Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) [line 2] ATU TANA KI RUCHLA LEICHSIV V'LEIZIL?! - Should the Tana count out [all of the words "v'Peloni" that refer to judges,] like a spice merchant?!

2) [line 6] MIDI IRYA?! HA KED'ISA V'HA KED'ISA - How can they be compared? This [case] is unique unto itself and the other is unique unto itself. [The judges refer to three judges while the witnesses refer to two witnesses.]

3) [line 23] IM KEN, MAH KO'ACH BEIS DIN YAFEH? - If not, how will the authority of Beis Din be effective (if we do not fulfill their decision strictly)?

4) [line 25] KOL D'MEKADESH A'DA'ATA D'RABANAN MEKADESH
(a) Under certain specific circumstances, the Rabanan "uprooted" Kidushin which were valid mid'Oraisa in order to protect a man or woman from the effects of a Get or Kidushin that might cause them permanent emotional torment. The reason the Rabanan are able to uproot Kidushin in this manner is because of the principle of "Kol d'Mekadesh...." This principle teaches that every man who is Mekadesh a woman (by means of Kesef, Shtar or Bi'ah, see Kidushin 2a) bears in mind that if (either at present or in the future) the Rabanan do not approve of his Kidushin, it should retroactively (see Insights to Kesuvos 3:1) not be valid. (Even if a person claims, or announces, that he is an exception to the rule, and he does not have in mind such a condition, it makes no difference -- RITVA to Kesuvos 3a.) It if for this reason that we announce upon effecting a Kidushin, that the Kidushin is being done "k'Das Moshe v'Yisrael" (i.e. in accordance with Torah law and with Rabbinical enactments), as Rashi and the Rishonim ibid. explain.
(b) The Rabanan only retroactively uprooted Kidushin with the principle of "Kol d'Mekadesh" when a man gave a Get (divorce document) to his wife, but for some reason it was not valid mid'Oraisa. When no Get at all was given, though, the Rabanan did not retroactively uproot the Kidushin (RASHBA and Rishonim ibid.). According to some (RASHI Shabbos 155b), the Rabanan also uprooted Kidushin (when necessary) in cases where evidence was presented that the husband died but the evidence was not acceptable mid'Oraisa.
(c) Sometimes the Rabanan saw reason to annul the Kidushin from its onset (that is, for the future, as opposed to retroactively) because the husband effected the Kidushin in an unjust manner. In such cases, they annulled the Kidushin even though no Get at all was presented. According to some, it is not even necessary to evoke the principle of "Kol d'Mekadesh" to revoke the Kidushin in such cases. Since the husband acted unjustly, the Rabanan were able to revoke his Kidushin by "overriding" the Torah law. (See Yevamos 90b, and TOSFOS Bava Basra 48b DH Teinach.)

5) [line 26] V'AFKE'INHU RABANAN L'KIDUSHIN - and the Chachamim uprooted the Kidushin retroactively

6) [line 7] TZERICHAH BEI ASARAH L'MISHLEFAH - ten men are required to undo it

7a) [line 18] EDEI KESIVAH - two men who were chosen to write and sign the Get
b) [line 19] EDEI HOLACHAH - two men who were chosen to bring the Get to the man's wife

8) [line 31] REBBI PARTA BENO SHEL REBBI ELAZAR BEN PARTA BEN BENO SHEL REBBI PARTA HA'GADOL - Rebbi Parta, the son of Rebbi Elazar, who was the son of the Great Rebbi Parta, i.e. the Rebbi Parta of our Gemara was the grandson of the Great Rebbi Parta (TOSFOS to Kesuvos 100a DH Parta)

9) [line 36] USHA - a city in the western part of the lower Galilee; it was one of the ten places to which the Sanhedrin was exiled

10) [line 37] CHAMISHAH SAVEI HAVEINAN - we were five elders
11) [line 39] V'ASHKELEI GITA AL KORCHEI - and he forced the husband to write a Get for his wife

12) [line 40] ITMORU - hide, conceal yourselves
13) [line 44] LIVDERU IVDUREI - [they only needed] to scatter themselves

Next daf