ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kidushin 51
KIDUSHIN 51-55 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(a) The case of 'ha'Marbeh ba'Ma'asros' is - is when the owner counts four
measures, declaring the entire fifth one Ma'aser (instead of only half of
(b) He may eat the remainder of the produce ('Peirosav Mesukanim').
(c) When the Mishnah in D'mai says 'u'Ma'asrosav Mekulkalin' - it means that
the Ma'aser that he separated is a mixture of Ma'aser and Chulin, and will
remain forbidden until he rectifies it.
(d) We refute the Kashya from here on Rabah, who holds 'Kol she'Eino ba'Zeh
Achar Zeh, Af be'Bas Achas Eino' (in which case none of the crop should have
become Ma'aser) - by pointing out that Ma'aser is different, inasmuch as it
is possible to declare half of each kernel Ma'aser. Consequently, when he
declared the extra tenth Ma'aser, only half of each kernel actually became
(a) Rabah says (re. Ma'aser Beheimah) that if the tenth and the eleventh
animals entered the pen simultaneously - they are both Ma'aser?
(b) Considering that one cannot declare half an animal Ma'aser Beheimah,
Rabah will reconcile this with his own principle by pointing out that
Ma'aser Beheimah is different - inasmuch as Ma'aser takes effect even if it
declared erroneously (as we shall see shortly), in which case, it can also
take effect on two animals simultaneously.
(c) The Mishnah there says that if the owner declared the ninth animal to be
the tenth, the tenth, the ninth, and the eleventh, the tenth - all three are
(d) One of the animals is Ma'aser, and the other two Shelamim. Number eleven
is brought directly as Shelamim, whereas the other two animals graze in a
field until they become blemished. Then he brings a Chulin animal on to
which he transfers the Kedushah of the Shelamim (whichever one it is), and
eats both animals as Ma'aser Beheimah.
(a) In the previous case, had he declared the eleventh animal to be the
tenth after declaring the tenth to be the tenth - the animal would have
(b) According to Chizkiyah, if someone Shechts his Korban Todah on eighty
Chalos (instead of forty), forty of them are Kadosh. According to Rebbi
Yochanan - none of them are Kadosh.
(c) Based on the fact that the Kedushah does not take effect on Chalos Todah
which were declared Hekdesh erroneously, nor will it take effect on a second
set of forty Chalos, the problem that this creates for Rabah is - how can he
rule against Chizkiyah who was the Rebbe of Rebbi Yochanan?
(a) We answer this Kashya by referring to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's
interpretation of the Machlokes (between Chizkiyah and Rebbi Yochanan).
According to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, if the owner said ...
1. ... 'Yikadshu Arba'im mi'Toch Shemonim' - everyone agrees that forty of
the eighty loaves are Kadosh (since there is no reason why they should not
(b) And they argue in a case - when he brought eighty loaves without
specifying what the extra forty were for.
2. ... 'Lo Yikadshu Arba'im Ela-im-Kein Yikadshu Shemonim' - none of them
become Kadosh (due to Rabah's principle).
(c) Chizkiya holds that forty loaves are Kadosh - because he only brought
the extra forty in case something happens to the first set.
(d) Whereas according to Rebbi Yochanan - he meant to bring a big Korban
consisting of eighty loaves, in which case none of them are Kadosh, because
of Rabah's principle.
(a) Rava established our Mishnah ('ha'Mekadesh Ishah u'Bitah ... ') like
Rabah ('Kol she'Eino ba'Zeh Achar Zeh ... '). Rava is about to teach the
principle - 'Kidushin she'Ein Mesurin le'Bi'ah, Lo Havu Kidushin' (that
could serve equally well as the source of our Mishnah, since neither of the
sisters would be permitted to the Mekadesh [in case she was Achos Ishto).
(b) And he only quoted Rabah's principle as the source, in order to counter
Rami bar Chama, who tried to establish the Pasuk "Ishah el Achosah ... " by
Bas Achas' (to demonstrate that this was not possible).
(c) According to Rava, 'Kidushin she'Ein Mesurin le'Bi'ah, Lo Havu
Kidushin' - Abaye says ' ... Havu Kidushin'.
(d) Rava cites as his source, bar Ahina - who learns from "Ki Yikach Ish
Ishah u'Ba'alah" - that 'Kidushin must be fit to result in Bi'ah, otherwise
the Kidushin is not valid.
(a) We can infer from our Mishnah 'ha'Mekadesh Ishah u'Vitah ... Einan
Mekudashos' - that had he said that he is only Mekadesh one of the two, then
the Kidushin would be valid (a Kashya on Rava who says that Kidushin she'Ein
Mesurin le'Bi'ah Lo Havu Kidushin'.
(b) Rava counters from the Seifa, which seems to support his opinion. In the
case of the five women, we can imply from the conclusion 'Ein Achyos
Mekudashos' - 'Ha Nochriyos, Mekudashos'.
