Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

15) A WOMAN MEKUDESHES TO MANY MEN

(a) (Ula): R. Yochanan says, in this way ('You are Mekudeshes to me from now and after 30 days', 'from now and after 20 days'...) she can be Mekudeshes to any number of men.
(b) (Rav Mesharshiya brei d'Rav Ami): R. Yochanan holds, each man was Mekadesh her in a way that leaves room for another man to Mekadesh her.
(c) Question (R. Chanina - Beraisa): ('You are divorced) from today and after my death' - the Get is valid and invalid; if he died (without children), she does Chalitzah, not Yibum.

1. This supports Rav (we are unsure if 'after my death' is a condition or retraction).
2. This does not refute Shmuel - he says, the Beraisa is as Chachamim, Shmuel holds as Rebbi (that it is surely a condition).
3. But according to R. Yochanan, he leaves a remnant - such a divorce is totally invalid - she should be allowed to do Yibum!

(d) Answer #1 (Rava): A Get and death of the husband both permit a woman - the remnant that the Get did not permit, death permits.
(e) Objection (Abaye): No - a Get prevents her from doing Yibum, death brings her to do Yibum!
(f) Answer #2 (Abaye): Rather, the Get is totally invalid; mid'Oraisa, she may do Yibum.

1. Chachamim decreed that she must do Chalitzah (not Yibum), lest women do Yibum after a Get given 'From today if I die' (which is a valid Get).
2. Question: We should decree that she needs Chalitzah after a Get 'From today if I die', lest women come to remarry without Chalitzah after a Get 'From today and after I die' (which is invalid).
3. Answer: If we decree that she do Chalitzah, women may come to do Yibum!
4. Question: We should likewise decree that she should not do Chalitzah with a Get 'From today and after I die', lest she come to do Yibum!
5. Answer: mid'Oraisa, she may do Yibum - we only forbade this mid'Rabanan.

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven was Mekadesh a woman 'On condition that I will give you 200 Zuz' - she is Mekudeshes, and he must give her;
(b) 'On condition that I will give you within 30 days' - if he gave within 30 days, she is Mekudeshes, if not, not;
(c) 'On condition that I have 200 Zuz' - she is Mekudeshes if he has;
(d) 'On condition that I will show you 200 Zuz' - she is Mekudeshes if he shows her.

1. If he shows her (other people's money) on the table (on which he changes money for a profit), she is not Mekudeshes.

(e) (Gemara - Rav Huna): ('She is Mekudeshes' - immediately), 'and he must give her';
(f) (Rav Yehudah): '(She will be Mekudeshes)' when 'he gives her'.

1. Rav Huna says, she is Mekudeshes immediately - giving her is merely fulfillment of the stipulation;
2. Rav Yehudah says, she is Mekudeshes when he gives - that is when the Kidushin takes place.

(g) Question: What is the practical difference between them?
(h) Answer: If she received Kidushin from Shimon before Reuven paid her.

1. According to Rav Huna, Shimon's Kidushin is null (if Reuven eventually gives); according to Rav Yehudah, she is Mekudeshes to Shimon.

(i) They argued similarly regarding divorce.

1. (Mishnah): Reuven divorced his wife 'On condition that you will give me 200 Zuz' - she is divorced, and she must give him;
2. (Rav Huna): ('She is divorced' - immediately), 'and she must give him';
3. (Rav Yehudah): '(She will be divorced)' when 'she gives him'.

i. Rav Huna says, she is divorced immediately - giving him is merely fulfillment of the stipulation;
ii. Rav Yehudah says, the divorce only occurs when she gives him.

4. Question: What is the practical difference between them?
5. Answer: The Get was torn or lost before she gave him.

i. According to Rav Huna, the Get is valid (if she eventually gives); according to Rav Yehudah, she is not divorced.

(j) It is necessary to hear the argument in both cases.

1. If we only heard by Kidushin - one might have thought, that is when Rav Huna said that it works immediately, for he comes close to her - but by divorce, he separates from her, he does not intend that it should not take effect until she gives.
2. If we only heard by divorce - one might have thought, that is when Rav Huna said that it works immediately, for he is not ashamed to demand the money from her - but by Kidushin, she is ashamed to demand the money from him, they do not intend that it should take effect until he gives.

