Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) RELIANCE ON AN AGENT FOR KIDUSHIN

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven authorized Shimon to Mekadesh Reuven's daughter to a man. Reuven himself was Mekadesh her to David, Shimon was Mekadesh her to Moshe - whichever Kidushin was done first takes effect.

1. If we are unsure which came first, David and Moshe both divorce her; if they agree, 1 divorces her, and the other marries her.

(b) Similarly - Leah told Shimon 'Mekadesh me to a man'. She accepted Kidushin from David, Shimon was Mekadesh her to Moshe - the first Kidushin takes effect;

1. If we are unsure which came first, they both divorce her; if they agree, 1 divorces her, the other marries her.

(c) (Gemara): We need to hear both cases.

1. If we only heard by the father - one might have thought, this is because a man knows about lineage (so when he was Mekadesh his daughter, he had full intent);

i. But a woman is ignorant about lineage, she intends that her Kidushin should not takes effect if the agent will Mekadesh her - we hear, this is not so.

2. If we only heard by her - one might have thought, this is because a woman is careful from whom she accepts Kidushin (so when she does so, she has full intent);

i. But a man is not so careful to whom he is Mekadesh his daughter, he intends that his Kidushin should not takes effect if the agent will find someone better - we hear, this is not so.

(a) A man was Mekadesh his daughter when he was abroad; she accepted Kidushin at home, and she is now a Bogeres:
(b) (Rav): Since she is now a Bogeres, her Kidushin takes effect.
(c) (Shmuel): We are concerned for both Kidushin.
(d) Question: How old was she?

1. Suggestion: If she is in the 6 months after becoming a Na'arah - Rav would not say that since she is now a Bogeres, her Kidushin takes effect! (It is rare that a girl becomes a Bogeres in less than 6 months - we assume she was a Na'arah (who cannot Mekadesh herself) until we saw signs of Bagrus.

(e) Answer #1: Rather, she became a Na'arah more than 6 months ago.
(f) Objection: Shmuel would not say that we are concerned for both Kidushin - he himself said, there are only 6 months between Na'arus and Bogrus (surely, her own Kidushin takes effect)!
(g) Answer #2: Rather, both acts of Kidushin were on the day that completes 6 months after becoming a Na'arah.

1. Rav says, since she is now a Bogeres, we assume she was a Bogeres from the start of the day;
2. Shmuel says, perhaps she only became a Bogeres right now.

(h) Question: According to Shmuel, why is this different than the case of a Mikvah?

1. (Mishnah): A Mikvah (that was once known to be full) was measured and found to be lacking - all Taharos that touched things immersed in the Mikvah are retroactively Teme'im, whether this is in the public or private domain.

(i) Answer: That is different, for we leave the immersed items on their Chazakah that they were Teme'im (we assume the Mikvah was lacking at the time).
(j) Question: Why not rely on the Chazakah that the Mikvah was full?
(k) Answer: We see, it is lacking in front of us!
(l) Question: Here also, we see that she is a Bogeres in front of us!
(m) Answer: Perhaps she just became a Bogeres now.
(n) Question: There also, perhaps the Mikvah just became lacking now!
(o) Answer: By the Mikvah, there are 2 reasons to assume the Taharos are Teme'im (the Mikvah is lacking in front of us, the immersed items had a Chazakah of being Teme'im); by the girl, we only have 1 reason to assume her Kidushin took effect.

(a) Question: Why is our case different than the following?

1. (Beraisa): A man used to designate quantities of wine in a barrel as Terumah on his produce; he would check it regularly. If he finds that it turned to vinegar - we have no doubt about 3 days, past 3 days we are in doubt.
2. Question: Why by the barrel we have a doubt, and by the Mikvah we have no doubt?
3. Answer (R. Chanina of Surya): The Tana of the Mishnah of the barrel is R. Shimon - also by a Mikvah, he is in doubt.

i. (Beraisa): All Taharos that touched things immersed in the Mikvah are retroactively Teme'im, whether this is in the public or private domain;
ii. R. Shimon says, in the public domain, they are Tehorim; in the private domain, we suspend them (if they are Terumah or Kodshim, we do not eat them; we do not burn them until they become definitely Teme'im).

4. According to Chachamim, we assume that the wine surely was vinegar when Terumah was declared, the produce is definitely Tevel (untithed).

