Previous daf

1)

(a) We just saw how Beis Shamai require a Dinar by the Kinyan of an Amah Ivriyah (in order to make Gera'on Kesef possible). The reason that they require a Dinar and not just a little more than a P'rutah is - because having precluded the sale-price of a P'rutah, the Torah looks for something more substantial, settling for a Dinar, as we explained earlier.

(b) In fact, they learn Kidushei Ishah (not just from Amah Ivriyah, but) - from the Kidushin of Yi'ud which is conditional to the sale of every Amah Ivriyah.

(c) Rava offers a fourth explanation in Beis Shamai - ascribing their opinion to a Takanas Chachamim, to raise the dignity of Jewish women.

(a) 'u'Beis Hillel Omrim bi'P'rutah'. We refute Rav Yosef's contention that the P'rutah is independent and has no minimum value - on the basis of our Mishnah, which prices the P'rutah as one an eighth of an Italian Isar.

(b) We know that the link to the Italian Isar is constant, and is not merely informing us the value of the P'rutah in the time of Moshe - because when Rav Dimi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted Rav Simai, who gave the price of the P'rutah as one eighth of an Italian Isar.

(c) When Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted Rebbi Dustai, Rebbi Yanai and Rebbi Oshaya, who evaluated the P'rutah at (what initially appears to be) a higher price than Rav Dimi. The minimum value of a P'rutah according to them - is one sixth of an Italian Isar.

(a) Rav Yosef tried to prove his original contention from a Beraisa, which states that there are more than two thousand P'rutos in two Sela'im - with regard to someone who has sinned and is obligated to bring an Asham, which costs a minimum of two Sela'im (to teach us the price of a sin - even when it is be'Shogeg).

(b) He proves his point from there - because if there are more than two thousand P'rutos in two Sela'im, then a P'rutah will be equivalent to approximately a tenth of an Italian Isar.

(c) That old man refuted Rav Yosef's proof by amending the Beraisa - from 'Yeser me'Alpayim' to 'Karov le'Alpayim'.

(d) Despite the fact that really, there are only 1536 P'rutos in two Sela'im - the Tana referred to it as close to two thousand, since the figure exceeded the half-way mark between one and two thousand.

5)

(a) Abaye asked Rav Dimi whether he and Ravin simply followed the to opinions in the Beraisa. The value of a P'rutah according to ...

1. ... the Tana Kama of the Beraisa is - an eighth of an Italian Isar.
2. ... Raban Shimon ben Gamliel is - a sixth of an Italian Isar.

(b) Rav Dimi replied that both he and Ravin followed the opinion of the Tana Kama (and in fact, they did not argue). The basis of their two opinions (whether there are eight P'rutos in an Italian Isar or six) - depends purely upon the current value of the Isar. *He* is speaking when there are twenty-four Isrin to the Dinar (8x24-192), and Ravin, when there are thirty-two Isrin to the Dinar (6x32=192).

(c) Rav Dimi connects his and Ravin's opinions to that of the Tana Kama, rather than that of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - because it tallies with our S'tam Mishnah.

(a) Shmuel said that if a man betroths a woman with a date, she is Mekudeshes (even if a Kur of dates costs a Dinar - and there are thousands of dates in a Kur]) - because we suspect that perhaps in Madai (or anywhere else in the world) the date is worth a P'rutah.

(b) Shmuel reconciles this with Beis Hillel, who requires the object of Kidushin to be worth a P'rutah - by establishing Beis Hillel when she is Vaday Mekudeshes, whereas he is referring to Safek (who will require a Get before she is permitted to marry anybody else.

(c) In the case where a man betrothed a woman with a wad of cloths, Rav Shimi bar Chiya needed to have the cloths evaluated - to ensure that she was Vaday Mekudeshes (because Safek Mekudeshes she was either way).

(a) In another episode, Rav Chisda was evaluating a black marble stone with which a man had betrothed a woman. He did not consider Shmuel's opinion (that the woman was Safek Mekudeshes anyway) - because he did not agree with him. According to him, we only contend with the place where the Kidushin occurred.

(b) When the man's mother claimed that the stone was definitely worth a P'rutah on the day that he had betrothed the woman with it, Rav Chisda replied - that in the event that the stone was not currently worth a P'rutah, she did not have the authority to forbid the woman on the second man.

(c) We know that Rav Chisda disagreed with Shmuel, and that he was not examining the stone in order to ascertain whether the woman was Vaday Mekudeshes or Safek - because it so happened that the second man to betroth her was the first man's brother. Now if Rav Chisda concurred with Shmuel, she would have been Safek Mekudeshes in any case, in which case she would have required a Get from the first man, and Rav Chisda would not have been to intimate to the mother that the woman was permitted to her second son.

8)

(a) Rav Chisda compared the current case to that of Yehudis, wife of Rebbi Chiya, who was having exceptionally strong birth-pains - because she was about to give birth to twins.

