ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kidushin 45
KIDUSHIN 45 - sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor. Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.
(a) We learned in the first Perek that, according to the Tana Kama of the
Beraisa, a father may not sell his daughter to close relatives - because the
option to making Yi'ud must be left open.
(b) He concedes however, to Rebbi Elazar (who permits it), that one may sell
an Almanah to a Kohen Gadol or a Gerushah or Chalutzah to a Kohen Hedyot
(even though he is not permitted to marry her Lechatchilah) - because
Kidushin is effective Bedieved.
(c) The Tana cannot be speaking when it was the father who betrothed the
Gerushah the first time - because then he would not be permitted to sell her
as a Shifchah.
(d) We must therefore conclude that it was the Ketanah who betrothed herself
to her first husband.
(a) This Beraisa creates a problem for Ula (who said 'Afilu Miy'un Einah
Tzerichah') - whereas from the Beraisa we see that a Ketanah can arrange her
own betrothal (since the Tana calles her an Almanah)?
(b) So Rav Amram Amar Rebbi Yitzchak establishes the Beraisa like Rebbi
Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah. The first Kidushin was actually Kidushei Yi'ud, which
according to him, is not the result of the initial money which the father
received for the sale, but the last Perutah's worth of work. That is
initiated by her and not by the father.
(c) This solves the problem - because now the father is no longer selling
her for Shifchus after Ishus (seeing as he did not initiate the first
(a) If, in the case of the Ketanah who accepted her own Kidushin, her
husband died and she fell before the Yavam, Rav Huna Amar Rav rules that she
requires Miy'un for the Ma'amar but not for the Zikah - as well as a Get and
(b) She requires ...
1. ... a Get - in case her father consented to the second Kidushin.
(c) Despite the Get, she also requires Miy'un - to prevent the misconception
that she was fully married to him, and that should he subsequently betroth
her sister, the Kidushin is invalid.
2. ... Chalitzah - in case he consented to the first Kidushin.
3. ... Miy'un - in case he consented to neither.
(d) In order to require Miy'un, we do not really need to say that the father
did not consent to either Kidushin. It would suffice to say that he did not
give his consent to the second Kidushin (in which case Kidushin will take
effect on her sister) - and we only add this casually (La'av Dafka).
(a) In the event that the Yavam did not make Ma'amar - she only requires
(b) She does not require Miy'un a well (to prevent the invalidation of the
possible Kidushin with her sister, as we just explained), because of Resh
Lakish, who extrapolating from a ruling of Rebbi) - stated 'Achos Gerushah
mi'Divrei Torah; Achos Chalutzah mi'Divrei Sofrim' (and what's more,
everyone knows that). Consequently, if he were to betroth her sister, she
would require a Get in any case.
(a) When the two men were sitting underneath a willow-tree drinking wine -
one of them asked the other to betroth his daughter to his own son.
(b) 'Tusi Tzipi' mean - might also mean underneath a mat that was placed
(for shade) on stones or nails projecting from a wall.
(c) Ravina ruled there - that even the opinions that contend with the
possibility that the father consented to his young daughter's betrothal,
would not contend with the possibility that the son consented to his
father's betrothal on his behalf.
(d) He does not suspect that the son ...
1. ... appointed his father a Sheli'ach - because, as Ravina explains, a son
would not have the gall to appoint a father a Sheli'ach.
2. ... talked his father into volunteering to act as his Sheli'ach -
because, as Rabah bar Shimi explained, Ravina does not really even hold like
Rav and Shmuel (who contend with the possibility that the father consented
to his young daughter's betrothal), and certainly not to the possibility
that the son consented to his father's (and he only mentioned the
possibility casually, without really meaning it).
(a) When a man betrothed a girl in the street with a bunch of vegetables,
without her father's consent, Ravina declare the Kidushin invalid, even
according to Rav and Shmuel - because even they only refer to a respectable
Kidushin, not one that took place in the street, and not one that entailed
no more than a bunch of vegetables.
(b) What happened ...
1. ... in the case where a man wanted his daughter for his relative, and his
wife wanted her for her relative is - that she prevailed.
(c) In this case Abaye concludes, Rav and Shmuel will agree that we do not
contend with the father's consent - because of the Pasuk in Tzefanyah
"She'eiris Yisrael Lo Ya'asu Avlah ve'Lo Yedabru Chazav".
2. ... whilst they were celebrating - is that his relative met their
daughter on the roof and betrothed her.
(d) According to Rava, it is - because a man does not squander money on a
banquet unless he is serious. The ramifications of their Machlokes will be
in a case where the father did not arange a banquet.
(a) According to Rav, if a girl accepts Kidushin from a Kohen with her
fathers consent, he travels overseas and the daughter marries, she is
permitted to eat Terumah. Rav Asi - forbids it in case her father returns
and negates the Kidushin.
(b) When precisely such a case came before Rav - he contended with Rav Asi's
opinion, and forbade the girl to eat Terumah.
(c) In any event, says Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak, Rav concedes that, in
the event of her death, her husband does not inherit her - because we place
the money in the Chazakah of her family.
(d) He is lenient with re. to Terumah - seeing as in ha'Torah, she is
permitted to eat Terumah from the time of the betrothal (as we have learned
(a) If her father agreed to the Kidushin and, although he was still present,
his daughter married without his consent, Rav Huna forbids her to eat
Terumah, even according to Rav - because in this case, we construe her
father's silence as anger.
(b) Rav Yirmiyah bar Aba however - permits her to eat even according to Rav
Asi, because he construes the father's silence as consent.
(a) In a similar case, but where the Kidushin too, took place without her
father's consent - Rav Huna and Rav Yirmiyah bar Aba switch their opinions.
Rav Huna permits her to eat Terumah, Rav Yirmiyah bar Aba forbids it.
(b) When Ula refers to Rav Huna's latter opinion as being "like vinegar to
the teeth and smoke to the eyes", he means - that it is toatally illogical,
because if Rav Huna is strict when the Kidushin took place with the father's
consent, then why on earth would he be lenient when it didn't?
(c) Rava however, explains - that there where the daughter went ahead and
betrothed and then married without her father's consent, there is no doubt
that, had her father been angry, he would never have remained silent; if he
did, it can only be because he has given his consent.