Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) TWO THINGS THAT HAPPEN AT ONCE

(a) (Mishnah): A man was Mekadesh a woman and her daughter, or 2 sisters, at the same moment - they are not Mekudashos.
(b) There was a case of 5 women, 2 of whom were sisters. A man collected a basket of dates from their field in Shemitah, and said 'You are all Mekudashos to me with these figs'; 1 of the women took them on behalf of all of them. Chachamim ruled, the sisters are not Mekudashos.
(c) (Gemara) Question: From where do we know this?
(d) Answer #1 (Rami bar Chama): "Do not marry a woman in addition to her sister to be a rival" - the Torah teaches, if the Kidushin would make them rivals to each other, neither is Mekudeshes.
(e) Question (Rava): If so, how do you understand "The souls that do so will be cut off" - if neither is Mekudeshes, no one is Chayav Kares!
(f) Answer #2 (Rava): Rather, the verse speaks when 1 received Kidushin after her sister; the reason for the Mishnah is as Rabah.

1. (Rabah): Any 2 things, 1 of which cannot take effect after the other, if done simultaneously, neither takes effect.
2. Question (Abaye - Beraisa): One who separates too much Ma'aser - his produce is permitted, but the Ma'aser is messed up (some is really Chulin - if Terumas Ma'aser is taken from the Ma'aser, perhaps some is invalid!)

i. According to Rabah, we should say that since one cannot take Ma'aser twice, taking extra Ma'aser at once does nothing!

3. Answer (Rabah): Ma'aser is different, for it can be taken halfway - he can make half of a fruit Ma'aser (so when he takes too much, we consider that the appropriate percentage of every fruit separated becomes Ma'aser).
4. Question: But Ma'aser of animals cannot be taken halfway, and it cannot be taken twice, but when 2 are taken at once, it takes effect!

i. (Rava): If 2 animals came out together as the tenth (and eleventh) - one is Ma'aser, the other is the eleventh (i.e. Chulin).

5. Answer: Ma'aser of animals is different, since it can be taken twice through a mistake.

i. (Mishnah): If a man mistakenly called the ninth 'Tenth', he called the tenth 'Ninth', and called the eleventh 'Tenth' - all 3 are Kadosh.

6. Question: (Breads of) the Todah (thanksgiving offering) cannot be sanctified mistakenly, nor can extra breads be sanctified - but if one tries this, 40 breads become sanctified!

i. (Chizkiyah): A Todah was slaughtered, intending to sanctify 80 breads - 40 of them become sanctified;
ii. (R. Yochanan): They are not sanctified.
iii. (R. Zeira): All agree, if he said '40 of the 80 breads should become Kedoshim' - all agree, 40 become Kedoshim;
iv. If he said '(Even) 40 should not become Kedoshim unless all 80 become Kedoshim' - all agree, none become Kedoshim;
v. They argue when he did not specify: Chizkiyah holds, the extra breads are in case there is a problem with the 40 (he only wants 40 to become Kedoshim; R. Yochanan holds, he wants all 80 to become Kedoshim.

(g) Question: Why did Rava say that the Mishnah is due to Rabah's law - Rava himself holds, Kidushin in which it is forbidden to have relations with her (Tosfos - the Kidushin itself forbids her) is not Kidushin!
(h) Answer: He explained how Rami bar Chama should learn (who holds that Kidushin not fit for relations is Kidushin).

(a) (Abaye): Kidushin in which it is forbidden to have relations with her (Tosfos - the Kidushin itself forbids her) is Kidushin;
(b) (Rava): It is not Kidushin.

1. (Bar Ahina): "When a man will take (Mekadesh) a woman and have relations with her" - Kidushin must be fit for relations.

(c) (Mishnah): A man was Mekadesh a woman and her daughter, or 2 sisters, at the same moment - they are not Mekudashos.
(d) Inference: If he was Mekadesh 1 of the 2 women (without specifying which) - 1 would be Mekudeshes;

1. Question: Even though relations would be forbidden, because we do not know which is Mekudeshes, the Kidushin works - this refutes Rava!
2. Counter-question (Rava - Mishnah): There was a case of 5 women, 2 of whom were sisters...Chachamim ruled, the sisters are not Mekudashos.
3. Inference: The 3 strangers (unrelated women) are Mekudashos.
4. Question: What is the case?

i. Suggestion: If he said 'All of you are Mekudashos to me' - this is as a man that says 'Acquire, you and the donkey', which does not work (since the donkey cannot acquire, neither does the man; likewise, since both sisters cannot become Mekudashos, neither do the strangers)!

5. Answer: Rather, he said 'One of you is Mekudeshes to me', and the Mishnah says that neither sister is (even doubtfully) Mekudeshes!

(e) Question: The beginning of the Mishnah is not as Rava, the end of the Mishnah is not as Abaye!
(f) Answer #1 (for Abaye): The Mishnah says: A man was Mekadesh a woman and her daughter, or 2 sisters, at the same moment - they are not Mekudashos;

1. If he was Mekadesh 1 of the 2 women (without specifying which) - 1 would be Mekudeshes;
2. If he said 'I Mekadesh whichever of you is fitting to have relations with me', neither is Mekudeshes.

i. There was a case of 5 women, 2 of whom were sisters... he said 'I Mekadesh whichever of you is fitting to have relations with me' - Chachamim ruled, the sisters are not Mekudashos.