(c) The Tana cannot be speaking when the Mekadesh said (with re. to the five
women) 'Kulchem' - because that would be 'K'ni At va'Chomor', which does not
(d) The case of 'K'ni At va'Chamor' is the case of - someone who gives gifts
simultaneously both to a child who is born and to one who is still a fetus.
(a) If the Mekadesh did not say to the women 'Kulchem' - he must have said
(b) This is a support for Rava - because the Mishnah concludes 'Ein Achyos
Mekudashos', a proof that 'Kidushin she'Ein Mesurin le'Bi'ah, Lo Havu
1. Abaye then adds to the Seifa - 've'Im Amar 'ha'Re'uyah le'Bi'ah Tiskadesh
Li ... ', explaining why neither sister is betrothed, even though he was
Mekadesh only one of them.
2. Rava explains 'Ishah u'Bitah O Ishah va'Achosah ke'Achas' in the Reisha -
to mean 'Achas me'Ishah u'Bitah, Achas me'Ishah va'Achosah'.
(a) Rava establishes the Mishnah in 'ha'Omer' 'ha'Mekadesh es Bito S'tam,
Ein ha'Bogros bi'Ch'lal' implying that the Ketanos are all included (even
though it cannot lead to Bi'ah) - when in fact, there is only one Bogeres
and one Ketanah (though it would make no difference even if there were more
(b) The Tana refers to 'Bogros' (in the plural) - because he is referring to
fathers and daughters in general.
(c) The problem with this explanation is - that there does not then appear
to be any Chidush.
(d) We answer initially that the Tana speaks when the Bogeres appointed her
father a Sheli'ach, and that the Chidush is that a man gives precedence to
his small daughter, because of the financial gains involved. We conclude
however, that, even assuming that the Bogeres grants her father permission
to keep the Kidushin money for himself - a father would naturally tend to
fulfill the Mitzvah of marrying of his small daughter, before performing a
favor on behalf of an older daughter.
(a) Rebbi Meir in the Mishnah in ha'Omer say that a man who has a number of
daughters from two wives, and who declares that he betrothed his big
daughter - might mean any of his daughters, apart from his very youngest
(seeing as each one is bigger than those who are younger than her).
(b) Rava reconciles his opinion (re. 'Kidushin she'Ein Mesurin le'Bi'ah')
with Rebbi Meir - by establishing the Mishnah when at the time of the
Kidushin, the father had specified which daughter he meant (in which case it
was a case of 'Kidushin ha'Mesurin le'Bi'ah'), only he later forgot which
one he had specified.
(c) He proves his explanation from the Lashon 've'Eini Yode'a ... ', which,
unlike 've'Eino Yadu'a, implies that he knew before but has currently
(d) Rebbi Meir's Chidush is - to preclude Rebbi Yossi, in whose opinion we
take for granted that he meant the very oldest, because a person tends to be
specific, in order to avoid the sort of doubts that Rebbi Meir has to
(a) The Mishnah in Yevamos says 'Mi she'Kidesh Achas mi'Sh'tei Achyos
ve'Eini Yode'a Eizoh Kidesh - Nosen Get la'Zeh ve'Get la'Zeh'.
(b) We have the same problem with Rava from this Mishnah, we give the same
answer ('ke'she'Hukru ... ') and we even bring the same proof (from the
Lashon 've'Eini Yode'a'). The Tana's Chidush lies in the Seifa. He say in
the Seifa that if the Mekadesh dies leaving ...
1. ... one brother - that brother must perform Chalitzah with each sister.
(c) The Seifa comes to teach us - that the second brother may perform Yibum
only after the first one has performed Chalitzah (to remove the Isur of
Achos Zekukaso re. his brother), and not vice-versa.
2. ... two brothers - then one of them performs Chalitzah with one of the
sisters, following which the other brother may perform Yibum with the second
(d) Even if they both perform Yibum however - they are not obligated to
divorce their wives (since, due to the fact that each brother married one of
the sisters, the Isur of Achos Yevimto no longer exists, and neither of them
is subject to any Isur).
(a) In the same Mishnah in Yevamos, the Tana discusses 'Shenayim she'Kidshu
Sh'tei Achyos, Zeh Eino Yode'a Eizoh Kidesh, ve'Zeh Eino Yode'a Eizoh
Kidesh' - concluding 'Zeh Nosen Sh'nei Gitin, ve'Zeh Nosen Sh'nei Gitin'.
(b) The Tana says in the Seifa that if both men die, assuming that ...
1. ... each man has one brother - Zeh Choletz li'Sh'teihen, ve'Zeh Choletz
(c) The Tana's Chidush, according to Rava is - that even after his brother
has performed Chalitzah, the second brother is permitted to perform Yibum,
only after the other Yavam has performed Chalitzah, because otherwise, he
may transgress the Isur of Yevamah la'Shuk (whereas in the Reisha, the Tana
was concerned with the Isur of Achos Zekukaso).
2. ... one of them had one brother, and the other one, two - 'ha'Echad
Choletz li'Sh'teihen, ve'ha'Shenayim, Echad Choletz ve'Echad Meyabem'.