Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

8) WHEN DOES A MAN FORGO HIS CONDITION?

(a) (Abaye): Rav's reason is not because we say that he pardoned the condition since he did not mention it at the time of Nisu'in.

1. Rather, a person does not have relations out of wedlock (so he intended that the relations make engagement).

(b) Question: Rav and Shmuel already argued on this point elsewhere!

1. An orphaned minor that did not do Mi'un, became an adult, and married another man - Rav says, she does not need a Get from the 2nd man;
2. Shmuel: She needs a Get from the 2nd man.

(c) Answer: It was needed to hear their dispute in both cases.

1. If we only heard their dispute by the minor - one would think, there Rav said that she needs no Get, since her 1st husband did not make a condition (therefore, he wants his relations to make engagement); in our case, he is insistent on his condition, and Rav would admit to Shmuel!
2. If we only heard their dispute here - one would think, here Shmuel said that she needs no Get, since he made a condition (therefore, he does not want his relations to make engagement); by the minor, there is no condition, and Shmuel would admit to Rav!

(d) (Mishnah): If he had Chupah without mentioning any condition, and she is found to have vows - she leaves without a Kesuvah.

1. We infer, without a Kesuvah, but she needs a Get.
2. Suggestion: The case is, he engaged her on condition, and did not mention it at the Nisu'in - contradicting Shmuel!

3. Answer: No, he did not specify at the engagement nor at the Nisu'in.
4. Question: But if he engaged her on condition, and did not mention it at the Nisu'in she would not need a Get?

i. If so, instead of teaching, 'A man engages a woman on condition that she has no vows, and it is found that she has vows - she is not engaged' - teach a bigger Chidush, if he did Nisu'in without specifying, and she is found to have vows - she is not engaged, all the more so if he only engaged her!

(e) Answer: The Mishnah teaches this, this is how to read it: A man engages a woman on condition that she has no vows, and did Nisu'in without mentioning anything, it is found that she has vows - she is not engaged;
(f) If he engaged her and did Nisu'in without specifying, and she is found to have vows - she leaves without a Kesuvah.

1. A Kesuvah she does not get, but she needs a Get.

(g) Question: Why do we distinguish - she does not need a Get, because he may say, I do not want a vowing wife - if so, she should not need a Get either!
(h) Answer #1(Rabah): She only needs a Get mi'Derabanan.
(i) Answer #2 (Rava): The Tana is unsure if she is engaged. Regarding money, we are lenient (he does not pay a Kesuvah); regarding prohibitions, we are stringent, and she needs a Get.

(a) Question (Abaye): But the Mishnah is a case of 1 woman, and we asked a question against Shmuel from the Mishnah!
(b) (Rabah): Rav and Shmuel argue by a mistake involving 2 women; but by a mistake by 1 woman, all agree that no Get is needed.
(c) Correction (Rabah): Rav and Shmuel argue by a mistake involving 1 woman like the case of 2 women; but by a simple mistake by 1 woman, all agree that no Get is needed.
(d) Question (Abaye - Beraisa): A man engaged a woman in error, or with less than a Prutah, or when he was a minor; even if he later sent pre-nuptial gifts, she is not engaged, since he relied on the initial engagement (and did not intend that these gifts should make engagement);
(e) If he had relations with her, he acquired her; R. Shimon Bar Yehudah says, he did not acquire her.

1. This is like the case of 1 woman, and Tana'im argue!
2. Suggestion: The error of engagement was that he thought she had no vows.

(f) Answer: No, the error was, he engaged her with less than a Prutah.
(g) Objection: But that case is explicitly given in the Beraisa!
(h) Answer: The Beraisa speaks out the case of an error: A man engaged a woman in error - for example, with less than a Prutah.
(i) Question: On what do the Tana'im argue?
(j) Answer: The 1st Tana holds, a man knows that engagement does not take effect on less than a Prutah; when he had relations, he intended that they should make engagement; R. Shimon Ben Yehudah holds, a man does not know that engagement does not take effect on less than a Prutah; when he had relations, he assumed he already was engaged, and did not intend to acquire her.
(k) Question (Beraisa): 'I will have relations with you to engage you, on condition that father will want this' - even if the father does not want, she is engaged; R. Shimon Ben Yehudah says, engagement takes effect only if the father wants.

1. This is as an error by 1 woman, and Tana'im argue!

(l) Answer: The argument is on what is meant by 'if father will want'.

1. The 1st Tana holds, it means that he will be quiet (not object); R. Shimon Ben Yehudah says, it means that he will say that he approves.

(a) Question (Beraisa): A girl (a minor) was married off by her father and divorced. She is as an orphan in the life of her father. She remarried her ex-husband. (If he dies without children), Chachamim admit to R. Eliezer that she does Chalitzah but not Yibum, since she was fully divorced, but not fully remarried;
(b) This only applies when she was divorced and remarried as a minor; but if she was divorced as a minor and remarried as an adult, or divorced as a minor and remarried as a minor and she became an adult before he dies, she may do Chalitzah or Yibum; R. Eliezer says, she may only do Chalitzah.