POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Kidushin 52
KIDUSHIN 51-55 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
1) KIDUSHIN WITH STOLEN MONEY
(a) (Mishnah): There was a case of 5 women...
(b) (Rav): We learn 4 laws from this case, but 1 of these is
1. One who is Mekadesh with fruit of Shemitah - she is
(c) R. Yochanan: Did Rav really say this?!
2. One who is Mekadesh with stolen property - even if
it is her property, she is not Mekudeshes;
i. We learn this from the fact that the Mishnah
had to say that the fruits were of Shemitah
(and therefore Hefker), even though the women
owned the field - had it not been Shemitah,
they would not be Mekudashos.
3. Rachel can be an agent to receive Kidushin for Leah,
even if through this they become co-wives;
4. The Mishnah also teaches the law of Kidushin that
forbids the husband to have relations with her.
5. Question: Why didn't Rav consider this something we
clearly learn from the Mishnah?
6. Answer: He was unsure if we explain as Abaye or as
1. Question: But R. Yochanan himself taught, if Reuven
stole something from Shimon, and Shimon has not
despaired of getting it back, neither of them can
make it Hekdesh.
(d) Question (Beraisa): A man was Mekadesh a woman with
robbed, extorted or stolen property, or he grabbed money
from her hand and was Mekadesh her - she is Mekudeshes.
i. Reuven cannot, because it is not his; Shimon
cannot, because he has no control over it.
2. Answer: R. Yochanan was surprised that Rav agreed
ii. (Likewise, Reuven cannot Mekadesh with it,
because it is not his.)
(e) Answer: The case is he was Mekadesh her with property he
stole from her.
(f) Question: But the end of the Beraisa says, he grabbed
money from her hand - implying, the beginning of the
Beraisa speaks of property stolen from others!
(g) Answer: The end of the Beraisa explains the beginning.
1. If he was Mekadesh her with robbed, extorted or
stolen property - for example, he grabbed money from
her hand and was Mekadesh her...
(h) Question: But our Mishnah speaks of property stolen from
the women, and Rav said that they would not be Mekudashos
if it was not Shemitah!
2) MONEY TAKEN WITHOUT ASKING
(i) Answer: Rav speaks when there was no prior discussion
that he would Mekadesh her; the Beraisa is when they had
already discussed this.
(j) A woman was washing her feet. Reuven came and grabbed
money from Shimon. He threw it to her and said 'you are
Mekudeshes to me with this'.
1. (Rava): No one is concerned for R. Shimon's opinion,
that a person that is openly robbed immediately
despairs of getting it back (therefore, she is not
(a) A sharecropper took a handful of onions and was Mekadesh
3) KIDUSHIN WITH KODSHIM
1. (Rava): The landowner did not agree that you may
take these (therefore, she is not Mekudeshes).
(b) A beer brewer was Mekadesh a woman with the dregs of
beer. The owner found out and said 'Why didn't you give
her good beer?'
2. This only applies to a handful - but a bundle, the
landowner surely agrees (for he will likewise take a
bundle - they are partners in the produce).
(c) (Rava): The concept of 'Why didn't you take better ones?'
was only said by Terumah.
1. (Beraisa): Sometimes, one can take Terumah without
being appointed by the owner: Reuven entered
Shimon's field, gathered fruit, and took Terumah
without asking Shimon. If Shimon suspects that
Reuven wanted to steal, the Terumah is invalid; if
not, it is valid.
(d) But in the case of the brewer - the owner only said 'Why
didn't you take better ones?' because he was embarrassed
to say that he does not consent!
2. Question: How do we know if he suspects him of
3. Answer: If when Shimon sees him he asks 'Why didn't
you take better ones?' - if there really are better
fruit, he does not suspect him of theft; if not, he
i. If the owners added on more, in either case the
Terumah is valid.
(a) (Mishnah): A man was Mekadesh with the share of Kodshim
he received, whether Kodshei Kodashim or Kodshim Kalim -
the Kidushin is invalid.
(b) R. Meir says, if a man was Mekadesh with Ma'aser Sheni -
whether or not he knew it was Ma'aser Sheni, the Kidushin
1. R. Yehudah says, if he knew it was Ma'aser Sheni,
the Kidushin is valid.
(c) R. Meir says, if a man was Mekadesh with Hekdesh - if he
knew it was Hekdesh, the Kidushin is valid; if not, not;
1. R. Yehudah says, if he knew it was Hekdesh, the
Kidushin is invalid; if not, it is valid.
(d) (Gemara) Suggestion: The Mishnah is not as R. Yosi
1. (Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Galili): "(A soul) that will
transgress (use Hekdesh) in Hash-m (and deny his
countryman)" - this includes Kodshim Kalim, which
belong to the owner (and also pertain to Hash-m).
(e) Rejection: The Mishnah can be as R. Yosi ha'Galili.
1. R. Yosi ha'Galili only said they belong to the owner
when they are alive, not after they are slaughtered.
(f) Support (Mishnah): A man was Mekadesh with the share of
Kodshim he received (i.e. after it was slaughtered),
whether Kodshei Kodashim or Kodshim Kalim - the Kidushin
2. Question: Why not?
3. Answer: They are considered Hash-m's; the owners are
allowed to eat from Hash-m's table.
(g) (Beraisa - Sumchus): A man was Mekadesh with the share of
Kodshim he received, whether Kodshei Kodashim or Kodshim
Kalim - the Kidushin is invalid.
1. Objection (R. Yehudah): Why would a woman be in the
Mikdash to receive Kidushin?!
2. R. Yosi: This law needs to be taught - perhaps she
made an agent to receive Kidushin! Also - if she
happened to enter, we must know the law!