ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kidushin 58
KIDUSHIN 58 (13 Tamuz) - Dedicated by Chaim Ozer & Rena Shulman of Teaneck,
New Jersey, in memory of his grandmother, Rebbetzin Chiena Kossowsky Z"L, an
extraordinary Tzadekes and Melumedes, who passed away on 13 Tamuz 5755 on
her 82nd birthday.
(a) Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa validates Kidushin that were performed with
Petter Chamor, Basar be'Chalav and Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah. The
Chachamim - render it invalid.
(b) Rebbi Shimon's reason in the case of ...
1. ... Petter Chamor and Basar be'Chalav is - because he holds that both are
only Asur be'Hana'ah mi'de'Rabbanan, as we learned above (see Mesores
ha'Shas on the previous Amud)
(c) The reason for the decree is - in case people (believing the Chulin to
be Kodshim), will take their cue from there to permit deriving benefit from
Kodshim before the blood has been sprinkled.
2. ... Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah is - because he disagrees with the
various D'rashos that we just cited to prove that it is d'Oraysa. According
to him, it is Asur mi'de'Rabbanan.
(a) Mar Yehudah had a problem with the above ruling of Rebbi Shimon from
another statement of Rebbi Shimon, who said in a Beraisa - that a Beheimah
of Chulin or a Chayah that were Shechted in the Azarah must be burned.
(b) Mar Yehudah has ...
1. ... no problem with the case of Beheimah - because, since they are of the
same species as Kodshim, it is understandable for the Chachamim to decree a
Chulin animal on account of one of Kodshim (so that people should not think
that Kodshim that became Pasul must be buried, as Chulin she'Nishchatu
ba'Azarah ought to be).
(c) If Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah were d'Oraysa, he would have no
problem - because since the Isur to Shecht in the Azarah would be d'Oraysa,
it would be feasible for the Chachamim to give a Chayah the same Din as a
Beheimah, so as not to make a distinction between them (Lo P'lug).
2. ... a problem with the case of a Chayah - because, since one cannot
possibly confuse it with a Beheimah, added to the fact that the Isur by
Chayah is purely mi'de'Rabbanan, there would be no reason to issue such a
(a) Rabah was not impressed with Mar Yehudah's Kashya. The title that he
conferred upon him was - that of 'Palga' (meaning argumentative), because he
was accustomed to quarrel with the Rabbanan (more for the sake of differing
with their opinion, it seems, than in order to search for the truth).
(b) Rabah establishes the first ruling of Rebbi Shimon, validating a
Kidushin performed with Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah - when the animal was
found to be T'reifah, and Rebbi Shimon follows his ruling elsewhere, that a
Shechitah which does not permit the animal to be eaten, is not considered a
(c) That being the case - the Chulin animal that was 'Shechted' in the
Azarah does not fall under the category of Chulin she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah,
and is Mutar be'Hana'ah.
(d) Had the Shechitah been Kasher, says Rabah - Rebbi Shimon would have
conceded that the animal would be Asur be'Hana'ah, because Chulin
she'Nishchatu ba'Azarah is d'Oraysa.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Vehayisa Cherem Kamohu" - that the Isur Hana'ah
of Avodas-Kochavim is transferred to the money that one pays for it.
(b) We can extrapolate from there that - if one sells other Isurei Hana'ah -
the Isur is not transferred to the money, which explains the Seifa of our
Mishnah 'Machrah ve'Kidesh bi'Demeihen, Mekudeshes.
(c) We cannot learn from a 'Mah Matzinu' from Avodas Kochavim, that the Isur
is transferred on to the money - because the same applies to Shevi'is fruit,
making it 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad', and we rule 'Ein Melamdin'.
(d) We learn from ...
1. ... the Pasuk "Yovel Hi Kodesh Tih'yeh Lachem" - that the Isur of
Shevi'is fruit, like that of Avodas Kochavim, is transferred to the money.
