{"id":12129,"date":"2008-10-06T19:52:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-06T19:52:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/production.ou.org\/life\/other\/masechet_gittin_915\/"},"modified":"2015-10-29T11:37:50","modified_gmt":"2015-10-29T16:37:50","slug":"masechet_gittin_915","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ou.org\/life\/torah\/masechet_gittin_915\/","title":{"rendered":"Masechet Kiddushin 9a-15b"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Coming Week’s Daf Yomi by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz<\/em><\/p>\n

This essay is based upon the insights and chidushim (original ideas) of Talmudic scholar Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, as published in the Hebrew version of the Steinsaltz Edition of the Talmud.<\/em><\/p>\n

Kiddushin 9a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

As we learned in the first Mishnah<\/a> (2a<\/a>), a wife is “acquired” by her husband by means of one of three methods – kesef<\/em> (money), shetar<\/em> (a document) and bi’ah<\/em> (sexual intercourse). The Gemara<\/a> on our daf<\/em> (=page) examines the rules and regulations surrounding marriage done by use of a shetar<\/em>. Unlike kesef<\/em>, which must have some minimal value, the importance of the shetar<\/em> lies in the words that appear on the document. Thus, the focus of discussion is on what the document must say.<\/p>\n

Reish Lakish<\/a> presents one dilemma – must the document be written with a particular man and woman in mind, or can the scribe produce generic shetarot<\/em> that can be used by anyone? The discussion in the Gemara revolves around the question of comparison. Should a shetar kiddushin<\/em> be seen as parallel to kesef kiddushin<\/em>, and just as money can be used for marriage without any special requirements, so a document can simply say “with this document I wed thee” or should it be seen as being similar to a get<\/em> – a divorce document – which must be written with a specific husband and wife in mind? The Gemara states that Reish Lakish eventually answered his own question by noting the passage in Devarim<\/a> (24:2<\/a>) that juxtaposes marriage and divorce. From this he concludes that the shetar<\/em> must be written lishmah<\/em> – with the specific man and woman in mind.<\/p>\n

Even with this conclusion, the rishonim<\/a><\/em> discuss whether the names of the couple getting married must be written into the shetar<\/em>. The Ramban<\/a> compares the shetar kiddushin<\/em> to the get<\/em>, arguing that we must follow the rules of gittin<\/em>. Since he concludes that a get<\/em> requires the names of the two parties, a shetar kiddushin<\/em> will, as well. The Ritva<\/a> points out that there is no mention of any such requirement in our Gemara, and the Me’iri<\/a> quotes the Talmud Yerushalmi<\/a><\/em> that offers a standard form for a shetar kiddushin<\/em> that does not appear to require the names of the husband and wife.<\/p>\n

\n

Kiddushin 10a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Anyone who pays attention to a contemporary Jewish marriage ceremony will notice that there are two distinct parts to it:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. kiddushin<\/em> (betrothal), where the husband offers a wedding band to his wife, asking her to marry him, and<\/li>\n
  2. nisu\u2019in<\/em> (marriage), when the husband and wife become a family by entering their home, symbolized by the chuppah<\/em> (wedding canopy) under which they stand.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    These two parts of the ceremony are usually symbolically separated from one another by a speech and\/or the reading of the ketubah<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n

    The discussion that we have seen in Masechet<\/a> Kiddushin<\/a><\/em> up to this point deals only with the first part of marriage. During Talmudic times, it was common practice to separate these two elements of marriage by several months, during which time both the bride and the groom would have time to prepare for the wedding and the marriage. During that time they are considered by halacha<\/a><\/em> to be a married couple, even as they continue to live separately from each other. Are they considered married to the extent that she can begin to eat terumah<\/em> (tithes that are permitted only to kohanim<\/a><\/em> and members of their families)?<\/p>\n

