(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 61

KIDUSHIN 61-65 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.


(a) Based on the Mishnah in Erchin, how much would someone who dedicated an inherited field to Hekdesh have to pay Hekdesh to redeem it ...
  1. ... during the era of the Yovel?
  2. ... in an era when Yovel did not apply?
(b) How deep would a ditch, or how high would a mound of earth need to be for it not to be measured together with the rest of the field in this regard?

(c) It appears from the Mishnah that such ditches or mounds are not even counted independently either.
Why can this not be because less than a Beis Kur of barley is not sufficiently significant to be considered a field in this regard? What does the Tana of another Beraisa learn from the extra word "Sadeh" in Bechukosai (in the Pasuk "ve'Im mi'S'deh Achuzaso")?

(d) The Tana reckons various measurements that would be considered a field in this regard.
How much is ...

  1. ... a Lesech?
  2. ... a Tarkav?
(a) Why are rocks precluded from this Halachah altogether? What Din *do* they have?

(b) How do we account for the fact that the Tana precludes ditches of ten Tefachim altogether?

(c) How do we know that the Tana is indeed referring to ditches that are full of water?

(d) In that case, why are ditches and mounds of earth of less than ten Tefachim included in the measurement of a Beis Zera Chomer Se'orim?

(a) In contrast to the Din of Hekdesh, how does Mar Ukva bar Chama interpret the Mishnah in Bava Basra which precludes ditches ten Tefachim deep or mounds ten Tefachim tall from a Beis Kur of earth that one person sells to another?

(b) What reason does Rav Papa give to explain this?

(c) On what grounds do we prefer to compare the Din in our Mishnah ('al-M'nas she'Yesh Li Beis Kur Afar'), to Hekdesh (to *include* ditches that are not full of water in the Beis Kur) than to a sale (in which case they would be *precluded*)?

(a) What does Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah learn from the Pasuk in Matos " ... Im Ya'avru B'nei Gad ... ve'Im Lo Ya'avru"?

(b) What would then be the Halachah if a man were to divorce his wife 'al-M'nas she'Titni Li Masayim Zuz' without doubling the condition?

(c) Which two other principles does Rebbi Meir learn from Moshe's words?

(d) Does Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel, who disagrees with Rebbi Meir the previous issue (as we shall soon see) argue with Rebbi Meir on these issues too?

(a) What does Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel hold? On what grounds does he refute Rebbi Meir proof that we do not say 'mi'Ch'lal La'av Atah Shome'a Hein'?

(b) At first sight, Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel seems to be right.
How does Rebbi Meir counter his Proof? What could the Pasuk have written if it only wanted to ensure that they should at least receive a portion in Eretz Yisrael?

(c) What does Rebbi Chanina say to that? How would he have interpreted the Pasuk "ve'Nochzu be'Sochechem"?

(d) And how does Rebbi Meir counter this? How does he interpret "be'Sochechem"?

Answers to questions



(a) In the parable that Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel gives to illustrate his interpretation of a T'nai Kaful, the father who is distributing his property to his sons designates one field for one son, another, for a second son, and a third, for his third son, provided he pays two hundred Zuz.
What does he repeat with re. to the third?

(b) How does this tie up with Moshe's T'nai with the B'nei Gad and the B'nei Reuven?

(c) What would ...

  1. ... the third son have received had the father not repeated the T'nai?
  2. ... the B'nei Gad u'B'nei Reuven have received had Moshe not repeated the T'nai?
(a) Based on the Lashon of Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel ('she'Ilmalei Kein Yesh be'Mashma she'Afilu be'Eretz Cana'an Lo Yinchalu'), how do we query the Mashal?

(b) We resolve this Kashya with 'Ha, Mekamei de'Neima Lei Rebbi Meir 've'Nochzu'; Ha, le'Basar ... '.
What do we mean by that?

(a) According to Rebbi Meir, the Torah always needs to repeat its conditions. According to Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel, having written ..
  1. ... in Bereishis "Im Teitiv Se'eis" (Hashem to Kayin), why did Hashem need to add "ve'Lo Seitiv, la'Pesach Chatas Rovetz"?
  2. ... in Chayei Sarah "Im Lo el Beis Avi Seilech" (Avraham to Eliezer), why did Avraham need to add "Az Tinakeh me'Alasi"?
  3. ... there "Az Tinakeh me'Alasi", why did he need to add "Im Lo Soveh ha'Ishah"?
  4. ... "Im be'Chukosai Teilechu", why did the Torah need to add "ve'Im be'Chukosai Tim'asu"?
(b) We give the same answer in reply to the Kashya why the Navi in Yeshayah, having written "Im Tovu u'Shema'tem", found it necessary to add "ve'Im Tema'anu u'Merisem".
What is the Navi referring when he concludes there "Cherev Te'uklu"?
Answers to questions

Next daf


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