Previous daf

1)

(a) We just established that neither Rebbi Meir ('Hiskadshi Li bi'Sh'tar Chov ... Mekudeshes') nor the Rabbanan ('Einah Mekudeshes') hold like Rebbi (Osiyos Niknos bi'Mesirah), that they both hold like Rav Papa (Tzarich Lemichtav K'ni Lach Hu ve'Chol Shibudei'), and that they argue over Shmuel's Din ('ha'Mocher Sh'ar Chov la'Chaveiro, ve'Chazar u'Machlo, Machul'). It is possible for Rebbi Meir to hold like Shmuel, and still to rule 'Mekudeshes' - on the basis that the woman doubts that the man who betroths her is unlikely to waive the debt and leave her in the lurch.

(b) Their Machlokes by Milveh al Peh concerns Rav Huna Amar Rav, who says - that if Reuven instructs Shimon to give the Manah that he has of his to Levi, in the presence of Levi, then Levi acquires it immediately (even though no other Kinyan took place).

(c) The Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim is - whether 'Ma'amad Sheloshtan' extends to Milveh (Rebbi Meir) or whether it is confined to Pikadon (the Rabbanan).

(a) 'Hiskadshi Li bi'Shtar, Rebbi Meir Omer Einah Mekudeshes, ve'Rebbi Elazar Omer Mekudeshes'. The Chachamim say 'Mekudeshes' but only if the paper is worth a Perutah.

(b) According to ...

1. ... Rebbi Meir, she is not Mekudeshes - even if the paper is worth a Perutah (because she is only concerned with the contents of the Sh'tar, not with the Sh'tar itself).
2. ... Rebbi Elazar, she is Mekudeshes - even if the paper is not worth a Perutah, for reasons that we will now discuss.

(c) The Tana of the Beraisa could not be speaking about a Sh'tar Chov of others, because that would create a problem with Rebbi Meir - whom we just saw holds that, in such a case, she *is* Mekudeshes.

(d) So we initially try to establish the Beraisa - by the Sh'tar Chov that he has on her, proving that Rav's Din ('ha'Mekadesh be'Milveh Einah Mekudeshes') is actually a Machlokes Tana'im.

(a) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak therefore establishes the Beraisa by a Sh'tar Kidushin without witnesses, and the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Elazar, based on an old Machlokes of theirs is - whether 'Eidei Chasimah Karsi' (it is the witnesses who sign the document who validate it [Rebbi Meir]), or 'Eidei Mesirah Karsi' (it is the witnesses who see it being handed over that count [Rebbi Elazar]).

(b) 'Karsi' means - who validate the Get *Kerisus*' (because their basic Machlokes is by a Get).

(c) The Chachamim are in doubt whether to follow the opinion of Rebbi Meir or that of Rebbi Elazar, so they validate the Kidushin provided the paper is worth a Perutah (because the woman's mind is on the paper too);

(d) If the paper is not worth a Perutah however, according to them - it will be a Safek Kidushin.

(a) Alternatively, they argue over Resh Lakish's She'eilah re. a Sh'tar Kidushin that was written she'Lo Lishmah. It will be ...

1. ... Pasul - if we compare 'Havayah to Yetzi'ah' (based on the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "ve'Yatz'ah ... ve'Haysah").
2. ... Kasher - if we compare Kidushei Sh'tar to Kidushei Kesef (which does not require Lishmah).

(b) Resh Lakish himself resolved the She'eilah - "ve'Yatz'ah ve'Haysah" 'Makish Havayah li'Yetzi'ah' (in which case a Sh'tar Kidushin that is written she'Lo Lishmah is Pasul).

(c) Alternatively, they both hold like Resh Lakish, and their Machlokes evolves around - a Sh'tar that was written Lishmah but she'Lo Mida'atah (without the woman's knowledge), which Rebbi Meir invalidates and Rebbi Elazar declares valid.

(d) This too, is a Machlokes Amora'im. The reason ...

1. ... of Rava and Ravina who validate such a Sh'tar Kidushin is - because they learn it from Get (via "ve'Yatz'ah ve'Haysah"), which does not require the woman's consent in writing it.
2. ... of Rav Papa and Rav Sh'ravya who declare it void - because they too learn it from Get, but from the fact that the writing of the Sh'tar requires the knowledge of the Makneh (the man). Consequently, Kidushin requires the consent of the Makneh (the woman) too.

(a) If a woman asks a man to betroth her with the Shirin, Nezamin ve'Taba'os that he makes her, Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa validates the Kidushin as soon as they are completed.

1. Shirin are - bracelets.
2. Nezamin - nose-rings.
3. Taba'os - rings that are worn on the fingers.

(b) The Chachamim - invalidate the Kidushin until he gives her money.

(c) When the Chachamim say 'Ad she'Yagi'a Mamon le'Yadah', they cannot be referring to the finished product - because if Rebbi Meir, who argues, does not even require that, with what would she be Mekudeshes?

(a) Assuming that they mean other money, we try to establish the Machlokes with re. to 'ha'Mekadesh be'Milveh' (Rebbi Meir holds 'Mekudeshes', and the Rabbanan 'Einah Mekudeshes').

(b) The loan in this case is - the payment that the woman owes the man (based on the assumption that 'Yeshnah li'Sechirus mi'Techilah ve'Ad Sof' ['the hirer is obligated to pay the worker Perutah by Perutah']).

(c) We are trying to prove once again - that Rav's Din is actually a Machlokes Tana'im.

