Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) DISAGREEMENT OVER KIDUSHIN

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven says to Leah 'I was Mekadesh you', and she denies it - he is forbidden to marry her relatives, she is permitted to his relatives.
(b) If she says 'You were Mekadesh me', and he denies it - she is forbidden to his relatives, he is permitted to hers.
(c) If he says 'I was Mekadesh you', and Leah says 'No, you were Mekadesh my daughter (Dinah)' - he is forbidden to marry Leah's relatives, and permitted to Dinah's; Leah and Dinah are permitted to his relatives.
(d) If he says 'I was Mekadesh your daughter', and Leah says 'No, you were Mekadesh me' - he is forbidden to Dinah's relatives, and permitted to Leah's; Leah is forbidden to his relatives, Dinah is permitted to them.
(e) (Gemara): Reuven says to Leah 'I was Mekadesh you'...
(f) It is necessary to also teach the second case.

1. If we only heard when he claims that he was Mekadesh her (that she is permitted to his relatives), one might have thought that this is because a man can speak freely (he can always marry other women);

i. But a woman, by saying that he was Mekadesh her, she forbids herself to all other men - this is surely true, he should be forbidden to her relatives - we hear, this is not so.

(g) (Mishnah): If he says 'I was Mekadesh you'...
(h) Question: Why is this case needed?
(i) Answer: One might have thought, mid'Oraisa a father is believed regarding the Kidushin of his daughter, mid'Rabanan a mother is believed - we hear, this is not so.
(j) (Mishnah): If he says 'I was Mekadesh your daughter'...
(k) Question: Why is this case needed?
(l) Answer: It was only taught for parallel structure.

(a) (Rav): We force (him to divorce her).
(b) (Shmuel): We request.
(c) Question: In which case do they speak?

1. Suggestion: If they refer to the first case of the Mishnah - she does not need a Get from him (why force or request?)!

(d) Answer: They speak on the second case ('You were Mekadesh me').
(e) Question: Granted, we may request him to give a Get - but why would Rav say that we force him?

1. He can say, I do not want to become forbidden to her relatives!

(f) Answer: They do not argue - Rav completes Shmuel's words.

1. Shmuel said, we request that he give a Get; Rav remarks, if he gives a Get on his own, we force him to pay a Kesuvah.

(g) Support (Rav Acha bar Rav Ada bar Ahavah, citing Rav): We force and request.
(h) Objection: That is a contradiction!
(i) Answer: We request that he give a Get; if he gives a Get on his own, we force him to pay a Kesuvah.

(a) (Rav Yehudah): Kidushin that is done in front of 1 witness - we ignore it. (b) Question: What if the Chasan and Kalah agree that he was Mekadesh her?
(c) Rav Yehudah could not give a clear answer.
(d) (Rav Nachman): Kidushin that is done in front of 1 witness - we ignore it, even if both agree that he was Mekadesh her.
(e) Question (Rava - Mishnah): Reuven says to Leah 'I was Mekadesh you', and she denies it - he is forbidden to marry her relatives, she is permitted to his relatives.

1. Suggestion: If witnesses saw the Kidushin - she should be forbidden to his relatives!
2. Suggestion: If no witnesses saw the Kidushin - he should be permitted to her relatives!
3. Rather, 1 witness saw the Kidushin (and he is forbidden to her relatives)!

(f) Answer: No - he claims that he was Mekadesh her in front of 2 witnesses, and they went abroad.
(g) Question (Mishnah - Beis Shamai): A man divorced his wife; they spent the night in the same room in an inn - she does not need another Get;

1. Beis Hillel say, she needs another Get.
2. Question: What is the case?

i. Suggestion: If no witnesses saw the Kidushin - why do Beis Hillel require another Get?
ii. Suggestion: If 2 witnesses saw the Kidushin - why do Beis Shamai not require another Get?

3. Answer: Rather, 1 witness saw the Kidushin.

(h) Counter-question (end of the Mishnah): Beis Hillel admit, if she was divorced from Kidushin (before Nisu'in), no other Get is required, because he is not intimate with her.

1. If Kidushin in front of 1 witness is valid - it makes no difference if she was divorced from Kidushin or Nisu'in!

(i) Answer: Rather, the case is, there are 2 witnesses that they were secluded together, but no witnesses that they had relations.

1. Beis Shamai hold, we do not say that they surely had relations (and the witnesses on seclusion are considered witnesses on relations);

2. Beis Hillel hold, they surely had relations, witnesses on seclusion are witnesses on relations.

i. Beis Hillel admit, if she was divorced from Kidushin, we do not consider them to be witnesses on relations, for he is not intimate with her.

(j) (Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marsa): Kidushin in front of 1 witness - we ignore it, even if both agree that he was Mekadesh her.
(k) [Version #1 (Rabah bar Rav Huna): Kidushin that is done in front of 1 witness - the great Beis Din says that we ignore it, even if both agree that he was Mekadesh her.
(l) Question: Who is the great Beis Din?
(m) Answer: Rav.]
(n) [Version #2: Rabah bar Rav Huna said this in Rav's name; the great Beis Din is Rebbi.]

(a) Question (Rav Achdevoy bar R. Ami - Beraisa): Two men and a woman came from abroad; there is a package among them. Each man claims: the other man is my slave, the woman is my wife, the package is mine. She claims: they are both my slaves, the package is mine.

1. The law is, she needs a Get from each man, and she collects a Kesuvah from the package.
2. Question: What is the case?

i. Suggestion: If each man has witnesses that she is Mekudeshes to him - she could not claim that they are her slaves and the package is hers!

3. Answer #1: Rather, each has 1 witness that he was Mekadesh her.
4. Objection: This cannot be - 1 witness that is contradicted (by another witness or the defendant) is not believed!
5. Answer #2: Rather, all agree that she does not need a Get to get married;

i. She needs a Get from each man in order to collect a Kesuvah from the package.
ii. The Mishnah is as R. Meir, who says that the lien to collect a Kesuvah is on Metaltelim as well as land.

(b) Question: What was the final ruling on Kidushin in front of 1 witness?
(c) Answer #1 (Rav Kahana): We are not concerned.
(d) Answer #2 (Rav Papa): We are concerned.
(e) Question (Rav Ashi to Rav Kahana): Do you learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Davar-Davar" from monetary cases? If so - just as there, a person's admission is believed absolutely as 100 witnesses, also by Kidushin!
(f) Answer (Rav Kahana): No - by monetary cases, a person's admission is believed absolutely because it does not harm anyone else;

1. By Kidushin, his admission harms others (it forbids her to other men), he is not believed.

(g) Mar Zutra and Rav Ada Sava were brothers; they divided up their property without witnesses.
(h) Question (Mar Zutra and Rav Ada Sava): "According to 2 witnesses a matter will be established" - does this refer to when the parties want to retract?

1. If so, since we do not want to retract, our division stands.
2. Or - does it mean that transactions do not take effect without witnesses?

(i) Answer (Rav Ashi): Witnesses are only needed (to disprove) people that lie; transactions work without witnesses.