(g) Answer #2 (for Rava): The Mishnah says: A man was Mekadesh a woman or her daughter, or 1 of 2 sisters, without specifying which - this is as if he was Mekadesh both at the same time, neither is Mekudeshes;

1. There was a case of 5 women, 2 of whom were sisters... he said 'I Mekadesh all of you and 1 of the sisters' - Chachamim ruled, the sisters are not Mekudashos.

(a) (Beraisa): A man was Mekadesh his daughter to a man, without specifying which daughter - his Bogeres daughters are not even doubtfully Mekudashos.

1. Inference: His daughters that are minors (or Na'aros) are (at least doubtfully) Mekudashos!
2. Question: Such a Kidushin forbids relations (any of them may be the husband's wife's sister), yet it takes effect - this refutes Rava!
3. Answer: The case is, there is only 1 Bogeres daughter and 1 minor daughter.
4. Question: But it say, the Bogeros!
5. It means, whenever this happens, the Bogeres daughter is not Mekudeshes at all.
6. Question: If there is only 1 minor daughter, of course she is Mekudeshes!
7. Answer: The case is, the Bogeres made her father an agent to Mekadesh her.

i. One might have thought, the father accepted Kidushin for her - we hear, this is not so, he rather accepted for his minor daughter, for then he keeps the money.

8. Question: This answer does not work when the Bogeres told her father that he can keep the money!
9. Answer: Still, he surely was Mekadesh his minor daughter, for that is a Mitzvah incumbent on him (being Mekadesh his Bogeres daughter is not incumbent on him).

(b) (Mishnah - R. Meir): A man has 2 sets of daughters (i.e. from 2 wives). He says, 'I was Mekadesh my big daughter, but I don't know if it was the biggest of the older set, or the biggest of the younger set, or the youngest of the older set (who is older than all of the younger set) - they are all doubtfully Mekudashos, except for his youngest daughter of the younger set.

1. (Question: This refutes Rava!)
2. Answer: The case is, at the time of Kidushin he specified which daughter; later, it was forgotten.

i. Support: The Mishnah says, 'I don't know', not 'it is not known'.

3. Question: If so, obviously these girls are doubtfully Mekudashos!
4. Answer: One might have thought, R. Meir agrees with R. Yosi, who says that a man does not enter doubtful situations (so he surely was Mekadesh his oldest daughter) - we hear, this is not so.

(c) Question (Mishnah): Reuven was Mekadesh 1 of 2 sisters, he does not know which - he gives a Get to each (this refutes Rava)!

1. Answer: The case is, at the time of Kidushin he specified which sister; later, it was forgotten.

i. Support: The Mishnah says, 'I don't know', not 'it is not known'.

2. Question: If so, obviously they are doubtfully Mekudashos!
3. Answer: The Chidush is in the end of the Mishnah.
4. (Mishnah): If Reuven died, leaving 1 brother - he does Chalitzah to both women; if he left 2 brothers, 1 does Chalitzah, the other (may) do Yibum;

i. If both did Yibum, we allow them to stay married.
ii. Lechatchilah, Chalitzah must be done before Yibum - if a brother does Yibum first, if the Yevamah he takes was not Mekudeshes to Reuven, he now marries the sister of his Shomeres Yavam!

(d) Question (Mishnah): Shimon and David were Mekadesh 2 sisters, neither knows which one - each man must give a Get to each sister.

1. Answer: The case is, at the time of Kidushin they knew which sister each was Mekadesh; later, it was forgotten.

i. Support: The Mishnah says, 'neither knows', not 'it is not known'.

2. Question: If so, obviously they are doubtfully Mekudashos!
3. Answer: The Chidush is in the end of the Mishnah.
4. (Mishnah): If both men died, each left 1 brother - each brother does Chalitzah to both women;
5. If Shimon left 1 brother, and David left 2 brothers, Shimon's brother does Chalitzah to both women; one of David's brothers does Chalitzah, the other does Yibum;

i. If Shimon's brother also did Yibum, we allow both couples to stay married.
ii. Lechatchilah, Chalitzah must be done before Yibum - if a brother does Yibum first, if the Yevamah he takes was not Mekudeshes to his brother, he now marries a Shomeres Yavam of another man.

(e) Question (Beraisa): Reuven has 5 sons, David has 5 daughters. Reuven said, 'One of your daughters is Mekudeshes to 1 of my sons' - each daughter needs a Get from each son;

1. If a brother died, each daughter needs a Get from each remaining brother, and 1 Chalitzah.
2. Suggestion: Perhaps here also, they knew at the time of Kidushin, and forgot later.
3. Rejection: It says, 'One of your daughters is Mekudeshes to 1 of my sons'!
4. Rava is refuted.

(f) In all arguments of Abaye and Rava, the law is as Rava, except for 6 places; the initials of these places spell 'Ya'al Kagam'.