ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kidushin 27
KIDUSHIN 24-30 (9-15 Sivan) - This week's study material has been dedicated
by Mrs. Rita Grunberger of Queens, N.Y., in loving memory of her husband,
Reb Yitzchok Yakov ben Eliyahu Grunberger. Irving Grunberger helped many
people quietly in an unassuming manner and is dearly missed by all who knew
him. His Yahrzeit is 10 Sivan.
(a) Rava bar Yitzchak Amar Rav describes 'two Sh'taros'. If someone asked
two people to make a Kinyan on his field on behalf of a friend and to write
him a Sh'tar, it is obvious that once the Kinyan has been made, the seller
may no longer retract from the sale. However - he is permitted to retract
from writing the Sh'tar.
(b) If he said 'al-M'nas she'Tichtevu Lo es ha'Sh'tar' - then as long as he
has not handed the purchaser the Sh'tar, he may retract from the
(a) We learned in a Mishnah in Bava Basra - that the seller is permitted to
write a Sh'tar on behalf of the buyer prior to the sale, without first
(b) The Sh'tar is not Pasul because it is predated - either because they
made a Kinyan that effects the transaction immediately, or like Abaye, who
says that the transaction takes place from the date on the Sh'tar
(retroactively), assuming that the witnesses signed on that day.
(a) Rav Chiya bar Avin Amar Rav Huna now adds a third case of 'Sh'tar' to
the previous two. If the seller wrote such a Sh'tar, following which the
purchaser acquired the field with a Kinyan Chazakah - he aquires the Sh'tar
(b) He added - 'wherever the 'Sh'tar happens to be', implying that
Metaltelin do not require Tziburin.
(c) We try to refute this by differentiating between a Sh'tar - which is
like the reigns of the field (an intrinsic part of it) and other
Metaltelin - which are not, and which might therefore need to be Tziburin on
the field in order to be acquired.
(d) We conclude however, that there is no such distinction, which we know -
from a Beraisa learned in this regard, which, after teaching the Din of Rav
Chiya bar Avin Amar Rav Huna regarding Sh'tar, adds that this is what our
meant when it taught the Din of Metaltelin Agav Karka.
(a) We attempt to resolve the Sh'eilah whether one needs to specify 'Agav or
not' from the two cases on the previous Amud of the men who wanted to give
gifts - from the fact that in both, the Kinyan was effective, even though
the need to specify 'Agav' ('Agaban Me'ah Tzon ... ') is not mentioned in
(b) In fact, there is no proof from there - because the need to specify 'Kni
([or Z'chei] be'Tefach al Tefach li'Peloni ... ') is not mentioned there
either, even though it is obvious that it must be said. Clearly then, they
took it for granted, in which case, we can say the same abut 'Agav'.
(c) The final ruling is - that Kinyan Agav ...
1. ... does not require Tziburin.
2. ... but does require 'K'ni' ...
3. ... and 'Agav'.
(a) We then ask whether one will acquire Metaltelin that he recieved as a
gift together with Karka that he is purchasing by means of a Kinyan Agav. We
resolve this She'eilah from the case of Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Yehoshua
cited above - where Rebbi Yehoshua received the Ma'aser Rishon as a gift,
even though he had hired the Karka.
(b) We cannot however, resolve the She'eilah whether it is possible to
acquire the Karka for oneself and the Metalelin for somebody else from the
same episode, where Rebbi Akiva rented the land for himself but acquired the
Ma'aser Ani on behalf of the poor - either because Raban Gamliel rented
Rebbi Akiva the land together with the Ma'aser Ani, all on behalf of the
poor; or - because, in his capacity as a Gabai Tzedakah, Rebbi Akiva
automatically acquired everything for them.
(c) Rava says that, if the purchaser who made a Kinyan Agav, had only paid
for some of the Metaltelin - he only acquires those Metaltelin for which he
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa cited in support of Rava, discusses the
adantages of the various Kinyanim over one another. The advantage of ...