    The Talmud Yerushalmi<\/a><\/em> explains that the ruling of the Mishnah<\/a> in Ketubot<\/a><\/em> permitting a woman to being to eat terumah<\/em> when the time for the wedding has arrived is a mishna emtza’it <\/em>\u2013 a “middle mishna<\/em>.” This means that over time the ruling with regard to a betrothed woman eating terumah<\/em> changed a number of times. The original ruling (mishna\u00a0<\/em>rishona<\/i>) allowed a woman who receives kiddushin<\/em> from a kohen<\/em> to begin to eat terumah<\/em> immediately, since they are considered by the halacha<\/em> to be a fully married couple at that time. The ruling of the second historical stage, allowed her to eat terumah<\/em> only after it became the husband’s responsibility to feed her, i.e. a year after the original kiddushin<\/em>. The final conclusion (mishna\u00a0<\/em>achrona<\/i>) allows her to eat terumah<\/em> only after the nisu\u2019in<\/em>.<\/p>\n

    Two reasons are suggested by the Gemara<\/a> for changes in this ruling. Ulla<\/a> suggests that it is due to our concern that while she is living in her parents\u2019 home we fear that she may share the terumah<\/em> with her siblings who are not allowed to eat it. According to Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda it is because of simpon<\/em> \u2013 fear of a broken agreement. The specific concern is that an issue may arise that will lead the marriage agreement to be annulled, and we will discover that the bride was eating forbidden terumah<\/em> since there was no marriage.<\/p>\n

    \n

    Kiddushin 11a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

    According to the Mishnah<\/a>, when a man marries a woman by means of money, the minimum amount is, according to Bet Hillel<\/a><\/em>, a prutah<\/em> and according to Bet Shammai<\/a><\/em>, a dinar<\/em>. While Bet Hillel<\/em>‘s position is fairly easy to understand – a prutah<\/em> is the smallest standard denomination coin, Bet Shammai<\/em>‘s position demands some explanation, and it is discussed on our daf<\/em> (=page).<\/p>\n

    Rabbi Zeira<\/a> suggests that Bet Shammai<\/em> is simply looking out for the honor of Jewish women, who demand more than a small denomination coin. Rav Yosef suggests that the need for a dinar<\/em> is based on the teaching of Rav Yehuda<\/a> quoting Rav Assi<\/a>, who rules that money required by the Torah<\/a> is kesef tzuri<\/em> while money required by the rabbinic sages is kesef medina.<\/em><\/p>\n

    Generally speaking, during the time of the Talmud there were two types of coins. Matbe’ah tzuri<\/em> was a silver-based coin that was viewed as being biblical money. Kesef<\/em> medina<\/em> were coins that had the same names as the more valuable matbe’ah tzuri<\/em>, but were made of cheaper metals and were worth one-eighth the value of kesef tzuri<\/em>. Different values for coins with identical names were not uncommon in the ancient world and this phenomenon still exists in some places today, where paper money may have the same name as a gold coin, for example, but is worth significantly less. It is therefore essential to determine which coin is being discussed.<\/p>\n

    According to Bet Shammai<\/em>, since we are dealing with a biblical law, we look for the smallest coin that was used in kesef tzuri<\/em>, which was the equivalent of a dinar<\/em>.<\/p>\n

    The dinar<\/em> – whose source is the Latin denarius<\/em>, which originally meant “ten,” representing the fact that a dinar<\/em> was worth ten isarim<\/em> – discussed in the Mishnah was a silver coin, popular in the Roman Empire. It weighed about 3.9 grams, although in later times the pure silver was mixed with copper and it became devalued. Popular figures on a Roman dinar<\/em> were Nero<\/a> and Vespasian<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    \n

    Kiddushin 12a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

    As we have learned, according to Jewish law there are three methods for creating kiddushin<\/em><\/a> \u2013 a marriage \u2013 kesef<\/em> (payment of money), shetar<\/em> (a formal marriage document) or bi’ah<\/em> (sexual relations performed with the intention of effecting marriage). The Gemara<\/a> on our daf<\/em> (=page) describes a man who handed a woman a hadas<\/em> \u2013 a myrtle branch \u2013 in the marketplace and asked her to marry him. Rav Yosef ruled that we must treat it like a marriage based on Shmuel<\/a>‘s ruling (that even something of little value may create a marriage, since it might be worth a prutah<\/em> in another place), and we will give the man lashes, based on Rav<\/a>‘s ruling.<\/p>\n