(k) Question #1 (Beraisa): Reuven divorced his wife 'On condition that you will give me 200 Zuz' - even if the Get was torn or lost before she gave him, she is divorced;

1. She may not remarry until she gives the money.

(l) Question #2 (Beraisa): Reuven divorced his wife 'On condition that you will give me 200 Zuz', and he died:

1. If she gave the money, she is exempt from Yibum (and Chalitzah);
2. If she did not give, she is falls to Yibum;

i. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, she may give the money to one of his heirs (and she will be exempt from Yibum).

3. (Summation of question): They only argue regarding the meaning of 'you will give me', if this is fulfilled by giving to an heir - but all agree, she is divorced immediately if the condition is ever fulfilled.

(m) Answer (Rav Yehudah): These Beraisos are as Rebbi; Chachamim argue on him.

1. (Rav Huna citing Rebbi): Saying 'on condition that' is as saying 'from now'.

(n) (R. Zeira): In Bavel, we used to say (as Rav Yehudah) that Chachamim argue on Rebbi;

1. In Eretz Yisrael, they cited R. Yochanan as saying that all agree, saying 'on condition that' is as saying 'from now';
2. They only argue by 'From today and after (my) death'.

i. (Beraisa): From today and after death' - she is divorced and not divorced;
ii. Rebbi says, such a Get is valid.

(o) Question: According to Rav Yehudah, Rebbi and Chachamim also argue by 'on condition that' - why did the Beraisa explain the argument by 'from today and after death', and not 'on condition that'?
(p) Answer: To show the extremity of Rebbi - even by 'from today and after (my) death', the Get is valid.
(q) Question: The Beraisa should explain the argument by 'on condition that', to show the extremity of Chachamim (even 'on condition that' is not a Get)!
(r) Answer: It is better to show the extremity of the lenient opinion.

(a) (Mishnah): 'On condition that I have 200 Zuz'...
(b) Question: We should be concerned that he has!

1. (Beraisa): We are concerned, perhaps he has 200 Zuz.

(c) Answer: The Mishnah says that she is not definitely Mekudeshes - indeed, she is doubtfully Mekudeshes.
(d) (Mishnah): On condition that I will show you 200 Zuz (and he showed her (other people's) money on the table, she is not Mekudeshes).

1. (Beraisa): She intended to see his money.

(e) (Mishnah): If he showed her money on the table, she is not Mekudeshes.
(f) Question: This is obvious!
(g) Answer: The case is, he profits with the money - still, she is not Mekudeshes.
(h) (Mishnah): 'On condition that I have a Beis Kor (a field on which 30 Se'ah of seed is normally sown) of dirt' - she is Mekudeshes, on condition that he has;

1. 'On condition that I have in Ploni (a place)' - she is Mekudeshes only if he has there.

(i) 'On condition that I will show you a Beis Kor of dirt' - she is Mekudeshes, on condition that he shows her;

1. If he shows her (other people's fields) in the valley, she is not Mekudeshes.

(j) (Gemara) Question: We should be concerned that he has!

1. (Beraisa): We are concerned, perhaps he has a Beis Kor.

(k) Answer: The Mishnah says that she is not definitely Mekudeshes - indeed, she is doubtfully Mekudeshes.
(l) Question: Why do we need to teach this regarding money and land?
(m) Answer: If we only heard by money - one might have thought, this is because it is easy to conceal money;

1. But by land, we would not be concerned - surely if he had land, we would know about it - we hear, this is not so.

(n) (Mishnah): 'On condition that I have in Ploni (a place)' - she is Mekudeshes only if he has there.
(o) Question: This is obvious!
(p) Answer: One might have thought, he can claim, it makes no difference to her, since he will bring the fruit from the field - we hear, this is not so.
(q) (Mishnah): 'On condition that I will show you a Beis Kor of dirt'.

1. (Beraisa): She intended to see his field.

(r) (Mishnah): If he shows her (other people's fields) in the valley, she is not Mekudeshes.
(s) Question: This is obvious!
(t) Answer: The case is, he is a sharecropper on the field.