Previous daf

1)

(a) The Gemara relates an incident concerning a man who was selling tin buttons, according to some. According to others, he was selling - glass rings.

(b) The salesman would present them - on strings, like a necklace.

(c) When a certain woman asked the salesman in question for one - he asked her whether she would accept it as Kidushin.

(d) Rav Chama interpreted her response 'Havah Meihavah!' - as meaningless.

(a) In two similar incidents, Rav Chama and Rav Z'vid respectively interpreted similar responses in the same way. When ...

1. ... in the second incident, the man issued her with the same ultimatum in exchange for a glass of beer - she responded with 'Asshkuyei Ashkayan'.
2. ... in the third incident, he issued her with the same ultimatum in exchange for two dates - 'Shadi Mishda'.

(b) In the last of these incidents, the man - was throwing down dates from the date-palm.

(c) Ravina maintains that the woman would have been Mekudeshes had she not repeated the words ('Havah Meihavah', 'Ashkuyei Ashpayan', 'Shadi Mishda'). When Rav Sama bar Raksa heard this - he exclaimed 'Taga de'Malka! (by the crown of the King), Einah Mekudeshes'!

(d) We finally issue rulings in the following four cases. The Halachah regarding ...

1. ... the previous case, where the woman did not repeat her retort is - Einah Mekudeshes (like Rav Sama bar Raksa).
2. ... an object of Kidushin that was not assessed prior to the Kidushin is - Einah Mekudeshes (like Rabah).
3. ... where the man said 'Hiskadshi Li be'Manah', and gave her a Dinar is - Mekudeshes (like Rebbi Elazar).
4. ... where the man said 'Hiskadshi Li be'Manah', and gave her a Mashkon is - 'Manah Ein Ka'an, Mashkon Ein Ka'an' (like Rava Amar Rav Nachman).

(a) One writes on the Sh'tar Kidushin of a girl whose father is marrying her off - 'Bitcha Mekudeshes Li'; 'Bitcha Me'ureses li'; Bitcha Li le'Intu'.

(b) The Sh'tar does not need to be worth a P'rutah.

(c) Rebbi Zeira bar Mamal observes that, whereas a Sh'tar of sale is written by the seller, that of Kidushin is written by the man (who is comparable to the purchaser).

(d) Rava initially explain this distinction, based on the Pesukim "u'Machar me'Achuzaso", on the one hand, and "Ki Yikach Ish Ishah", on the other - from which we can see that this is indeed the case (since the Torah places emphasis on the 'purchaser', with regard to Kidushin, and on the seller, with regard to the sale of a field.

(a) In view of of the above-mentioned Pasuk in Behar - we attempt to 'amend' the phrase "Sados ba'Kesef Yiknu" - to read "Sados ba'Kesef Yaknu" (from the point of view of the seller).

(b) Based on this amendment, we refute Rava's initial proof from "Ki Yikach Ish Ishah" - because, in view of the Pasuk "es Biti Nasati la'Ish ha'Zeh", we can amend this Pasuk too, to read "Ki Yikach Ish Ishah" (placing the emphasis on the father of the girl).

(c) Rava finally bases the distinction between a Sh'tar Mecher and a Sh'tar Kidushin - on 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.

(d) And the Pesukim that he originally quoted - are merely Asmachtos (on which one cannot ask Kashyos).

(a) Alternatively, Rava quotes another Pasuk "va'Ekach es Sefer ha'Miknah" - proving that it is the seller (Chanamel, in that case) who writes the Sh'tar and hands it to the purchaser (Yirmiyah). Note: The previous Pasuk in fact ("Sados ba'Kesef Yiknu", was not the source of a Halachah, as we originally thought, but advice on the part of Yirmiyah to the people.

(b) A father has jurisdiction over his daughter's Kidushin - up to the time she becomes a Bogeres.

(c) Her Kidushin is valid if she accepts the Kidushin herself - provided she does so with her father's consnt.

(d) The Kidushin of a Bogeres is valid if her father accepts her Kidushin - provided he does so with her consent.

(a) We know that a Get must be written Lishmah (in the name of the woman whom the husband intends to divorce) - from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "ve'Kasav *Lah*, 'Lishmah'.

(b) Resh Lakish asked whether a Sh'tar Kidushin is Kasher if it was written she'Lo Lishmah. It might be ...

1. ... Kasher - because the three kinds of Kinyanim of Kidushin are compared to one another, in which case we compare Sh'tar to Kesef (and the money of Kidushin does certainly not need to be minted Lishmah).
2. ... Pasul - because the Torah compares Kidushin to Get ("ve'Yatz'ah ve'Haysah"), in which case, the Sh'tar of Kidushin, like the Sh'tar of a Get, must be written Lishmah.

