(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 52

KIDUSHIN 51-55 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.



(a) The Beraisa quoted by Tivyumi rules that if a man arranged that one of his friend's five daughters should be betrothed to one of his own five sons, without specifying which daughter to which son - each woman subsequently requires a Get from each of the sons.

(b) In the event that one of the sons dies - each woman will require four Gitin (from each the four surviving brothers, in case he is the one who betrothed her) and Chalitzah (from one of them, in case the deceased brother was her betrothed).

(c) Rava cannot establish this Beraisa too, when they originally specified which daughter to which son, and forgot only afterwards - seeing as the Tana specifically said 'One of your daughters to one of my sons'.

(d) This Beraisa proves - that 'Kidushin she'Ein Mesurin le'Bi'ah, Havu Kidushin'.

2) In the Si'man 'Ya'al K'gam' (the acronym of the first letters of the six places in Shas where we rule like Abaye against Rava), 'Ya'al' stands for '*Yi*'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as', '*Ei*d Zomem Lemafre'a Hu Nifsal' and '*Le*chi ha'Omed me'Eilav'. 'K'gam' stand for '*Ki*dushin she'Ein Mesurin le'Bi'ah', '*Gi*luy Da'atah be'Gitah' and '*Mu*mar Ochel Neveilos Lehach'is'.


(a) Rav extrapolates from the words in our Mishnah 'she'Lahen Haysah ve'shel Shevi'is Haysah' - that 1. if someone betroths a woman using Sh'mitah-fruit, the Kidushin is effective, and 2. if he betroths her with Gezel, even if he stole it from her, it is not (because this is what is implied by 'shel Shevi'is Haysah'.

(b) We might otherwise have thought that ...

1. ... one cannot be Mekadesh with Peiros Shevi'is - either because it is not considered his money, but remains Hefker; or because the Torah writes 'le'Ochlah', forbidding all other forms of use.
2. ... if a man betroths a woman with something that he stole from her she is Mekudeshes - because her silent acceptance is tantamount to forgiving and forgoing.
(c) The third Chidush that Rav extrapolates from our Mishnah is that a woman can be a Sheli'ach on behalf of her friend even when she is destined to become her Tzarah - since she is not believed to permit the Tzarah to remarry when she testifies that her husband died, as we learned in Yevamos.
(a) There is a fourth Chidush which Rav was uncertain about - namely that 'Kidushin she'Ein Merurin le'Bi'ah Havu Kidushin' (see Rashash).

(b) What made him uncertain was - the fact that he was not sure whether to establish the Mishnah by Bas Achas, in which case we would have a proof 'Havu Kidushin', or when he was Mekadesh only one of the two women, in which case we have a proof that 'Lo Havu Kidushin' (as we learned earlier).

(a) Rebbi Yochanan said 'Gazal ve'Lo Nisya'ashu ha'Ba'alim - Sheneihem Einam Yecholim Lahakdish', Zeh Lefi she'Eino she'Lo, ve'Zeh Lefi she'Eino bi'Reshuso'.

(b) When he expressed surprize that Rav had said 'Kidshah be'Gezel, Einah Mekudeshes' - he was pleasantly surprized that Rav agreed wth him.

(a) We establish the Beraisa which says 'Kidshah be'Gezel, be'Chamas, u'vi'Geneivah, Mekudeshes' - by Gezel Diydah (what he stole from her).

(b) The Seifa 'O she'Chataf Sela mi'Yadah' (from which we might have extrapolated that the Reisha speaks in a case of Gezel de'Alma) - actually comes to qualify the Reisha, not to add another case (giving rise to inferences).

(c) In view of the fact that Rav rules in our Mishnah 'Einah Mekudeshes', despite the fact that the Tana is speaking about something that he stole from *her*, we establish the Beraisa - by Shadich (when they had already agreed to become betrothed), whereas Rav speaks when they did not.




(a) That man threw - a Zuz that he grabbed from someone else to the woman who was washing her foot in a bowl of water.

(b) A Gazlan who robbed the article in broad daylight, acquires it - because seeing as the owner knows who stole it and is unable to regain possession of it (see Bava Kama 114a) , he is Meya'esh (despairs from getting it back).


1. When the owner of the Zuz came to complain - Rava (based on Rebbi Shimon's ruling) ruled that nobody rules like Rebbi Shimon (in which case the Kidushin would be invalid).
2. In the case of that Aris who betrothed a woman with a handful of onions - Rava asked him whether the owner had been Mochel his share of the handful (and the Kidushin was therefore invalid).
(d) He qualified this ruling by differentiating between a handful of onions and a bunch. In the later case, where one tends to divide onions in bunches, the Aris can say to the owner 'I took a bunch, now it's your turn'.
1. P'ruma (or P'ruzma) de'Shichra is - dates that were soaked in water to make beer, after the beer has been extracted and poured out.
2. A Sirsaya is - a man who produces beer from the owner's dates for half the profits.
(b) When the owner of the beer discovered that the Sirsaya had betrothed a woman with P'ruma de'Shichra - he asked why he didn't take from those superior-quality dates (which had been soaked n water less times).

