Kiddushin - Daf 13
- Marrying a woman with an item he stole from her
The Gemara relates that a man once stole ribbons from a woman, and when she asked for them, he responded: אי יהיבנא ליך מיקדשת לי – If I give them to you, will you be married to me? She accepted them and was silent. Rav Nachman ruled that she can say: אין שקלי ודידי שקלי – Yes, I took them, but I took that which was mine, and did not accept them as kiddushin. He was challenged from a Baraisa which taught that if someone marries a woman with stolen goods, או שחטף סלע מידה וקדשה – or, he grabbed a sela from her hand and married her with it, מקודשת – she is married!? The Gemara answers: התם בדשדיך – there, the Baraisa is discussing a case where he discussed marriage with her, and she agreed. In such a case, her silence is taken as consent to allow the stolen items to become his, and she accepts them from him as kiddushin. This distinction is proven from a Baraisa.
- The consequences of involvement in marital law without qualification
Rav Yehudah quoted Shmuel: כל שאינו יודע בטיב גיטין וקדושין – Anyone who does not know the laws of gittin and kiddushin, לא יהא לו עסק עמהן – should have no involvement in them. Rebbe Yochanan added: וקשין לעולם יותר מדור המבול – and [those who involve themselves without qualification] are worse for the world than the generation of the Flood. This is based on a pasuk which Rav Yosef explained to refer to people having children from other people’s wives, about which it says that because of this sin, the land and all its inhabitants would be destroyed, including the fish of the sea, ואילו בדור המבול – whereas in the generation of the Flood, לא נגזרה גזירה על דגים שבים – the decree of destruction was not decreed upon the fish of the sea, as the pasuk says: מכל אשר בחרבה מתו – all that was on dry land died, as opposed to fish.
- Machlokes if שיעבודא דאורייתא
Two disputes are recorded which revolve around if שיעבודא דאורייתא – the obligation of a person’s property is beholden to a debt Biblically, requiring payment after his death. A Mishnah states about a woman who gave birth, who brought her requisite chatas but died before bringing her olah, that her heirs must bring her olah. Shmuel qualifies this: והוא שהפרישתה מחיים – It only applies where she designated an olah while she was still living, but if she did not, her heirs do not bring an olah. The Gemara deduces that he holds שיעבודא לאו דאורייתא – the obligation on her inherited property is not beholden Biblically. Rebbe Yochanan says the heirs must bring her olah even if she did not designate one, because he holds שיעבודא דאורייתא. In the second machlokes, Rav and Shmuel both say: מלוה על פה – Regarding an oral loan (without a document), אינה גובה מן היורשין ולא מן הלקוחות – [the lender] cannot collect the debtor’s land from the debtor’s heirs, or those who purchased his property. Rebbe Yochanan and Reish Lakish say that a creditor can collect from property currently owned by the heirs or purchasers. This, too, depends on whether שיעבודא דאורייתא or not. Both disputes needed to be recorded, because one could argue דמלוה כתובה בתורה – a loan written in the Torah (e.g., a woman who gave birth, where the Torah imposed the korbon obligations) ככתובה בשטר דמיא – has the stringency like a loan written in a document. Rav Pappa says the halachah is שיעבודא דאורייתא, so an oral loan is collected from heirs (the purchasers, however, are exempted Rabbinically).
