Resources for Yevamos daf 93

1.     The גמרא discusses at length the concept of אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם. There is a fundamental חקירה in the אחרונים as to what the issue of a דבר שלא בא לעולם is: is the issue a lack of סמיכות דעת of the one buying the item since he doesn’t know if what he purchased will ever materialize, or is the issue that in practice the item isn’t here right now there is no way for the קנין to be חל now. The קובץ שיעורים in ב"ב אות רע"ו discusses this at length and says there seem to be proofs in opposite directions from different גמרות. The פּשטות seems to be that the issue is a lack of סמיכות דעת as it is explicit in some גמרות and several ראשונים that way. For example, the נימוקי יוסף on דף ס"ו ע"ב says very clearly “לא מהני משום דלא סמכא דעתיה”. However, the חזון אי"ש in דמאי סימן י"ז says that the issue with a דבר שלא בא לעולם is that דיני תורה only work with things one can see and touch and not conceptual items. This חקירה will help us with the following discussion:

The ברייתא says that if a person says to a lady, “you are מקודשת to me after you get חליצה”, it doesn’t work. The גמרא wants to prove from here that קידושין are not תופסים by a יבמה לשוק. We happen to pasken like שמואל that יבמה לשוק is ספק מקודשת. If so, there is a difficulty with the רמב"ם  in הלכות אישות פּרק ז׳ הל׳ ט"ו who says that if a man says to a lady “you are מקודשת to me after you get חליצה” she is מקודשת. The simple reading of theרמב"ם  is that he means she is ודאי מקודשת. How can this be if we pasken like שמואל? If it’s a ספק whether the קידושין is תופס by a יבמה לשוק , then if in fact it is not תופס then she shouldn’t be מקודשת since she needs to wait for חליצה which makes the קידושין a דבר שלא בא לעולם! The כסף משנה explains that since it is at least ספק קידושין, it is not considered a דבר שלא בא לעולם. The קרן אורה explains based on what we mentioned in the previous paragraph that since the issue with דבר שלא בא לעולם is only a lack of סמיכות דעת, the fact that it is possible that the קידושין is חל even if she doesn’t get חליצה makes it enough of a סמיכות דעת for the קידושין to be תופס.

2.     The גמרא says that we can bring a proof that אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם by the fact that ר׳ ינאי was תורם from his fruit on the fruit the אריס had not yet brought him. In קובץ הערות in סימן ס"ה אות ו, he brings a question from רבי עקיבא איגר: there is a discussion in מסכת נדרים whether a person can be תורם from his fruit on someone else’s fruit without permission. Why don’t we bring a proof from our גמרא that it works since our גמרא thinks the story with ר׳ ינאי is a proof to אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם, yet if you can just be תורם on your friends produce then of course what ר׳ ינאי did works! He gives two answers: he suggests that the גמרא understood that ר׳ ינאי was not being תורם in a way of שליחות but rather for himself and the only way you can be תורם on other people’s stuff is if you have דעת לשליחות וזכיה. The second answer he brings is from ר׳ חיים סולוביציק זצ"ל as follows: when ר׳ ינאי got the fruit from the אריס they would be considered לקוח (purchased) in which case they are פּטור מדאורייתא. If so, the fruit ר׳ ינאי must have been using to be תורם must have been fruit which were only טבל מדרבנן as well. If so, he could not have been פּוטר the fruit while they were still owned by the אריס since at that time the אריס’s fruit were חייב מדאורייתא.

Rabbi Millman's Marei Mekomos Halacha

New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters

Rabbi Mordechai Papoff - English Topics

Rabbi Yaakov Blumenfeld - Shakla Vetarya

Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder

Rabbi Azriel Katz - Meforshim Overview