Previous daf

1)

(a) Resh Lakish asked whether a man can give his Amah Ivriyah to his son who is a Katan for Yi'ud, seeing as the Torah writes "ve'Im li'V'no Yi'adenah", and a Katan fits into the heading of "B'no". Alternatively, such a Yi'ud might not be valid - seeing as the Torah gives the father the option of either performing Yi'ud himself or of performing it through his son. We might therefore draw a comparison and say 'B'no, Dumyah Dideih; Mah Hu Gadol, Af B'no Gadol'.

(b) Based on the Pasuk "ve'Ish Asher Yin'af es Eishes Ish", the Tana of the Beraisa Darshens from ...

1. ... "ve'Ish" - 'P'rat le'Katan'.
2. ... "es Eishes Ish" - 'P'rat le'Eishes Katan'.

(c) We counter Rebbi Zeira's proof from the latter D'rashah that there is no such thing as 'Ishus' by a Katan - by arguing that to the contrary, seeing as the Pasuk is only precluding the adulterer from *Miysah*, it seems that there is *Ishus* by a Katan. Otherwise, it would be unnecessary to preclude him from Miysah.

(d) Rav Ashi therefore establishes the Beraisa by - someone who comits adultery with the wife of a Yavam Katan above the age of nine from Miysah (since we have already learned that a Yavam of nine years old acquires his Yevamah). We would otherwise have thought that someone who subsequently commits adultery with her will receive the death penalty.

(a) We resolve Resh Lakish's She'eilah with a statement by Rebbi Ayvu Amar Rebbi Yanai, who says - 'Ein Yi'ud Ela be'Gadol, Ein Yi'ud Ela mi'Da'as'.

(b) We initially interpret 'Ein Yi'ud Ela le'Da'as' (which appears to be dredundant) as the reason for 'Ein Yi'ud Ela be'Gadol'. Alternatively - it refers not to the master, but to the girl (to teach us that, even though usually, Kidushin that is arranged through her father does not require her Da'as, Yi'ud does).

(a) The Beraisa quoted by Abaye Brei de'Rebbi Avahu learns from "Asher Lo Ye'adah" in support of the previous (alternative) explanation - that the master must inform the Amah that he is making Yi'ud with her (because the word "Ya'adah" contains the same letters as 'Dei'ah').

(b) In order to explain the Beraisa, Abaye Brei de'Rebbi Avahu establishes it like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, in whose opinion it is not the original money that forms the Yi'ud (in which case it would not require the girl's knowledge), but the last P'rutah's-worth of work.

(c) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak refute this however - on the grounds that the Torah writes "Ya'adah", irrespective of when the Kidushin occurs. It is in fact, a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv' that the girl must be aware of the Yi'ud.

(d) The difference Halachically, whether it is the first money that forms the Kidushin or the last P'rutah's-worth of work is - whether the father is permitted to sell his daughter afterwards, according to Rebbi Akiva (bearing in mind that Yi'ud is considered Kidushin, as we learned on the previous Daf).

(a) We finally quote the source of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who learns in a Beraisa from the Pasuk "Asher Lo Ye'adah ve'Hefdah" - that Yi'ud must be performed before the last P'rutah's-worth of work begins (as long as the possibilty of redeeming the girl still exists).

(b) According to the Rabbanan (who are not quoted here) - as long as the master makes Yi'ud before the termination of the six year period, the Yi'ud is valid, even if less than a P'rutah's-worth of work remains.

(c) The reasoning behind Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah's ruling is - that it is not the original money (which the father received when he sold his daughter) that forms the Kidushin, but the last P'rutah's-worth of work.

(d) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak maintains that it is unnecessary to say this. Rebbi Yossi be'Rebbi Yehudah may well concede that the Kidushin is formed by the original money, yet it is a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv' ("Ye'adah ve'Hefdah') that the Yi'ud must be performed whilst the possibility of redeeming her still exists.

1. ... a man can instruct his daughter to accept her own Kidushin, even if she is a Ketanah - from the fact that, according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, the Yi'ud is effective, despite the fact that she is Mekudeshes only with the last P'rutah's-worth of work, which she 'receives', and not her father.
2. ... a man can betroth a woman with a loan, provided she gave him a Mashkon - from the fact that, according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, the master is Mekadesh the girl with the work that she owes him (a loan), but for which he has rights over her (a Mashkon).

