Kiddushin - Daf 51
- Exceptions to rule of כל שאינו בזה אחר בזה: מעשר, and מעשר בהמה
The previous Daf introduced Rabbah’s principle: כל שאינו בזה אחר זה – Whatever cannot take effect one after the other, אפילו בבת אחת אינו – even when done simultaneously, it cannot take effect. This is challenged from a Baraisa: המרבה במעשר – One who exceeds the requisite ten percent for maaser (e.g., he designated twenty percent as maaser) פירותיו מתוקנים – his remaining produce became fit for consumption, ומעשרות מקולקלין – but his maaser is ruined. Since only ten percent becomes maaser, and the additional ten percent was removed from the remaining produce for which maaser was taken, it remains tevel. The total amount remains an indeterminate mixture of maaser and tevel. Since after designating ten percent as maaser, designating another ten percent would be ineffective, then taking twenty percent at once should also be ineffective!? The Gemara answers that maaser is unique, דאיתיה לחצאים – because it is effective for halves of produce, i.e., one can declare half a grain maaser. Thus, half of each kernel of twenty percent of his grain becomes maaser. Rabbah is further challenged from his own statement about maaser of animals (which cannot take effect by halves), in which he said that if he declared the tenth and eleventh animals “tenth” simultaneously, עשירי ואחד עשר מעורבים זה בזה – the tenth and eleventh are intermingled, and both are hekdesh!? The Gemara answers that maaser beheimah is also unique, דאיתיה בטעות – because it is effective consecutively in error, i.e., if he declared the eleventh animal “tenth,” it also becomes hekdesh.
- קידושין שאין מסורין לביאה
The Gemara says: קידושין שאין מסורין לביאה – kiddushin which is not given to a possibility of permitted relations (such as giving a perutah to one of two sisters, and saying, “one of you should be married to me,” where he cannot have relations with either, since she may be his wife’s sister), Abaye said the kiddushin is valid, and Rava said it is not valid. Rava quoted support from a passuk: "כי יקח איש אשה ובעלה" – When a man shall take a wife and have relations with her, implying that kiddushin takes effect only when it will allow relations thereafter. The Gemara poses numerous challenges to Rava’s position and deflects them, and on the next Daf, ultimately refutes Rava’s opinion from a Baraisa. This is a rare instance of the halachah following Abaye over Rava (and is the "ק" in the "יעל קגם" list of such instances).
- לא שביק איניש מצוה דרמיא עליה
Rava is challenged from a Mishnah which states: המקדש את בתו סתם – One who marries off his daughter without specifying which, אין הבוגרות בכלל – the adult daughters are not included in the group of possibly married daughters. This implies that his minor daughters are married out of doubt (though it remains unknown which one), even though relations are not permitted with any!? The Gemara explains that he only has a single adult daughter and a single minor daughter. Although this ruling seems obvious, the Gemara explains the case is where the adult daughter appointed her father as a shaliach to accept kiddushin for her. Still, we assume the father accepted kiddushin for his minor daughter, דלא שביק איניש מידי דאית ליה הנאה מיניה – because a person will not abandon something from which he will have benefit (i.e., kiddushin money of his minor daughter) and accept kiddushin for his adult daughter instead. The Gemara goes further and adds that even if his adult daughter offered him to keep her kiddushin money, we still assume he accepted kiddushin for his minor daughter, לא שביק איניש מצוה דרמיא עליה – because a person will not abandon a mitzvah which is incumbent upon him (i.e., marrying off his minor daughter), ועביד מצוה דלא רמיא עליה – and instead perform a mitzvah which is not incumbent upon him specifically.