(c) Rava ruled - that 'K'lach Eitzel Yafos' ('Why do you take from the better crops?', which we are about to discuss), is confined to a someone taking Terumah on behalf of the owner, but will not apply here ...

(d) ... - because since he is under no obligation to give the Sarsaya anything, he is not Mochel him, and what he said, he said only to spare him the shame (out of courtesy), whereas by Terumah, the obligation of giving Terumah is his, and he meant what he said.

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa illustrates the case of 'Chosheshin Mishum Gezel' (with re. to 'Torem she'Lo mi'Da'as Ba'al ha'Bayis') - when the owner told the Torem to go to the better quality crops, which did not exist. What he must therefore have meant was that, had he found better-quality crops, he would have 'stolen' them too.

(b) If he did find better-quality crops, then his Terumah would be valid, and it would be valid even if he did not - if the owner actually began picking himself, and adding more to the pile.

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah rules - that if a Kohen who betroths with his portion of Kodshei Kodshim or Kodshim Kalim, the Kidushin is invalid.

(b) Rebbi Meir holds ha'Mekadesh be'Ma'aser Sheini Lo Kidesh. Rebbi Yehudah holds be'Meizid Kidesh. Their bone of contention - is whether Ma'aser Sheini is Mamon Gavoah (it belongs to Hashem - Rebbi Meir) or Mamon Hedyot (it belongs to the owner - Rebbi Yehudah).

(c) With re. to Hekdesh, Rebbi Meir holds 'be'Meizid Kidesh, be'Shogeg Lo Kidesh' - Rebbi Yehudah holds vice-versa.

(a) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learns - that one brings a Korban Shevu'ah for swearing on Kodshim Kalim (even though one does not swear on Hekdesh, because it is not considered "ba'Amiso"), from the Pasuk "u'Ma'alah Ma'al ba'Hashem" (because even though it falls under the category of "la'Hashem", it nevertheless belongs to the owner).

(b) We reconcile Rebbi Yossi Hagelili with Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah, who invalidates the Kidushin in a case where a Kohen (or a Yisrael) betroths a woman even with Kodshim Kalim - by establishing Rebbi Meir by Kodshim Kalim after they have been Shechted (when the Kohanim and the owner acquire their respective portions from the Table of Hashem), whereas Rebbi Hagelili is speaking when the animal is still alive.

(c) The portion of Kohanim of Kodshim Kalim constitutes - the Chazeh ve'Shok (the breast and the right calf, which he received from every Shelamim).

(d) We support this distinction from the Lashon of the Mishnah itself 'ha'Mekadesh be'Chelko' - implying after the Shechitah, because otherwise, the Torah ought to have written 'ha'Mekadesh be'Kodshim Kalim'.

(a) After Rebbi Meir's death, Rebbi Yehudah instruct his Talmidim not to allow Rebbi Meir's Talmidim into his Beis Hamedrash - because, he claimed, they came to start up with him and not to search for the truth.

(b) Nevertheless - Sumchus managed to gain entry.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah tried to prove his point when Sumchus quoted the statement of Rebbi Meir 'ha'Mekadesh be'Chelko ... Einah Mekudeshes' - which in his opinion, was totally impractical, since on the one had, it is forbidden to take Kodshei Kodshim outside the Azarah, and on the other, a woman is not permitted in the Azarah.

(d) Neither could Rebbi Yehudah be speaking when the Kohen took his portion of Kodshei Kodshim into the Ezras Nashim and betrothed her there - because it is forbidden to remove Kodshei Kodshims from the Ezras Yisrael (even into the Ezras Nashim).

(a) Rebbi Yossi felt that, with Rebbi Meir no longer alive, and Rebbi Yehudah angry, he could not remain silent. He resolved Rebbi Yehudah's Kashya in two ways. Firstly, he argued, why could a woman not appoint a Sheli'ach to receive her Kidushin in the Azarah - and secondly, we would need to know what the Halachah would be should the woman herself entered the Azarah without permission.

(b) Rebbi Yossi, like Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah, argues with Rebbi Yehudah and holds 'ha'Mekadesh be'Chelko, Einah Mekudeshes. Rebbi Yochanan ascribes both opinions to the same Pasuk in Korach "ve'Zeh Yihyeh Lecha mi'Kodesh ha'Kodashim min ha'Eish".

1. Rebbi Yehudah learns from "Lecha" ('le'Chol Tzorchecha') that 'ha'Mekadesh be'Chelko Mekudeshes' -
2. ... Rebbi Yossi learn from "min ha'Eish" ('Mah Eish la'Achilah, Af Hu Nami la'Achilah') ' ... Einah Mekudeshes'.
Next daf


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