2. ... the word "Tih'yeh" - that the actual fruit remains forbidden (in
which case, the Isur extends, rather than is transferred, to the money).
(a) If one purchased ...
1. ... meat with Sh'mitah fruit - both have Kedushas Shevi'is.
(b) The significance of the fact that we now have two cases where the Isur
is transferred to (or extends to) the money is that we now have 'Sh'nei
Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad' - though not everyone holds 'Ein Melamdin'.
2. ... fish with the meat, wine with the fish, and oil with the wine - then
the fruit and the oil have Kedushas Shevi'is, but not the fish, the meat and
(c) According to the latter opinion, we learn from the Pasuk "Ki Cherem
*Hu*" and the Pasuk "Yovel *Hi*" (by way of a 'Miy'ut')- that only by Yovel
and Shevi'is does the Isur transfer to the money, but not by other Isurei
Hana'ah (though it is unclear why one 'Miy'ut' will not suffice).
(a) Our Mishnah say about someone who betroths a woman with Terumos,
Ma'asros, Matanos, Mei Chatas and Eifer Parah - the Kidushin is valid.
(b) The Tana adds 'va'Afilu Yisrael'. According to the plain meaning of the
words, this means - that the Mekadesh is betrothing the woman with the
'Tovas Hana'ah' (the right to give it to whichever Kohen or Levi ... he
wishes, and that is what he now transfers to her).
(c) According to this interpretation, we can extrapolate - that 'Tovas
(d) Rebbi Aba cited our Mishnah to query a statement of Ula - who said
'Tovas Hana'ah Einah Mamon'.
(a) To answer the Kashya Ula establishes our Mishnah - when the Mekadesh
inherited Tevel from his maternal grandfather (who was a Kohen, even though
he is a Yisrael).
(b) The Tana is coming to teach us - that 'Matanos she'Lo Hurmu k'Mi
she'Hurmu Damyan' (i.e. although the Tevel contained the undesignated
Terumos, they are considered as if they had been designated, in which case
the original owner acquired them, and all they now require is designation
(c) Ula did not establish the Mishnah when the Mekadesh inherited *Terumah*
from his maternal grandfather - because then there would be no Chidush.
(d) When Rav Huna attempted to resolve Rav Chiya bar Avin's She'eilah about
whether Tovas Hana'ah is Mamon or not, from our Mishnah, the latter pointed
to Ula's interpretation of the Mishnah. When Rav Huna retorted ...
1. ... "*Hotza'ah* At' - he meant that Rav Asi from *Hutzal* conformed with
his opinion. However ...
2. ... Rav Chiya bar Avin understood Rav Huna's remark derogatorily (with
the result that he felt embarrassed). He thought he meant - that he was
removed from the Sugya (i.e. that he did not understand it properly), or
that he 'cuts canes in the marsh' (an expression implying that one is
insignificant [from the word 'Hutza' meaning a weak fence]).
(a) According to Rebbi in a Beraisa, someone who steals his friend's Tevel
and eats it, is obligated to pay for everything he ate - for the Chulin in
full and for the Ma'asros according to the Tovas Hana'ah that his friend had
(b) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah says - that he only needs to pay for the
Chulin that he ate, but not for the Ma'asros.
(c) We refute the suggestion that Rebbi obligates him to pay for the
Ma'asros too, because he holds 'Tovas Hana'ah Mamon', whereas Rebbi Yossi
b'Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Tovas Hana'ah Eino Mamon', establishing the basis of
their Machlokes as - whether 'Matanos she'Lo Hurmu ke'Hurmu Damyan' (Rebbi
Yossi be'Rebbi Yehudah), or not (Rebbi, in which case all the Ma'asros are
considered like Chulin), and the Tana speaks when the owner had inherited
Tevel from his maternal grandfather, as we explained earlier. Note, that the
grandfather Kohen acquired Ma'aser Rishon, too, based on the penalty of
Ezra, stripping the Levi'im of their rights to claim it.