(d) We initially establish both opinions like Rav - by explaining that Rebbi Meir holds 'Einah li'Sechirus Ela li'be'Sof' ('the obligation to pay only falls due when the hirer receives the finished product'), in which case there is no loan involved.

7)

(a) We just established the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim by whether 'Einah li'Sechirus Ela li'be'Sof' or 'Yeshnah li'Sechirus mi'Techilah ve'Ad Sof'. We subsequently suggest that both Tana'im might even hold ...

1. ... the latter possibility, and 'ha'Mekadesh be'Milveh Einah Mekudeshes'. The basis of their Machlokes will then concern - a craftsman who is getting paid not by the day (as we thought until now, but for the job). Rebbi Meir holds that a craftsman acquires the vessel that he is making, in which case it is as if he sells it to the owner; whereas the Chachamim hold that he does not acquire it, and the payment remains a loan (as it is in the case of a day worker).
2. ... that the craftsman does not acquire the vessel that he has made - and they argue in a case where the man added a gem of his own to the product. Rebbi Meir holds Mekudeshes, because he holds 'ha'Mekadesh be'Milveh u'Perutah, Da'atah a'Perutah'; whereas the Chachamim hold 'Da'atah a'Milveh'.

(b) The Tana Kama of another Beraisa differentiates between a man who betroths a woman 'bi'S'char she'Asisi Imach' and 'bi'S'char she'E'eseh Imach'. He says ...

1. ... 'bi'S'char she'Asisi Imach, Einah Mekudeshes - because he holds ha'Mekadesh be'Milveh Einah Mekudeshes.
2. ... 'bi'S'char she'E'eseh Imach, Mekudeshes' - because he holds 'Einah li'Sechirus Ela li'be'Sof'.

(c) Rebbi Nasan says that even in the latter case she is not Mekudeshes - because he holds 'Yeshnah li'Sechirus mi'Techilah ve'Ad Sof'.

(d) After agreeing with the statement of Rebbi Nasan, Rebbi adds 've'Im Hosif Lah Nofach mi'Shelo, Mekudeshes'; Rebbi Nasan holds - 'ha'Mekadesh be'Milveh u'Perutah, Da'atah a'Milveh'.

(a) According to the Tana of our Mishnah, if a man promises to betroth a woman with wine, with a golden Dinar or on condition that he is rich, and it turns out to be honey, silver or that he is poor, or vice-versa - the Kidushin is void.

(b) Rebbi Shimon, with reference to 'be'Dinar Zeh shel Kesef, ve'Nimtza shel Zahav' says - 'Im Hit'ah li'Sh'vach, Mekudeshes'.

(a) If a man says 'Hiskadshi Li be'Kos Zeh', one Beraisa rules 'Bo u'Vameh she'Besocho' - by which he means that both the cup and the contents belong to the woman and combine to make up a Perutah.

(b) A second Tana says 'Bo ve'Lo Bameh she'Besocho', and a third Tana - 'Bameh she'Besocho ve'Lo Bo'.

(c) We reconcile the three Tana'im, by establishing ...

1. ... 'Bo u'Vameh she'Besocho' - by fish-juice (or oil), which remains in the vessel for a long period of time.
2. ... 'Bo ve'Lo Bameh she'Besocho' - by water, which has no real value.
3. ... 'Bameh she'Besocho ve'Lo Bo' - by wine, since people tend to drink the wine and return the vessel.

(a) The Beraisa rules - that if a man paid money for vinegar and it turns out to be wine, the sale is void, because there are times when a person wants vinegar and not wine.

(b) This poses a problem on Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah - because, by the same token, there are times when a person wants silver and not gold (see Tosfos DH 'Ika'), so why does he rule there 'Im Hit'ah li'Sh'vach, Mekudeshes'.

(a) Abaye tries to resolve this problem. He explained to his son that the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Shimon concerns a Sheli'ach, and the basis of their Machlokes concerns a case - when a man asked a Sheli'ach to lend him a silver Dinar and go and use it to betroth a specified woman on his behalf; and they argue whether when he says this to a Sheli'ach, he means specifically a silver Dinar (the Tana Kama) or whether we say 'Mar'eh Makom Hu Lo' (he is only indicating that he doesn't mind if he uses only a silver coin, but he would be happy if he gave her a golden one [Rebbi Shimon]).

(b) The problem with Abaye's explanation from the word ...

1. ... 'Hiskadshi *Li*' is - that, since we are speaking about the Sheli'ach who tricked the man, the Tana should have said 'Hiskadshi *Lo*'.
2. ... '*Hit'ah* li'Sh'vach' is - that the Tana should have said '*Hit'eihu* li'Sh'vach'.

(c) The third Kashya we ask is from 'be'Dinar Zeh shel Kesef ve'Nimtza shel Zahav' - where the word 've'Nimtza' is the problem, seeing as it was a golden Dinar all the time.

(d) Rava resolves the problem together with Rebbi Chiya bar Avin, upon whom he conferred the title 'Ari she'be'Chaburah'.

(a) In fact, Rava's answer agrees in principle with that of Abaye (and he explains the basic Machlokes in the same way) - only he establishes the Machlokes by the Sheli'ach of the woman rather than the Sheli'ach of the man (thereby circumventing the three Kashyos that we asked on Abaye).

(b) Rava then explains the statement 've'Nimtza shel Zahav' to mean - that when the man handed the Sheli'ach the gold coin, it was covered and the Sheli'ach therefore believed it to be silver. But when the woman ultimately uncovered the coin, she discovered that it was gold.