Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHAT IS A FATHER BELIEVED ABOUT

(a) (Mishnah): A man said 'I was Mekadesh my daughter', 'I was Mekadesh her and received her Get' - if she is still a minor (or Na'arah), he is believed;
(b) If he says that he was Mekadesh her or received her Get when she was a minor, and now she is an adult (Bogeres), he is not believed.
(c) 'She was captured and I redeemed her (so she is forbidden to Kohanim)" - he is never believed.
(d) (Gemara) Question: Why is he believed when she is a minor, and not when she is an adult?
(e) Answer #1: When she is a minor, he can marry her off, so he is believed about this;

1. When she is an adult, he cannot do this; and he is never allowed to hand her over to captors (so he is not believed about these).
2. Question: But he can forbid (a minor) to Kohanim in another way, he can marry her to a Chalal!
3. Answer: No, our Mishnah is as R. Dusta'i ben Yehudah, who says that children of Chalal married to a Bas Yisrael are not Chalalim (and she remains permitted to Kohanim).
4. Question: But he can forbid (a minor) to Kohanim by marrying her to a Mamzer!
5. Answer: No, our Mishnah is as R. Akiva, who says that Kidushin does not take effect when relations are forbidden by a Lav.
6. Question: But according to R. Simai, even R. Akiva admits that he can marry her (if she is widowed) to a Kohen Gadol, and this will forbid her to Kohanim!

i. (Beraisa - R. Simai): R. Akiva says that children from all forbidden marriages are Mamzerim, except for a widow that marries a Kohen Gadol, for there the Torah said "He will not take...he will not profane";
ii. He makes his children profaned (Chalalim), not Mamzerim.

7. Answer: Our Mishnah is as R. Yeshevav, who says that R. Akiva says that any forbidden relationship with a Yisraeli produces Mamzerim.

i. This answer works if R. Yeshevav's statement stands on its own (and applies in all cases).
ii. Question: If R. Yeshevav came to argue on R. Simai - he only speaks of Chayavei Lavin of Kohanim, but he admits that relations forbidden by an Aseh do not make Mamzerim! (A man could marry his daughter off in such a marriage to disqualify her.)

(f) Objection (Rav Ashi): The father is not believed in the beginning of the Mishnah because it is in his power - he is believed by divorce, and this is not his decision!

1. Also - he cannot force a man to marry his daughter!

(g) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): Regarding Kidushin and divorce, the Torah believed the father.

1. (Rav Huna): "I gave my daughter to this man" - this teaches that a man is believed about his daughter's Kidushin.

i. When he said 'I gave' - he forbids her;
ii. When he said 'to this man' - he permits her to him.

2. The Torah believed the father regarding Kidushin, not regarding captivity.

(a) (Mishnah): A man said as he was dying 'I have children' (so my wife will not fall to Yibum) - he is believed;

1. If he said 'I have brothers' (so she will fall to Yibum), he is not believed.

(b) (Gemara): We see, he is believed to permit, not to forbid.
(c) Suggestion: Our Mishnah is not as R. Noson.

1. (Beraisa - Rebbi): At the time of Kidushin, Reuven said 'I have no children'; at the time of death he said 'I have children';
2. Or - at the time of Kidushin, Reuven said 'I have no brothers; at the time of death he said 'I have brothers' - he is believed to permit not to forbid;

i. R. Noson says, he is even believed to forbid.

(d) Rejection #1 (Rava): In the Beraisa is different - since as he dies he contradicts what he said earlier, he surely is not lying.
(e) Objection (Abaye): All the more so we should be concerned that he is lying!

1. In the Mishnah, even though he doesn't contradict himself, he is not believed to forbid - all the more so in the Beraisa, when he contradicts himself, he should not be believed to forbid!

(f) Rejection #2 (Abaye): In the Mishnah we had a Chazakah that the man had no children or brothers (so his wife will not fall to Yibum). When he says that he has children, this supports the Chazakah (regarding his wife), so he is believed;

1. When he says that he has brothers, this opposes the Chazakah (regarding his wife), so he is not believed.

(g) In the Beraisa we had a Chazakah that the man had brothers but no children (so his wife will fall to Yibum). He would not lie to exempt her from Yibum (at the time of Kidushin) - he could divorce her (Rashi - immediately; Tosfos - he could write a Get now, to divorce her right before he dies).

1. Rebbi holds, this logic (he would not lie if he can accomplish his end without lying) is as strong as witnesses, it overturns the original Chazakah (so he is not believed to say as he dies that she falls to Yibum);
2. R. Noson, this logic is only as strong as a Chazakah, it does not override the original Chazakah (so he is believed to forbid her as he dies).