(b) (Implied question: Also by the girl, we should say that she was surely a Bogeres at the times of Kidushin!)
(c) Answer: Terumah is different, the produce had a Chazakah of being Tevel.
(d) Question: Rather, we should rely on the Chazakah that there was wine in the barrel, it had not fermented!
(e) Answer: We see, it is vinegar in front of us!
(f) Question: Here also, we see that she is a Bogeres in front of us!
(g) Answer: Perhaps she just became a Bogeres now.
(h) Question: There also, perhaps the wince just fermented now!
(i) Answer: By the produce, there are 2 reasons to assume that it is Tevel (we see vinegar in front of us, the produce had a Chazakah of being Tevel); by the girl, we only have 1 reason to assume her Kidushin took effect.
(j) Suggestion: Rav and Shmuel argue as the following Tana'im.

1. (Beraisa - R. Yakov): (Reuven wrote a document giving all his property to Shimon; he now claims that he was dying when he wrote it - the law is, if a dying man recovers, he can retract whatever gifts he gave). Even if Shimon seized the property, Reuven gets it back, unless Shimon can prove that Reuven was healthy at the time;
2. R. Noson says, if Reuven is healthy now, Shimon gets the property, unless Reuven can prove that he was dying at the time;

i. If Reuven is sick now, he keeps his property, unless Shimon can prove that Reuven was healthy at the time.

3. Apparently, Rav holds as R. Noson (we assume he was then as he is now), and Shmuel holds as R. Yakov (we are unsure how he was then - we leave money in its Chazakah).

(k) Rejection #1: Rav can even hold as R. Yakov.

1. R. Yakov only said that Shimon must bring proof in that case, for we leave money in its Chazakah - but we cannot rely on the Chazakah that she was a Na'arah on the day she will become a Bogeres!

(l) Rejection #2: Shmuel can even hold as R. Noson.

1. R. Noson only said that if Reuven is healthy, he must bring proof, for most people are healthy - he cannot say he is different without proof;

i. There is nothing unusual about saying that she was a Na'arah at the time of Kidushin!

(m) Suggestion: Rav and Shmuel argue as the following Beraisos.

1. (Beraisa #1): A man was Mekadesh his daughter when he was abroad; she accepted Kidushin at home, and she is now a Bogeres - since she is now a Bogeres, her Kidushin takes effect.
2. (Beraisa #2): We are concerned for both Kidushin.
3. Apparently, Beraisa #1 is as Rav, Beraisa #2 is as Shmuel.

(n) Rejection: Both Beraisos can be as Shmuel - Beraisa #1 is when she claims she was a Bogeres at the time, Beraisa #2 is when she does not say this.
(o) Suggestion: Just as the Beraisos need not argue, let us say that Rav and Shmuel do not argue!
(p) Rejection: A case occurred; Rav Yosef brei d'Rav Menashiya ruled as Rav, and Shmuel was upset.

1. [Version #1 (Rashi): If they don't argue - why would Shmuel be upset - perhaps the case was when she claimed she was already a Bogeres!]
2. [Version #2 (Tosfos) Question: If they don't argue - why would Shmuel be upset - surely, she claimed she was already a Bogeres (that is when Rav said his law).]

i. (Rather, it must be that they argue; the case was, she did not claim she was a Bogeres.)

(q) (zu): The law is as Shmuel.
(r) (Rav Ashi): The law is as Rav.

1. The law is as Rav.

(a) (Mishnah): A man went overseas with his wife; he returned with his wife and with children. He is believed to say that it is the same wife, and the children are from her.

1. If he says that his wife died, and these children are from her - he must prove that the children are from her, but he need not prove about her lineage.

(b) If he returns and says 'I married this woman overseas; these are her children' - he must bring proof about her lineage, but not that they are her children.

1. If he says that he married a woman and she died, and these children are from her - he must prove that the children are from her, and about her lineage.

(c) (Gemara - Rabah bar Rav Huna): In all cases when he need not prove that the children are from his wife, the case is, her children are clinging to her.
(d) (Beraisa): A man returns from overseas and says 'I married a woman overseas; these are her children' - he must bring proof about her lineage, but not about the children;

1. He must bring proof about old children, not about young children.
2. The case is, by 1 wife - but if he has 2 wives, he must prove about her lineage and that all the children are from her.