REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kidushin 60
(a) What does Abaye extrapolate from Rav, re. a case where three men
betrothed a woman on the same day; the first one 'me'Achshav u'le'Achar
Sheloshim Yom', the second one, 'me'Achshav u'le'Achar Esrim Yom' and the
third one, 'me'Achshav u'le'Achar Asarah Yamim'?
(b) What is the reason for this?
(c) Why does Abaye need to tell us this? Is it not obvious?
(a) Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Rav.
What does he mean when he
says 'Afilu Me'ah Tofsin Bah'?
(b) Why can he not mean that each one is a Safek Kidushin, by way of the
explanation that Abaye just rejected?
(c) How did Rav Mesharshaya B'rei de'Rav Ami explain this to Rav Asi?
(a) The Beraisa states 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Miysah, Get ve'Eino Get'.
does the Tana rule with re. to Yibum, if the Mekadesh then died?
(b) The Tana of this Beraisa supports the opinion of Rav.
How does Shmuel
reconcile his opinion with the Beraisa?
(c) What ought to be the Din according to Ula Amar Rebbi Yochanan? Why
should the Get be invalid?
(d) On what grounds does Abaye refute Rava's suggestion that since both a
Get and death take a woman out of her husband's jurisdiction, her husband's
death will conclude what the Get began?
(a) So how does Abaye explain the Beraisa (which requires Chalitzah and not
Yibum, by 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Miysah') according to Ula Rebbi Yochanan?
(b) Why do we not then require Chalitzah in the case of 'me'Hayom Im Meisi'
on account of 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Miysah'?
(c) If that is so, why are we then not worried in the case of 'me'Hayom
u'e'Achar Miysah' too, that once we require Chalitzah, they may go and
(a) What does the Tana say about a case where a man stipulates 'Harei At
Mekudeshes Li al-M'nas she'Etein Lach ...
(b) If he stipulated 'al-M'nas she'Yesh Li Masayim Zuz', the Tana says that
she is betrothed if he has it.
- ... Masayim Zuz'?
- ... Masayim Zuz mi'Ka'an ve'ad Sheloshim Yom'?
What does he say in a case where the man
stipulated that he will show her two hundred Zuz? In which case will she not
then be betrothed?
(c) According to Rav Huna, the woman is betrothed immediately provided he
gives her the two hundred Zuz, whenever that will be.
What does Rav
(d) What are the ramifications of their Machlokes?
(a) Rav Huna and Rav Yehudah repeat their Machlokes with re. to Gitin.
Answers to questions
can the ramifications of this Machlokes not be in a case where she received
Kidushin from another man before the condition on the Get has been fulfilled
(like we learned by Kidushin)?
(b) Then what are its ramifications?
(c) Seeing as Rav Huna already argues with Rav Yehudah in the case of ...
- ... Kidushin, why does he find it necessary to repeat the Machlokes by Gitin?
- ... Gitin, why does he find it necessary to repeat the Machlokes by Kidushin?
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa cites a case of 'Harei Zeh Gitech al-M'nas
she'Titni Li Masayim Zuz, Af-al-Pi she'Niskara ha'Get O she'Avad'. What
does he rule there ...
(b) In another Beraisa, the Tana Kama rules that, if, in the same case, the
husband then dies before she has fulfilled the condition, she is subject to
the Mitzvah of Yibum.
- ... with re. to the validity of the Get?
- ... with re. to getting married on account of it?
What does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel say?
(c) What is the basis of their Machlokes?
(d) The first Beraisa is clearly a support for Rav Huna.
How can we
extrapolate Rav Huna's opinion even from the second one?
(a) How will Rav Yehudah reconcile his opinion with the two Beraisos which
we just discussed (and both of which support Rav Huna)?
(b) When Rebbi Zeira lived in Bavel, he maintained that Rav Huna Amar
Rebbi's statement 'Kol ha'Omer al-M'nas ke'Omer me'Achshav Dami' was indeed
the opinion of Rebbi alone, and that the Rabbanan disagrees with him.
After he arrived in Eretz Yisrael, what did he learn from Rebbi Asi Amar
(c) In which case *do* the Rabbanan argue with Rebbi?
(d) What support do we bring for this opinion?
(a) According to Rav Yehudah, who maintains that they also argue by
'al-M'nas', why does the Tana of the Beraisa only cite the case of 'me'Hayom
(b) Why does he not rather cite the case of 'al-M'nas' to teach us that even
there, the Rabbanan invalidate the Get?
(c) Why does the Tana find it necessary to teach us that, if, in the case of
'al-M'nas she'Etein Lach Masayim Zuz mi'Ka'an ve'Ad Sheloshim Yom', and he
fails to fulfill the condition, the Get is not valid? Is this not obvious?
(d) And what does the Tana mean when he says ...
- ... 'al-M'nas she'Yesh Li Masayim Zuz, Harei Zu Mekudeshes ve'Yesh Lo' (implying that, otherwise, she would not be? Why would we not suspect that he may possess two hundred Zuz, without our being aware of it (as indeed, is stated in a Beraisa)?
- ... 've'Im Her'ah Lah al ha'Shulchan, Einah Mekudeshes'? Is this not obvious?
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah rules 'al-M'nas she'Yesh Li Beis Kur Afar, Harei
Zu Mekudeshes ve'Yesh Lo' (implying that, otherwise, she would not be).
What is ...
(b) How much is this in terms of a square?
- ... a Beis Sa'ah?
- ... a Beis Kur?
(c) What does the Tana mean when he implies that, if he did possess a Beis
Kur of earth, she would not be Mekudeshes? How come we do not suspect that
he may possess a Beis Kur of earth, without our being aware of it (as
indeed, is stated in a Beraisa)?
(d) Having just taught us this very same Halachah in the case of Metaltelin,
why does the Tana find it necessary to repeat it by Karka?
(a) Why does the Tana need to inform us that if he stipulated that he had
earth in one place, and he has it in another, she is not betrothed? Why
might we have thought otherwise?
Answers to questions
(b) If he stipulated 'al-M'nas she'Ar'ech Beis Kur Afar', he is obligated to
show her his own earth, the Tana of the Beraisa explains, because that is
what she had in mind when she asked for this condition to be inserted in the
Kidushin (as we learned earlier).
But why does the Tana need to add 've'Im
Her'ah be'Bik'ah, Einah Mekudeshes'? How do we establish the Mishnah in
order to create a Chidush?