Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) ENGAGEMENT THROUGH A DOCUMENT

(a) (Beraisa) Question: How do we know that even a document can make engagement?
(b) Answer #1: We learn from a Kal va'Chomer: money can make engagement, even though it cannot divorce; a document, which can divorce, all the more so it can make engagement!
(c) Question: Money is a more versatile acquisition than a document - money can redeem Hekdesh and Ma'aser Sheni, a document cannot - "He will give the money, it will be (Chulin) to him;

1. Perhaps money is also stronger regarding engagement!

(d) Answer #2: "She will leave...she will be (engaged)" - this equates divorce and engagement.

1. Just as a document makes divorce, it can also engage.

(e) Question: We should likewise say that just as money engages, it also divorces!
(f) Answer #1 (Abaye): The Torah would not make such a law - people would say, just as money engages, it divorces - the advocate has become the prosecutor!

1. Question: But a document can engage and divorce, we are not concerned for this!
2. Answer: A document of engagement is not the same as a Get of divorce.
3. Question: Also money given for engagement is not the same as money given to divorce.
4. Answer: The coins themselves are the same.

(g) Answer #2 (Rava): "He will write for her (a Get)" - a woman is divorced through writing, not through money.
(h) Question: Perhaps the verse teaches differently - she is divorced through writing, but not engaged through writing!
(i) Answer: "She will leave...she will be (engaged)" - this equates divorce and engagement (a document also makes engagement).
(j) Question: Why learn that a document works for both, and "He will write for her" teaches that she is not divorced through money - why not say that money works for both, and "He will write for her" teaches that a document cannot engage!
(k) Answer: The Torah wrote "He will write for her" in the context of divorce - presumably, it excludes alternate methods of divorce, not methods of engagement.
(l) Question: R. Yosi ha'Galili learns a different law from "He will write for her" (that a Get may not be written on food or living beings) - how will he learn that a woman is not divorced through money?
(m) Answer: "A Sefer of cuttings" - only a Sefer cuts her off.
(n) Question: What do Chachamim learn from that verse?
(o) Answer: That the Get must sever them (without a condition tying them).

1. (Beraisa): 'This is your Get on condition that you will never drink wine', or 'on condition that you will never go to your father's house' - she is not divorced;
2. If the condition is for a limited duration, she is divorced.
3. R. Yosi ha'Galili learns this from the fact that the Torah wrote the plural form "Cuttings".
4. Chachamim say that the plural form does not warrant expounding an extra law.

(a) We have shown that none of the 3 methods of engagement could have been learned from 1 of the other 2.
(b) Question: Can a method be learned from the other 2?

1. Suggestion #1: Let us derive a document from money and relations.
2. Rejection: She receives great benefit from money and relations - we cannot learn to a document.
3. Suggestion #2: Let us derive relations from money and a document.
4. Rejection: Money and documents acquire many things - we cannot learn to relations.
5. Suggestion #3: Let us derive money from a document and relations.
6. Rejection: A document and relations (sometimes) work against her will - we cannot learn to money.

i. Suggestion: But money acquires a Yisraelis slave against her will (Rashi; Tosfos - the money engages her against her father's will).
ii. Rejection: We do not find money given for marriage that works against the will of the recipient.

(a) (Rav Huna): Chupah makes engagement from a Kal va'Chomer.

1. Money makes engagement, even though it never permits (the woman) to eat Terumah; Chupah (with a Kohen), which permits a woman to eat Terumah, all the more so it makes engagement.

(b) Question: Is it really true that money does not permit a woman to eat Terumah?

1. (Ula): mid'Oraisa, a Bas Yisrael engaged to a Kohen may eat Terumah - "A Kohen that acquires a soul with money" - he acquires a wife through money!

i. Chachamim decreed that she does not eat, for in her father's house her siblings might come to partake of the Terumah.

2. Correction: Rather, Rav Huna learns: money makes engagement, even though it does not complete the marriage; Chupah, which competes marriage, all the more so it makes engagement.

(c) Objection: Money is a more versatile acquisition than Chupah - money can redeem Hekdesh and Ma'aser Sheni, perhaps money is also stronger regarding engagement!
(d) Answer: We learn from relations - relations make engagement, even though relations do not make other acquisitions.
(e) Question: We cannot learn from relations - relations acquire a Yevamah (whereas Chupah cannot).
(f) Answer: We see from money that ability to acquire a Yevamah is not essential to make engagement.