(b)

1. ... Yehudah and Chizkiyah were - Rebbi Chiya's twin sons.
2. ... Pazi and Tavi were - his twin daughters.

(c) Rebbi Chiya's wife claimed that her mother told her - that her father had already accepted Kidushin on her behalf (and that consequently, she was forbidden to Rebbi Chiya). She mentioned this - in the hope of being declared forbidden to Rebbi Chiya (in order to avoid having to be intimate with him again and becoming pregnant).

(d) Rebbi Chiya replied - that she did not have the authority to forbid herself on her husband.

(a) The Rabbanan maintained that the woman's second son, whom Rav Chisda had permitted to marry the woman, was forbidden to him - on the grounds that there were witnesses in Idis who had been there when the first Kidushin took place, and who knew that the stone was worth a P'rutah at the time.

(b) In reply, Rav Chisda cited Rebbi Chanina, in whose Beis-Din the daughters of Shmuel admitted - that they had been captured, but who denied having been raped. He believed them - on the grounds that there were no witnesses (at least, not currently in Beis-Din) that they had indeed been captured, in which case we apply the principle 'ha'Peh she'Asar, Hu ha'Peh she'Hitir').

(c) When Rebbi Chanina was informed that there *were* witnesses who could be called to testify that they had been captured, he retorted that it was not possible to declare the daughters of Shmuel forbidden on the basis of witnesses who were in the north (and not in Beis-Din).

(a) Abaye and Rava disagreed with Rav Chisda - on the grounds that one cannot learn the Din of an Eishes Ish (which is a Safek d'Oraysa) to that of a captive (i.e. the decree that a female captive was automatically raped) which is no more than a Chumra de'Rabbanan).

(b) The Rabbanan kept away from the remaining members of that family, who lived in Sura (not because they held like Shmuel, but - because they held like Abaye and Rava.

(c) When someone publicly betrothed a woman with a twig of myrtle, Rav Yosef ruled that he should ...

1. ... receive Malkos - for betrothing in public (in contravention of Rav's decree).
2. ... and give the woman a Get - because he held like Shmuel ('Shema Shaveh P'rutah be'Madai').

(d) Rav would administer Makas Mardus for three breaches of moral conduct connected with Kidushin: for betrothing with Bi'ah - for betrothing in the public domain and for betrothing directly, without a Shiduch.

(a) He would also administer Makas Mardus to someone who ...

1. ... negated a Get that he had sent his wife through a Sh'li'ach, or who secretly informed two witnesses that the Get he was giving his wife was not valid because he had been forced to write it - because in both cases, his wife, not knowing that the Get had been nullified, would use what she believed to be a Kasher Get to remarry (when in fact, she was still married to her first husband) See also Tosfos Yevamos 32a. DH 'de'Masar'.
2. ... who treated a Sh'li'ach Beis-Din (sent by Beis-Din to invite him to a Din Torah) with contempt, or who retained a Shamta de'Rabbanan (a form of Niduy) - meaning that he was not concerned about the Shamta placed on him by the Beis-Din, as indicated by his failure to go to Beis-Din within thirty days and ask them to pardon him and rescind the Shamta.
3. ... slept over in the house of his father-in-law to be. Rav Sheishes gave Malkos even to someone who just passed in front of her house - because there had been rumors that he was having an affair with her.

(b) According to the Neherda'i, Rav only administered Makas Mardus to someone who betrothed a woman with Bi'ah and without a Shiduch. Others quote them as saying - that Rav only administered Makas Mardus to someone who betrothed a woman without a Shiduch (even if he betrothed her with Kidushei Kesef or Sh'tar).

(a) When the man who betrothed a woman with a mat made of myrtle branches was informed that it was not worth a P'rutah, he replied - that she should then be betrothed with the four Zuz that was hidden inside it.

(b) When the woman reacted to his words with silence, Rava commented - that silence after having received the money is not tantamount to acceptance (as it is before receiving it).

(c) Rava based his ruling on a Beraisa, where the Tana states that, in the case of 'Kinsi Sela Zeh be'Pikadon ve'Chazar ve'Amar Lah Hiskadshi Li Bo, be'Sha'as Matan Ma'os, Mekudeshes'. 'be'Sha'as Matan Ma'os' means - before having received the money.

(d) In the case of 'le'Achar Matan Ma'os' by ...

1. ... 'Ratz'sah', the Tana rules - 'Mekudeshes'.
2. ... 'Lo Ratz'sah' - 'Einah Mekudeshes'.

(a) In the previous case, when the Tana says 'Lo Ratz'sah', he cannot possibly mean that the woman refuses - because, if he did, then he would not have ruled that she was Mekudeshes in the Reisha (in the case of 'be'Sha'as Matan Ma'os').

(b) Consequently, it must mean - that the woman was silent, a clear proof for Rava's ruling that silence after having accepted the money, is construed as indifference, but not as consent.