembered that the money
was Hekdesh after the Sheli'ach had left to fetch the money (in which case
he would not be a Rasha).
(a) What subsequently happened to that man who sold his property in order to
go and live in Eretz Yisrael (and specifically said so) was - that he went,
but could not settle there, so he returned.
(b) In the first Lashon, Rava invalidated the sale - on the grounds that
going to live in Eretz Yisrael incorporates settling there (and since he was
unable to settle, it was as if he had been prevented from going).
(c) In the the second Lashon - he declared the sale valid, because going to
live in Eretz Yisrael and settling there, are inependent issues, and the
fact is, that he went.
(d) In another episode, Rav Ashi, in the fist Lashon, upheld the sale of
someone who sold his property in order to go and live in Eretz Yisrael, and
just didn't go, on the grounds that he could have gone. The difference
between this Lashon and the second Lashon, where he said 'Who stopped him
from going' is - a case where a slight O'nes prevented him from going.
According to the first Lashon, he could still have gone with a bit of
effort, and the sale is valid; whereas according to the second Lashon, one
can no longer ask 'Who stopped him', because the O'nes stood in his way, and
the sale is void.
(a) If someone sent his Sheli'ach to betroth for him a woman in one
location, and he went and betrothed her in a different one, the betrothal is
void. The betrothal would have been valid - had he merely told the Sheli'ach
that he will find her in such and such a place (which is no more than an
indication), without without actually instructing him to betroth her there.
(b) The Tana found it necessary to repeat this Mishnah ...
1. ... in the case of a Get, despite having mentioned it here - because
whereas by Kidushin he wants to marry the woman, and therefore insists that
the Kidushin takes efffect in a place where he has many friends, who will
not attempt to put a spoke in his wheel, whereas by Gitin we may well have
thought that it makes no difference to him where the Get is handed over.
2. ... here, seeing as he has mentioned it in Gitin - because a Get carries
with it a stigma, which he wants to avoid in places where he is known, but
by Kidushin perhaps, it would make no difference to him where it takes
(a) If someone betroths a woman on condition that she has not made Nedarim,
and then discovers that she has, the Kidushin is void. The Tana says that in
a case where he married her without stipulating and then found that she had
made Nedarim - she loses her Kesuvah.
(b) She requires a Get - either mi'de'Rabbanan, or mi'd'Oraysa due to the
Safek that maybe he does not mind a woman who makes Nedarim (see Rashash).
(c) The Tana repeats exactly the same set of Halachos with regard to
blemishes - because all blemishes that invalidate Kohanim from performing
the Avodah will negate Kidushin.
(d) The Tana learns this Mishnah here - because of the Din of Kidushin
(inserting the Din of Kesuvah by the way), and in Kesuvos -because of the
Din of Kesuvah (inserting the Din of Kidushin by the way).
(a) If someone sends Sivlonos (the gifts that a man sends to his betrothed)
1. ... two women whom he betrothed with one Perutah - the Kidushin is void.
(b) We do not combine the Sivlonos with the half-Perutah that he gave her -
because he did not send her the Sivlonos as Kidushin, but as a gift.
2. ... a woman whom he betrothed with less than a Perutah - the Kidushin is
(c) When the Tana says 've'Chein Katan she'Kidesh', he is referring to - a
Katan who sent Sivlonos after he became a Gadol.
(a) Having taught us ...
1. ... that if someone is Mekadesh two women with a Perutah the Kidushin is
invalid, the Tana nevertheless needs to add the Din of someone who is
Mekadesh one with less than a Perutah - because even if in the former case
(where he did after all, give a Perutah) people may err and believe that the
Kidushin is valid (and therefore not have the intention of supplementing the
Kidushin with the Sivlonos), in the latter case (where he did not give a
Perutah), we might have thought that everyone surely knows that the Kidushin
is not valid (and therefore gave Sivlonos with the express intention of
supplementing the Kidushin).
(b) When Rav Huna and Rabah say 'Chosheshin le'Sivlonos' - they mean that
when a man sends gifts in the presence of witnesses to a woman with whom he
became engaged (but did not make Kidushin), we suspect that he means to
betroth her with the gifts. Consequently, should someone else subsequently
betroth her, she will need a Get from the first man.