1. Money and relations have different strengths. The common side is, they acquire in other places and make engagement;
2. Also Chupah acquires in other places (after engagement) - we derive, also Chupah makes engagement!

(g) Objection: We cannot learn from money and relations, for they give greater benefit to the woman than Chupah!
(h) Answer: We see from a document that giving benefit is not essential to make engagement.
(i) Objection: We cannot learn from a document, for a document can divorce!
(j) Answer: We see from money and relations that ability to divorce is not essential to make engagement.

1. Money, relations, and a document have different strengths. The common side is, they acquire in other places and make engagement;
2. Also Chupah acquires in other places - it also should make engagement!

(k) Objection: We cannot learn from money, relations and a document, for all of them sometimes work against the will of the recipient!
(l) Answer (Rav Huna): We never find that money makes engagement against the will of the recipient.
(m) (Rava): There are 2 difficulties with Rav Huna's law.

1. Question #1: The Mishnah says that there are (only) 3 ways to engage.
2. Question #2: We only know that Chupah acquires after engagement - how can we learn that Chupah should work without prior engagement?
3. Answer (to Question #1 - Abaye): The Tana listed the 3 forms of engagement explicit in the Torah; there may be others not explicit in the Torah.
4. Answer (to Question #2 - Abaye): The Kal va'Chomer teaches that Chupah works without prior engagement!

i. Money cannot complete marriage, yet it makes engagement - Chupah, which completes marriage, all the more so it makes engagement!

(a) (Beraisa): A man gave to a woman money or something worth money and said 'You are Mekudeshes (sanctified) to me', or 'You are Me'oreses (engaged) to me', or 'You are to me as a wife' - she is engaged;
(b) If she gave (money to him) and said 'I am Mekudeshes to you', 'I am Me'oreses to you', or 'I am to you as a wife' - she is not engaged.
(c) Objection (Rav Papa): In the first clause, she is engaged because he gave the money and did the talking - we infer, had she done the talking, she would not be engaged;

1. In the second clause, she is not engaged because she gave the money and did the talking - we infer, had he given the money, she would be engaged!

(d) Answer #1: The first clause is precise; the second clause is not, it was only taught to parallel the first case.
(e) Objection: Would the Tana teach something that contradicts the first case?!
(f) Answer #2: Rather, the Beraisa says as follows: If he gives the money and did the talking, clearly she is engaged;

1. If he gave the money and she did the talking, it is as if she have the money and did the talking, and she is not engaged.

(g) Answer #3: The Beraisa says as follows: If he gives the money and did the talking, she is engaged;

1. If she gave the money and did the talking, she is not engaged.
2. If he gave the money and she did the talking, the law is unclear; mid'Rabanan, we are stringent and consider her doubtfully engaged.

(h) (Shmuel): If a man gave a woman money or something worth money and said 'Behold, you are Mekudeshes', or 'Behold, you are engaged', or 'Behold, you are as a wife' - she is engaged;

1. If he said 'I am your husband', or 'I am your betrothed', she is not even doubtfully engaged.

(i) Similarly regarding divorce: if a man gave his wife a Get and said 'Behold, you are sent', or 'Behold, you are divorced', or 'Behold, you are permitted to any man' - she is divorced;

1. If he said 'I am not your husband', or 'I am not your betrothed', she is not even doubtfully divorced.

(j) Question (Rav Papa): Shmuel seems to hold that Yados (incomplete expressions) that are ambiguous are valid Yados (he did not specify to whom he engages her, nevertheless she is engaged to him) - if so, he contradicts himself!

1. (Mishnah): A man said 'I will be' - this is acceptance of Nezirus.
2. Question: Why is this - perhaps he meant, 'I will (be in a) fast'!
3. Answer (Shmuel): The case is, a Nazir passed in front of him when he said this.

i. Inference: If a Nazir was not around, it would not be acceptance of Nezirus (because ambiguous Yados are invalid)!

(k) Answer (Abaye): Shmuel (here) spoke in the case when he said '(you are engaged or divorced) to (or from) me.'
(l) Question: If so, obviously she is engaged or divorced - what does Shmuel teach?
(m) Answer: That the latter languages (of engagement and divorce) are invalid.

1. By engagement, it says "When a man will take a woman" - not that he will take himself (to be married to her);
2. By divorce, it says "He will send her" - not that he will send himself from her.