6)

(a) According to the Chachamim of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, the master ...

1. ... may no longer make Yi'ud with the Amah ha'Ivriyah after the six years have terminated.
2. ... may no linger treat her like an Amah Ivriyah once he has made Yi'ud with her.

(b) If a man says to a woman 'Hiskadshi Li me'Achshav le'Achar Sheloshim', and someone else betroths her during those thirty days - she is betrothed to the first man once thirty days elapse (should he so wish).

(c) The Tana of the Beraisa derives this 'Mashal' - from the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who maintain that it is the original money that effects the Yi'ud.

(d) The Tana is teaching us - that even though the master did not say 'me'Achshav' (and we might have applied this to Kidushin and said that the same will apply even if the first man did not say 'me'Achshav'), we take for granted that the master meant to say 'me'Achshav, even though he did not say it. Consequently, in the case of Kidushin, had the first man not said me'Achshav, the Kidushin would only take effect at the end of thirty days.

(a) In a second Beraisa, Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah rules that if someone sells his daughter and then betroths her to somebody else, the father can laugh at the master and she is betrothed to the second man. According to the Chachamim - the master still has the right to make Yi'ud, should he so wish.

(b) The Tana gives a 'Mashal' in support of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah - to a man who betrothed a woman 'le'Achar Sheloshim Yom'. If another man betrothed her, he says, she is betrothed to him.

(c) The Tana is teaching us - that even though the master did not specifically say 'le'Achar Sheloshim Yom' (and we might have learned from there that if he had, she would be betrothed from now, even according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah) and in the case of Kidushin, she will be betrothed to the first man, it is nevertheless considered as if he had said it. And still, she is betrothed to the second man, because the first man did not say 'me'Achshav'.

(a) In a third Beraisa, Rebbi Meir rules that if a man sells his daughter on condition that the master will not make Yi'ud, his condition is valid - the Chachamim apply the principle 'Kol ha'Masneh al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah, Tena'o Batel'. Here too, the master retains the right to make Yi'ud (in spite of the father's condition).

(b) According to Rebbi Meir, if someone betroths a woman on condition that he is exempt from 'She'er K'sus ve'Onah' - she is betrothed, and his condition is void.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah differentiates between food and clothing on the one hand (where his condition is valid) and Bi'ah on the other (where it is not) - because money is subject to Mechilah (one can forego it), whereas Bi'ah is not.

(d) Chizkiyah reconciles the apparent contradiction in Rebbi Meir, by citing the Pasuk "ve'Chi Yimkor Ish es Bito *le'Amah*" - which (is superfluous, and which) teaches us that it is possible to sell one's daughter as an Amah only, without the option of making Yi'ud.

(a) The Chachamim learn from "le'Amah" - that it is possible to sell one's daughter to Pesulin (such as a Mamzer or a Nasin, with whom Kidushin are effective).

(b) We cannot learn this from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from the fact that he can betroth her to Pesulin (Bedi'eved) - because Kidushin has a distinct advantage over Mecher, inasmuch as a man can betroth his daughter who is a Na'arah, even though he can no longer sell her.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer disagrees with the Tana Kama. He learns that a man can sell his daughter to Pesulin from "Im Ra'ah be'Einei Adonehah Asher Lo Ye'adah" - referring to someone who is hated in marriage (i.e. Pesulin).

(b) From "le'Amah", he learns - that he can even sell her to relatives too.

(c) He needs "le'Amah" for this, and cannot learn it from the fact that he can sell her to Pesulin - because there at least, Kidushin will be effective Bedieved, whereas if he sells her to relatives, it will not.

(d) Even though Rebbi Meir learns 'Mochrah li'Pesulin' from the same source as Rebbi Eliezer, he learns from "le'Amah" that the father's condition not to make Yi'ud is valid, declining to learn "Mochrah li'K'rovim', like Rebbi Eliezer - because he follows the opinion of the Rabbanan (earlier in the Sugya), who hold 'Ein Mochrah li'K'rovim'.