(a) (Mishnah): A man was Mekadesh his daughter without specifying which one - we are sure, he did not Mekadesh his adult (Bogeres) daughters.
(b) R. Meir says, a man has 2 sets of daughters (i.e. from different wives). He remembers being Mekadesh his big daughter - he is unsure if this was the oldest of the older set, or the oldest of the younger set, or the youngest of the older set who is older than all of the younger set - all are doubtfully Mekudashos, except for the youngest of the younger set;

1. R. Yosi says, he was definitely Mekadesh the oldest of the older set.

(c) R. Meir says, if he was Mekadesh his little daughter, but is unsure if this was the youngest of the younger set, or the youngest of the older set, or the oldest of the younger set who is younger than all of the older set - all are doubtfully Mekudashos, except for the older of the older set;

1. R. Yosi says, he was definitely Mekadesh the youngest of the younger set.

(d) (Gemara) Inference: We are sure, he did not Mekadesh his adult daughters - but his minor daughters are doubtfully Mekudashos!

1. This shows that Kidushin which forbids relations is valid Kidushin!

(e) Rejection: No - the case is, there is only 1 adult daughter and 1 minor daughter.

1. The plural language (adult daughters) refers to whenever this occurs, the adult daughter is always permitted.
2. Question: This is obvious (the father cannot Mekadesh his adult daughter)!
3. Answer: The case is, she made him an agent to Mekadesh her;

i. We learn that a man would surely do something he benefits from (he keeps the Kidushin money for his minor daughter), not something he does not benefit from.
ii. Question: Doesn't the Mishnah also include when the adult daughter told her father that he can keep her Kidushin money?
iii. Answer: Still, a man would surely do a Mitzvah incumbent on him, (to Mekadesh his minor daughter), rather than something not incumbent on him (being Mekadesh his adult daughter).

(f) (Mishnah): A man has 2 sets of daughters...
(g) It is necessary to hear by Kidushin of his big daughter and of his small daughter.

1. If we only heard by 'my big daughter' - one might have thought, R. Meir holds that any daughter that is not the youngest of all, he calls his big daughter - but he would admit, he would only call the very youngest 'my small daughter';
2. If we only heard by 'my small daughter' - one might have thought, R. Yosi holds that he only calls the very youngest 'my small daughter' - but he admits, any daughter that is not the youngest of all, he calls 'my big daughter'.

(a) Question: May we infer that R. Meir holds that a person (has intention that causes him to) be in doubtful situations, and R. Yosi says he does not?!
(b) Contradiction (Mishnah): One who vows 'until Pesach' - he is forbidden until Pesach begins;

1. 'Until it will be Pesach' - he is forbidden until the end of Pesach;
2. 'Until Penei (the face of) Pesach' - R. Meir says, he is forbidden until Pesach begins (for before Pesach faces all of Pesach); R. Yosi says, he is forbidden until the end of Pesach (perhaps he meant, any time that faces some part of Pesach, even the last moment).

(c) Answer (R. Chanina bar Avdimi): The text of the Mishnah of vows must be corrected, the opinions of R. Meir and R. Yosi must be switched.

1. Support (Beraisa): The rule is, anything with a fixed time - if a person said Penei, R. Meir says, he is forbidden until it ends; R. Yosi says, he is forbidden until it begins.

(d) (Abaye): The argument in our Mishnah is only when he has 2 sets of daughters - but if he has only 1 set, all agree that 'big' refers to the oldest, 'small' refers to the smallest; his middle daughter, he calls by her name.
(e) Question (Rav Ada bar Masnah): If so, in our Mishnah, the middle daughter of the younger set should be permitted (when he said 'my big daughter')!
(f) Answer: The case is, there are only 2 daughters in the younger set.

1. Support: If there were more, the Mishnah should say that they are forbidden!
2. Question: But you must admit, middle daughters in the older set are forbidden, but the Mishnah does not teach them!
3. Answer: They did not need to be taught - since we taught that even the youngest of the older set is forbidden, surely middle daughters of the older set are also forbidden!

i. But if middle daughters of the younger set are forbidden, this should be taught.

(g) Question (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): But 'Penei Pesach' - this is analogous to 1 set of daughters, and the middle days are forbidden!
(h) Answer (Rava): There, they argue on the language 'Penei'.

1. The opinion that permits the middle days says that Penei means facing (before); the opinion that forbids the middle days says that Penei Pesach means until Mifnei (passes) Pesach.