2. ... both of the above, the Tana finds it necessary to add the third case
of 'Katan she'Kidesh' - because, even if not everybody is an expert in the
differences between a Perutah and less than a Perutah, everyone does know
however, that a Katan cannot effect Kidushin (in which case, the Sivlonos
that he sends when he grows up are intended as Kidushin). Therefore, the
Tana needs to teach us that this is not the case.
(c) In the first Lashon, when Rabah asks on himself from our Mishnah, which
does not contend with the possibility that the man sent Sivlonos as
Kidushin, Abaye replies - that the reason that there, the gifts are no more
than a follow up (as the Mishnah explicitly writes) is because there, he
already betrothed her once.
(a) In the second Lashon, Rabah actually supports his opinion - from the
fact that the Mishnah concludes 'she'Machmas Kidushin ha'Rishonim Shalach',
implying that had there not been a prior Kidushin, then we would indeed
contend with the possibility that the gifts were meant to be Kidushin.
(b) Abaye counters Rabah's proof by suggesting - that it is not for the
inference that the Tana concludes in this way, but to inform us that even
when there was a prior Kidushin (and we know that he was definitely
interested in betrothing the woman), we do not even contend with the
possibility that the gifts were meant as Kidushin.
(c) In answer to 'Mai Havi Alah', Rav Papa responds by qualifying Rav Huna
and Rabah's ruling - restricting it to a place where the custom is to
betroth first and send Sivlonos afterwards, but not to a place where people
tend to send gifts first (in which case the Sivlonos will indicate
(d) The Chidush is - that even in a place where a distinct minority tend to
send Sivlonos first and make the Kidushin afterwards, we nevertheless go
after the majority, and suspect that she is Mekudeshes (see Tosfos Ri
(a) Rav Acha bar Rav Huna asked Rava whether, in a place where the custom
was to send Sivlonos before the Kidushin, she is not Mekudeshes, even if
people saw that the woman had a Sh'tar Kesuvah - to which Rava replied that
the fact that she is known to have a Kesuvah is no reason to change her
(b) Again we ask 'Mai Havi Alah?' Rav Ashi responds by qualifying Rava's
ruling - to where the custom is to write the Kesuvah before the Kidushin,
but where people have the custom to write it afterwards, we do indeed
suspect that she is Mekudeshes.
(c) Again, we ask 'P'shita?' - meaning that where people have the custom to
write the Kesuvah afterwards, is it not obvious that we suspect that she is
(d) We answer this Kashya - by establishing the Chidush in a place where it
is difficult to find a Sofer, and where we might have thought that, since
we are not aware that Kidushin took place, they probably found a Sofer, and
took the opportunity to write the Kesuvah early.
(a) If a man betroths a woman and her daughter or two sisters
simultaneously - neither of them is Mekudeshes.
(b) 'Simultaneously means - that when handing one of them a Perutah on
behalf of both of them, he said 'Harei Sh'teichen Mekudashos Li'.
(c) Our Mishnah tells the story of the man who betrothed five women, two of
whom were sisters, with a basket of Sh'mitah figs - that belonged to the
(d) One of the women received the Kidushin - on behalf of all the women. The
Chachamim ruled - that the sisters were not betrothed.
(a) Rami bar Chama learns from the Pasuk "Ishah el Achosah Lo Sikach
Litzror" - the Din in our Mishnah (that if a man betroths a woman and her
daughter or two sisters simultaneously - neither of them is Mekudeshes).
(b) Rava refutes Rami's interpretation of the Pasuk, based on the Pasuk
"ve'Nichresah ha'Nefashos ha'Osos mi'Kerev Amam" - which is only possible if
one of the women was betrothed first, and he committed incest with the other
one afterwards (but not in the above case, where neither woman is
(c) So Rava establishes ...
1. ... the Pasuk - when he first betrothed one of the women ... (as we just
(d) Rava gives the source of the Din in our Mishnah as - the principle cited
by Rabah 'Kol she'Eino ba'Zeh Achar Zeh, Af be'Bas Achas Eino' ('Whatever
cannot take effect one after the other, cannot take effect simultaneously
2. ... and our Mishnah - when he betrothed them both simultaneously.