(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


POINT BY POINT SUMMARY

Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld


Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Kidushin 46

KIDUSHIN 46-47 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.

1) WHO MAY PROTEST THE KIDUSHIN

(a) A minor became Mekudeshes without her father's knowledge.
(b) (Rav): She can cancel the Kidushin (herself), so can her father.
(c) (Rav Asi): Her father can cancel the Kidushin (himself), she cannot.
(d) Question (Rav Huna - Beraisa): "Refuse, if her father will refuse (that his daughter marry the man that seduced her into having relations)" - the extra word "refuse" teaches that she can also refuse.
(e) [Version #1 (Rashi)] Answer (Rav, on behalf of Rav Asi): Perhaps the case is, the seducer did not intend to be Mekadesh her through relations.
1. Question: If so, why must a verse teach that they can refuse that she should be Mekudeshes?
2. Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): It teaches that an seducer pays the fine even when she cancels the Kidushin.
3. Support (Rav Yosef - Beraisa): "He will (give her a Kesuvah) to make her his wife" - he must Mekadesh her.
i. If he seduced her to be Mekadesh her, why must he Mekadesh her again?
4. Rejection (Abaye): He must Mekadesh her with the father's consent.]
(f) [Version #2 (Tosfos) Answer #1 (Rav, on behalf of Rav Asi): Perhaps the case is, the seducer did not intend to be Mekadesh her through relations.
1. Question: If so, why must a verse teach that they can refuse that she should be Mekudeshes?
(g) Answer #2 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Really, he intended to be Mekadesh her through relations;
1. The verse teaches that an seducer pays the fine even when she protests the Kidushin (but only the father can nullify the Kidushin).
(h) Question (Rav Yosef - Beraisa): "He will (give her a Kesuvah) to make her his wife" - he must Mekadesh her.
1. If he seduced her to be Mekadesh her, why must he Mekadesh her again?
(i) Answer (Abaye): He must Mekadesh her with the father's consent.]
2) MULTIPLE ACTS OF KIDUSHIN
(a) (Mishnah): A man told a woman: be Mekudeshes to me with this date, be Mekudeshes to me with this (another) date...' - if 1 of them is worth a Perutah, she is Mekudeshes; if not, not.
(b) 'Be Mekudeshes to me with this and this and this' - if altogether they are worth a Perutah, she is Mekudeshes; if not, not.
1. If she was eating them as he gave them to her, she is only Mekudeshes if 1 is worth a Perutah.
(c) (Gemara) Question: In the Mishnah, each time he says 'be Mekudeshes' - as whom is this?
(d) Answer (Rabah): As R. Shimon, who says that one who swears to many people is only liable for 1 oath, unless his says 'oath' to each person.
(e) (Mishnah): If she was eating them as he gave them to her, she is only Mekudeshes if 1 is worth a Perutah.
(f) Question: To which case does this refer?
1. Suggestion: To the first case ('Be Mekudeshes to me with this, be Mekudeshes to me with this...').
2. Rejection: If so, why say that she was eating them - even if she was storing them up, she is Mekudeshes only if 1 of them is worth a Perutah, for each date was a separate Kidushin!
(g) Answer #1: It refers to the second case ('with this and this and this').
(h) Question: Is she really Mekudeshes even if the first date is worth a Perutah?
1. The first date is as a loan!
2. R. Yochanan: We cannot explain the Mishnah.
(i) Answer #2 (Rav and Shmuel): Really, it refers to the first case. ('Be Mekudeshes to me with this, be Mekudeshes to me with this...') - the Mishnah teaches a bigger Chidush:
1. Not only if she was storing them up, she is only Mekudeshes if 1 of them is worth a Perutah -
2. Even if she was eating them, and gets immediately benefit, one might have thought that she makes herself Mekudeshes to him even if no 1 is worth a Perutah - we hear, this is not so.
(j) (Rav Ami): We can defend Answer #1!
1. When the Mishnah says that she is Mekudeshes if 1 is worth a Perutah - it means, if the last 1 is worth a Perutah.
(k) (Rava): We derive 3 laws from R. Ami.
1. One who is Mekadesh with a loan, the Kidushin is invalid;
2. One who is Mekadesh with a loan and also gives a Perutah - the woman intends to become Mekudeshes through the Perutah (so the Kidushin is valid);
46b---------------------------------------46b

