Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) MUST KIDUSHIN MONEY BE QUANTIFIED?

(a) A man was Mekadesh a woman with silk.
(b) (Rabah): We need not appraise the silk.
(c) (Rav Yosef): The silk must be appraised.

1. [Version #1: If he told her that he engages her with an arbitrary (very small) amount, all agree that no appraisal is needed.
2. If he told her that it is worth 50, and it is not - she did not agree to be Mekudeshes for less!
3. They argue when he told her that it is worth 50, and it is.

i. Rabah says, no appraisal is needed, for it is worth 50;
ii. Rav Yosef says, an appraisal is needed - since women do not know the value, if it is not appraised, she does not firmly decide that she wants to be Mekudeshes.]

4. [Version #2: They also argue if he told her that he engages her with an arbitrary amount.

i. Rav Yosef says, something worth money must be as money (to engage): just as money has a set value, also something worth money.]

(d) Support #1 (Rav Yosef for himself - Beraisa): "(A slave is redeemed) from the money of his purchase" - a slave is acquired through money, not through grain and vessels.

1. Question: What is the case of grain and vessels?

i. Suggestion: They cannot acquire him at all.
ii. Rejection: "He will give back his redemption", comes to include something worth money!
iii. Suggestion: The grain and vessels are not worth a Perutah.
iv. Rejection: If so, why did the Beraisa specify grain and vessels - even money less than a Perutah cannot acquire him!

2. Answer: Rather, they are worth a Perutah, but they were not appraised, so their value is not set.

(e) Rejection: Rabah explains the Beraisa to say that money is a valid acquisition of a slave, but not the acquisition done with grain and vessels, i.e. Chalipin.
(f) Question: According to Rav Nachman, only vessels can make Chalipin - how can Rabah explain the Beraisa?
(g) Answer: Really, the grain and vessels are not worth a Perutah; the Beraisa specified grain and vessels, for one might have thought only money less than a Perutah cannot acquire.

1. Grain and vessels have the advantage that a person can immediately benefit from them (whereas he does not benefit from money until he buys something). One might have thought, a slave acquires himself to a master for them, even if they are not worth a Perutah - we hear, this is not so.

(h) Support #2 (Rav Yosef for himself - Beraisa): A man said 'I give this calf (or this garment) to redeem my son' - this does not work;
(i) 'I give this calf (or this garment) as 5 Sela'im to redeem my son' - this works.
(j) Question: What is the case?

1. Suggestion: If they are not worth 5 Sela'im - how can he say they are as 5 Sela'im to make the redemption work?!

(k) Answer: Rather, they are worth 5 Sela'im, but if he does not say their value, the value is not set, they are not as money and cannot redeem.

1. Rejection: Really, they are not worth 5 Sela'im; the case is, the Kohen accepted them in place of 5 Sela'im.

i. Rav Kahana took a turban in place of the 5 Sela'im for redemption - to him, it was worth 5 Sela'im.

2. (Rav Ashi): This only works regarding a great man as Rav Kahana, who needs a turban, nut not for regular people.

i. Mar bar Rav Ashi paid 13 for a turban that was only worth 10 (because he was a great man, he needed it more than other people).

(a) (R. Elazar): A man said 'Be Mekudeshes to me with 100 Dinarim', and he gave her 1 Dinar - she is Mekudeshes, and he must give the rest.
(b) Question: Why is this?
(c) Answer: It is as if he said 'Be Mekudeshes to me with a Dinar on condition that I give you 99 more'.

1. (Rav Huna): Saying 'on condition that' is as saying (the engagement should take effect) 'from now'.

(d) Question (Beraisa): 'Be Mekudeshes to me with 100 Dinarim', and he was counting out the money as he put it in her hand - he or she may retract until the last Dinar is given.
(e) Answer: The case is, he said 'Be Mekudeshes to me with these 100 Dinarim'.
(f) Question: The end of the Beraisa is when he said 'with these 100 Dinarim', so the beginning of the Beraisa must be when he said '100 Dinarim', without saying 'these'!

1. (End of the Beraisa): 'Be Mekudeshes to me with these 100 Dinarim', and they were found to be only 99, or 1 of them was copper (instead of silver) - she is not Mekudeshes;
2. If 1 of them was a bad Dinar, she is Mekudeshes, and he must exchange it for a proper Dinar.

(g) Answer #1: Also in the beginning of the Beraisa he said 'These 100'; the latter clause explains the first clause.

1. He or she may retract until the last Dinar is given - this is when he said 'Be Mekudeshes to me with these 100 Dinarim'.
2. Support: Presumably, this is correct - if the first clause teaches that when he said 'with 100 Dinarim' they can retract, we would not have to teach when he said 'with these 100 Dinarim'!
3. Rejection: That is no proof - perhaps the latter clause was taught to show that the first clause is when he did not say 'these'!

(h) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): The case when he counts out the money is different, for then she intends to be Mekudeshes with the full sum.
(i) Question: What is the case when 1 Dinar was found to be copper?