(d) And both opinions will hold 'Tovas Hana'ah Eino Mamon' (like Ula).
(a) Alternatively, both Tana'im hold ' ...K'mi she'Hurmu Damyan' and 'Tovas
Hana'ah Eino Mamon'. The Tana however, speaks about crops that grew in the
owner's field, and they argue over Shmuel, who says - that 'one kernel
exempts the pile' (i.e. min ha'Torah, one is not obligated to give more than
one grain for Terumah).
(b) Rebbi holds like Shmuel. Consequently - the owner can claim the full
value of his stolen Tevel (minus one grain); whereas, Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi
Yehudah does not. Consequently, the thief is only obligated to pay for the
Chulin, but not for the Terumah.
(c) Rebbi only argues with Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah regarding Terumos -
but not regarding Ma'asros (which the owner would have had to give to the
Levi (or to the Kohen, as we explained earlier) in full.
(d) We could have established their Machlokes like in the previous case
(when the owner inherited the Tevel from his maternal grandfather Kohen; in
which case both Tana'im would hold ' ... K'mi she'Lo Hurmu Damyan' and
'Tovas Hana'ah Mamon, and they argue over Shmuel's Din, We did not so
however, because it would mean that the Tana of our Mishnah (who holds
'Mekudeshes', either because 'Tovas Hana'ah Mamon' or because ' Matanos ...
K'mi she'Hurmu Damyan') will hold like neither opinion.
(a) Finally, we propose that neither Tana holds like Shmuel, or that both
hold like him. Even if Rebbi *does not hold like Shmuel*, he might
nevertheless obligate the thief to pay in full - as a penalty for stealing
(because otherwise the money, which has no claimants, will simply remain
(b) And Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah might exempt him from paying in full,
even if he *does* - because he penalizes the owner for leaving his crops
(a) The Mishnah in Bechoros rules that ...
***** Hadran Alach ha'Ish Mekadesh *****
1. ... if a Dayan takes money to judge - his judgments are invalid.
(b) We resolve our Mishnah which rules 'ha'Mekadesh ... be'Mei Chatas
u've'Eifer Parah, Mekudeshes, va'Afilu Yisrael', with the Mishnah in
Bechoros - by establishing it with re. to taking money for transporting the
ashes or for filling the water (which is permitted).
2. ... if witnesses take money to testify - their testimony is invalid.
3. ... if a Kohen takes money to sprinkle the ashes of the Parah Adumah -
the ashes are considered like ashes from an oven.
4. ... if a Kohen takes money to mix the Mei Parah - the water is like water
from a cave.
(c) And we substantiate this answer from the fact - that our Mishnah says
'be'Mei Chatas u've'Eifer Parah' whereas the Mishnah in Bechoros says
***** Perek ha'Omer *****
(a) If someone asks his friend to betroth a woman on his behalf and he
betroths her himself - his Kidushin is valid.
(b) If a man betroths a woman whom another man had betrothed earlier ...
1. ... for after thirty days - she will be betrothed to the second man.
(c) In a case where a second man did not betroth her, where in the Reisha,
she is permitted to eat Terumah during those thirty days (see Tosfos
Yom-Tov), in the Seifa she is not, assuming she is ...
2. ... from then and after thirty days - she is Safek Mekudeshes to both.
1. ... a bas Yisrael le'Kohen - because the Kidushin may not be valid.
2. ... a bas Kohen le'Yisrael - in case it is.
(a) The Beraisa says that in the case in the Reisha of our Mishnah, where
the man betrothed the woman whom his friend had asked him to betroth on his
behalf - that, even though the Kidushin is valid, he is nevertheless
considered to be a trickster.
(b) We infer this from the Lashon of the Mishnah '*ve'Halach* ve'Kidshah
le'Atzmo ... '.