3. In general, if Kidushin does not take effect, she must return the Kidushin money.
3) INVALID KIDUSHIN
(a) A man was Mekadesh his sister.
(b) (Rav): She must return the money.
(c) (Shmuel): The money is a gift.
1. Rav says she must return it - a man knows that he cannot Mekadesh his sister, he must have given it as a deposit.
2. Question: If so, he should have said that he is giving her a deposit!
3. Answer: He was afraid that she would refuse to guard it.
4. Shmuel says the money is a gift - a man knows that he cannot Mekadesh his sister, he must have given it as a gift.
5. Question: If so, he should have said that he is giving her a gift!
6. Answer: He was afraid that this would embarrass her.
(d) Question (Ravina - Mishnah): One who separates Chalah from flour (before kneading the dough) - it is not considered Chalah, if the Kohen keeps it, it is considered theft.
1. According to Shmuel, we should say that a man knows that he cannot separate Chalah from flour, he must have given it as a gift!
(e) Answer: Indeed, letter of the law, the Kohen should keep it; it was enacted that he return it to avoid a terrible mistake.
1. If the Kohen thinks that the flour he received is exempt from Chalah, he might add it to a dough made with less than 5 Reva'im of flour (the size that requires one to separate Chalah),
2. He will not realize that he must separate Chalah (if the combined dough is 5 Reva'im), and will eat it as Tevel!
(f) Question: But we said that a man knows that he cannot separate Chalah from flour (so the Kohen will not err)!
(g) Answer: Many people know the law, but not the reason.
1. He knows that a person should not separate Chalah from flour - but he assumes, this is for the Kohen's benefit (so the Kohen will receive dough ready to bake); it follows, if the Kohen agrees, it is Chalah!
(h) Question: We should say that the flour is treated as Chalah, but it may not be eaten until separating Chalah on it!
1. (Mishnah): A man took produce from a porous flowerpot (whose produce must be tithed) to be Terumah on produce from a non-porous flowerpot (whose produce is exempt from tithes) - we treat what he separated as Terumah, but it may not be eaten until separating Terumah on it!
(i) Answer #1: There, the produce came from different vessels, so the Kohen will agree that the Terumah is invalid, and he will separate Terumah on it;
1. By the flour, the Kohen will not agree that it is not Chalah, and he will not separate Chalah on it!
(j) Answer #2: Really, the Kohen will agree even by flour;
1. We are concerned that the Yisrael who gave the flour will think that it was valid Chalah - he will not agree to separate Chalah again after kneading, he will eat his bread as Tevel!
(k) Question: But we said that a man knows that he cannot separate Chalah from flour!
(l) Answer: Many people know the law, but not the reason.
1. He knows that a person should not separate Chalah from flour - but he assumes, this is for the Kohen's benefit; it follows, if the Kohen accepts it, it is Chalah!
(m) Question: We should say that the flour is treated as Chalah, but the Yisrael must again take Chalah after kneading!
1. (Mishnah): A man took produce from a non-porous flowerpot to be Terumah on produce from a porous flowerpot - we treat what he separated as Terumah, but he must separate more Terumah on it (from a porous flowerpot)!
(n) Answer: As we said above - there, since the produce came from different vessels, the man will agree that the Terumah is invalid, and he will separate proper Terumah;
1. By flour, he will not agree!
2. Question: This is not true!
i. (Mishnah): One who takes a gourd to be Terumah and finds that it is bitter, or he separates a melon and finds that it is spoiled - what he took is Terumah, he must take Terumah again.
3. Answer: That case is different, for mid'Oraisa, what he separated is Terumah.
i. (R. Ilai): "You will not bear sin if you take the best part to be Terumah" - this implies, you will bear sin if you take the worst part;
ii. It follows, if one selects the bad produce to be Terumah, it becomes Terumah.
Next daf

Index


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,
daf@shemayisrael.co.il