1. ... Kesef over Sh'tar is - that one can use it to redeem Hekdesh and
(b) And the advantage of ...
2. ... Sh'tar have over Kesef - is that it releases a married woman from her
1. ... Kesef and Sh'tar over Chazakah is - that they acquire an Eved Ivri.
(c) The Tana adds to this last case - that the purchaser acquires only as
many fields as he paid for, but not more, bearing out Rava's ruling.
2. ... Chazakah over Kesef and Sh'tar is - that, if someone acquires ten
fields in ten different lands, a Kinyan on one of them will acquire them
(d) The last case also bears out a statement of Shmuel, who said - that if
someone sold ten fields in ten different lands, then a Kinyan on one of them
will acquire all of them.
(a) We just cited Shmuel, who says that a Kinyan on a field in one country
can acquire ten fields in ten different countries. Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ika
tries to prove this from someone who hands his friend ten animals attached
to one rein, who will certainly acquire all ten - provided he said 'K'ni'.
(b) Shmuel himself repudiates this proof - by pointing out that in the case
of the fields, he is not holding them on his hand, as he is by the rein.
(c) According to others, Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ika tried to refute Shmuel's
ruling from the case of the ten animals attached to one rein, where he does
not acquire all the animals - because he said 'Acquire this one!'
(d) Shmuel rejects Rav Acha's Kashya, drawing a distinction between the
animals - which are independent bodies, and the fields, which are all part
of the same block of fields.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that Metaltelin can oligate a Shevu'ah on
Karka. Ula give the source for 'Gilgul Shevu'ah' as - the Pasuk in Naso (in
connection with Sotah) "Amen Amen".
(b) We learned in the Mishnah in Sotah 'Amen al ha'Alah, Amen al
ha'Shevu'ah'. The ...
1. ... Alah is - the curse (her thighs falling ... [the punishment that will
befall her should she be guilty]).
(c) We learn from the same 'Amen me'Ish Zeh Amen me'Ish Acher' (see Tosfos
DH 'Amen'). The other "Amen" comes to teach us - Arusah and Shomeres Yavam
(as we will now explain).
2. ... Shevu'ah is - the oath that the Kohen is making her swear, in support
of her claim that she is innocent.
(d) There is no real difference between a Nesu'ah and a Kenusah - only the
former refers to the stage after Eirusin, and the latter, to the stage after
(a) 'Arusah' cannot refer to an independent case where the husband warned
1. ... and made her drink when she was still an Arusah - because we learned
in a Mishnah in Yevamos that an Arusah and a Shomeres Yavam neither drink
nor receive a Kesuvah.
(b) Ula proves from here - Gilgul Shevu'ah, since that is now the only
possible explanation in the Beraisa 'Amen she'Lo Satisi Arusah u'Nesu'ah'.
2. ... warned her when she was an Arusah, and she secluded with the man
whilst she was an Arusah, but he makes her drink after they are married -
because seeing as her husband was guilty of marrying her (and the Torah
writes "ve'Nikah ha'Ish me'Avon"), the water will not take effect on her.
3. ... warned her when she was an Arusah, married her without consummating
the marriage, when she secluded and he made her drink - because we require
the Bi'ah of the husband to precede that of the adulterer (as the Sugya in
(c) There is one possible way of explaining 'Arusah' without Gilgul
Shevu'ah, but Ula does not agree with it - and that is when he warned her
when she was an Arusah, married her without consummating the marriage (only
he had made Bi'ah with her when she was an Arusah), and she secluded and he
makes her drink after they are married.
(d) Seeing as we cannot learn Mamon from Isur with a Binyan Av, we learn
Gilgul Shevu'ah by Mamon (such as Mamon and Karka in our Mishnah) - from a
'Kal va'Chomer'. If Gilgul Shevu'ah works by Isur (where one witness is
ineffective), then by Mamon (where one witness obligates a Shevu'ah) Gilgul
Shevu'ah should certainly work.