    In explanation of this idea, the Gemara brings the ruling of Rav<\/a> who would punish people who agreed to have kiddushin<\/em><\/a> by means of a sexual encounter, even though this is one of the three methods of which the Mishnah<\/a> approves. Similarly, Rav punished people who agreed to kiddushin<\/em> in the marketplace or without a properly arranged shiddukh<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n

    The reason behind all of Rav’s punishments is that, notwithstanding the letter of the law which permits a sexual act to solidify a marriage agreement, such behavior shows a lack of respect for privacy and modesty, which are the very foundations of marriage. Furthermore, agreeing to marry when standing in the marketplace or without proper preparations indicates that this is seen as happenstance and is reminiscent of a “one-night stand” rather than a true marriage.<\/p>\n

    The idea of\u00a0shidduch<\/i>\u00a0that appears in the Gemara is originally an Aramaic word whose meaning appears to be \u201cto calm\u201d or \u201cto quiet.\u201d In its borrowed form, it has come to mean to appease or to placate; to persuade. In our context, it indicates an agreement between the man and woman or between their families prior to marriage.<\/p>\n

    \n

    Kiddushin 13a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

    The most common method of kiddushin<\/em> \u2013 marriage \u2013 is the use of kesef kiddushin<\/em>, where an object of value is given by a man to a woman with an agreement made between them that she accepts it for the purposes of marriage. What if the money that he had was money that he stole? Can stolen money be used for kiddushin<\/em>?<\/p>\n

    The Gemara<\/a> on our daf<\/em> (=page) tells of a woman who was selling varshkhei<\/em>. A man came and snatched some of the varshkhei<\/em>. When she demanded that he return them he said “if I return them will you marry me?” She took them back from him without saying anything. Rav Nachman<\/a> ruled that there was no marriage in this case, since the woman can claim that she was taking something that in any case belonged to her. In response to Rav Nachman’s ruling Rava<\/a> points to a baraita<\/a><\/em> that clearly rules that a man can marry a woman with money that he stole, and even if he snatched a coin from her hand and then returned it to her, the kiddushin<\/em> takes effect! Rav Nachman explains that the ruling of the baraita<\/em> would be true only if they had discussed \u2013 and agreed \u2013 to marriage beforehand. In our case, where no such discussion took place, the attempt at kiddushin<\/em> will not work.<\/p>\n

    Several explanations are offered for the case in the baraita<\/em>. The Rashba<\/a>, for example, argues that the kiddushin<\/em> does not work because of the value of the coin that he gives her, since it is her coin. Rather, she agrees to marry him based on the satisfaction that she receives in having her object returned to her (that satisfaction is considered as having a monetary value).<\/p>\n

    Regarding the varshkhei<\/em> that are at the center of the discussion in our Gemara, Rashi<\/a>\u00a0defines them as being ribbons of some sort. Rabbeinu Gershom<\/a> suggests that they are scarves, while Rabbeinu Chananel<\/a> translates the word to mean pearls.<\/p>\n

    \n

    Kiddushin 14a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

    The Mishnah<\/a> that opens Masechet<\/a> Kiddushin<\/a><\/em> (2a<\/a>) discusses not only a normal situation of marriage, but also the case of yibum<\/a><\/em> – levirate marriage. On a biblical level, yibum<\/em> can only be done with bi’ah<\/em> – sexual relations between the widow and her brother-in-law.<\/p>\n

    The passage in the Torah<\/a> that is the source for the mitzvah<\/em><\/a> of yibum<\/u><\/em> is found in Sefer<\/a>Devarim<\/a><\/em> (25:5<\/a>), which describes how, in the event that a man dies with no children, his widow should not marry an outsider, but rather yevamah yavo aleha, u-lekachah lo le-isha, ve-yibmah<\/em> \u2013 the surviving brother should come upon her, and take her as a wife, fulfilling the mitzvah<\/em> of yibum<\/em> with her.<\/p>\n

    Our Gemara<\/a> brings a number of derashot<\/em> \u2013 derivations of halakhah<\/a><\/em> \u2013 from this passage, learning that the yevamah<\/em> is different than an ordinary woman, in that only bi’ah<\/em> will create the marriage.<\/p>\n

    Examples of laws that are derived from this passage include:<\/p>\n