1. Suggestion: If she knew that 1 was copper - she accepted it!

(j) Answer #1: The case is, he gave her at night, she did not know.
(k) Answer #2: It was concealed by the other coins, so she did not notice at the time.
(l) Question: What is the case when 1 Dinar was found to be bad?

1. Suggestion: If people do not accept it as a Dinar - the law should be as that of a copper Dinar!

(m) Answer (Rav Papa): People do not accept it willingly.

(a) (Rava citing Rav Nachman): 'Be Mekudeshes to me for a Maneh', and he gave her collateral - she is not Mekudeshes;

1. Since the Maneh is not here, the collateral takes no effect.

(b) Question (Rava - Beraisa): If a man was Mekadesh a woman with collateral, she is Mekudeshes.
(c) Answer: That refers to collateral for the loan of a third party, as R. Yitzchak taught.

1. (R. Yitzchak): "To you it will be Tzedakah (that you return the pledge in its proper time)" - this shows that the lender acquires a pledge.

i. If he did not acquire it, it would not be called Tzedakah to return it!

(d) Rav Huna's children agreed to buy a slave for small coins. They did not have the coins with them - they left a piece of precious metal as collateral. The value of the slave increased (and the seller wanted to retract).

1. R. Ami: The coins were never given, so the collateral has no effect.

(a) (Beraisa): A man told a woman 'Be Mekudeshes to me with a Maneh'; she took it and threw it into the sea, a fire, or another place it will be lost - she is not Mekudeshes.

1. Inference: Had she thrown it back at him, she would be Mekudeshes!
2. Question: But she shows that she does not want it!
3. Answer: The inference is wrong; rather, the Beraisa teaches a bigger Chidush.

i. Not only if she throws it back at him, she is not Mekudeshes; rather, even if she throws it to a place where it will be lost and she will have to pay, she is not Mekudeshes.
ii. One might have thought, she accepts the engagement, and is testing to see if her husband gets angry easily - we hear, this is not so.

(b) (Beraisa): 'Be Mekudeshes to me with a Maneh'; she replied, 'Give it to my father or your father' - she is not Mekudeshes;

1. If she said 'on condition that they receive it for me', she is Mekudeshes.
2. The Beraisa teaches 'my father' as a Chidush in the first case, that she is not Mekudeshes; 'your father' is a Chidush in the second case, that she is Mekudeshes.

(c) (Continuation of Beraisa): If she said 'Give it to Ploni' - she is not Mekudeshes; 'on condition that he receive it for me', she is Mekudeshes.
(d) All the cases must be taught.

1. If we only heard by 'my father and your father' - we would think, only then she is Mekudeshes when she said 'on condition that he receive it for me', for she relies on them.
2. If we only heard by Ploni - we would think, only then she is not Mekudeshes when she said 'give it to Ploni', for she does not feel so close to him;

i. But had she said, 'give it to my father or your father', she accepts engagement and wants to give it to one of them as a gift - we hear, this is not so.

(e) (Beraisa): 'Be Mekudeshes to me with a Maneh'; she replied, 'Put it on the rock' - she is not Mekudeshes; if it was her rock, she is Mekudeshes.
(f) Question (Rav Bibi): What if they were partners in the rock?

1. This question is unresolved.

(g) (Beraisa): 'Be Mekudeshes to me with a loaf; she replied, 'Give it to the dog' - she is not Mekudeshes; if it was her dog, she is Mekudeshes.
(h) Question (Rav Mari): If the dog was chasing her - what is the law?

1. With the benefit that she is being saved, she acquires herself (to him);
2. Or - does she say, the Torah obligated you to save me!

i. This question is unresolved.

(i) (Beraisa): 'Be Mekudeshes to me with a loaf'; she replied, 'Give it to this poor man' - she is not Mekudeshes, even if the poor man relied on her for his food.

1. This is because she tells him that he also must feed the poor.

(j) A man was selling buttons (or glass rings) beaded on strings. A woman asked for a string of them.

1. The man: If I give you, will you be Mekudeshes to me?
2. The woman: Give, give.

i. (Rav Chama): This does not denote consent to be Mekudeshes.

(k) Similarly: a man was drinking beer in a store; a woman asked for a cup of beer. He asked if she would be Mekudeshes to him for it; she requested the beer (twice). Rav Chama ruled, she is not Mekudeshes.

1. Rav Zvid ruled thusly in a similar case of a woman that requested dates that a man was knocking down from a tree.

(l) Question: What is the law if she only said once 'Give'?
(m) Answer #1 (Ravina): She is Mekudeshes.
(n) Answer #2 (Rav Sama bar Riksa): She is not Mekudeshes.

1. The law is, she is not Mekudeshes.

(o) The law is, silk need not be appraised.
(p) The law is as R. Elazar (8A, if one gives part of the promised engagement money, she is Mekudeshes on condition that he give the rest).
(q) The law is as Rava (8A, if one gives collateral in place of engagement money, she is not Mekudeshes).