(c) Resh Lakish himself decided on the latter side of the She'eilah, comparing Kidushin to Get ('Makish Havayah li'Yetzi'ah').

7)

(a) According to Rava and Ravina, if the man wrote the Sh'tar Kidushin Lishmah but without the woman's consent, the Kidushin is Kasher - Rav Papa and Rav Sheravya invalidate the Kidushin.

(b) Rav Papa explains the reasons of their respective opinions, which are both based on the Hekesh of 'Havayah' to 'Yetzi'ah'. Rava and Ravina's reason is because a Get too, is written Lishmah but not with the woman's consent, that of Rav Papa and Rav Sheravya - because we compare Kidushin to the aspect of Get that it must be written with the consent of the Makneh (the giver [husband there, the woman here]).

(c) Rava and Ravina establish the Beraisa 'Ein Kosvin Sh'tarei *Eirusin* ve'Nisu'in Ela mi'Da'as Sheneihem' - by Sh'tarei P'sikta.

(d) 'Sh'tarei P'sikta, says Rav Gidal Amar Rav, comprize the monetary agreements reached by the two parties which are binding with words alone. They do not require a Kinyan, because the thrill of the Shiduch constitutes sufficient 'Gemiras Da'as' (full consent) to finalize the transaction.

(a) Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan learns from the Pasuk "Ki Yimatzei Ish Shochev Im Ishah "*Be'ulas Ba'al*" - that a woman can be acquired with Bi'ah.

(b) Rebbi Zeira asked Rebbi Avahu (or Resh Lakish, Rebbi Yochanan) what was wrong with Rebbi, who learned it from the Pasuk there "Ki Yikach Ish Ishah u'Be'alah", to which he replied - that this Pasuk refers to Bi'ah that follows Kidushei Kesef, as the Pasuk implies (but not Bi'ah on its own).

(c) If Bi'ah does indeed acquire only after Kidushin, the problem will then be - how a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah can ever be sentenced to Sekilah, seeing as if she was betrothed with Kesef, she is not Mekudeshes, whereas if there was Bi'ah as well, then she is no longer a Besulah (and her due punishment is Chenek)?

(d) Abaye objects to the Rabbanan's answer to this Kashya (that the Parshah of Na'arah ha'Me'urasah speaks when the Arus performed Bi'ah with her she'Lo ke'Darkah, which does not remove her virginity, and does therefore, render her a 'Be'ulah') - because even those who hold that others do not render a woman a Be'ulah through Bi'ah she'Lo ke'Darkah (as we shall now see), concede that a husband does.

(a) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, if ten men have relations she'Lo ke'Darkah with a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah, they are all Chayav Sekilah - whereas according to Rebbi, the last nine only receive Chenek.

(b) Having just established that even Rebbi will concede that her husband makes her a Be'ulah she'Lo ke'Darkah, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak establishes the case of Na'arah ha'Me'urasah by Kidushei Sh'tar - which is better than Kidushei Kesef or Bi'ah, because it concludes by Get (so it will conclude by Kidushin, too).

(c) Rebbi Yochanan learns from "u'Be'alah" that one can acquire a woman with Kidushei Bi'ah, but not an Amah Ivri'ah. We suggest that we would otherwise have learned an Amah Ivri'ah from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Yevamah - who can be acquired with Bi'ah, but not with Kesef, 'Kal va'Chomer' an Amah Ivri'ah, whom one can acquire with Kesef.

(d) We refute this suggestion however, on the grounds - that a Yevamah is different, inasmuch as she is already tied to the Yavam from her marriage with his brother (which may be the reason why he acquires her with Bi'ah).

(a) So we conclude that we would otherwise have learned Kidushei Bi'ah by an Amah Ivri'ah from "Acheres" - the wife that a man betroths after acquiring the Amah Ivri'ah with Yi'ud (the betrothal of an Amah ha'Ivri'ah, which will explained later in the Perek).

(b) Rebbi, who learns Kidushei Bi'ah from "u'Ba'alah", nevertheless precludes an Amah Ivri'ah from the Din of Acheres - from the dual D'rashah, one from "u'Ba'al", and the other from the extra 'Hey' ("u'Ba'alah").

(c) bar Ahina taught Rava from the Pasuk "Ki Yikach Ish Ishah u'Be'alah" - that Kidushin is valid only if it will lead to Bi'ah (but not for example, if a man betroths one of two sisters (without specifying which one), where both of them will remain forbidden to him because of Achos Ishto).

(d) He will learn the previous D'rashah according to Rebbi - from the fact that the Torah writes "u'Ba'alah" (rather than "O Ba'alah"), leaving us with an extra D'rashah from the same word.