Resources for Kesubos daf 59

1.     The גמרא brings that שמואל paskens like רבי יוחנן הסנדלר thatאין אדם מקדיש דבר שלא בא לעולם. There is a fundamental חקירה and resultant מחלוקת אחרונים as to why the קנין of דבר שבא לעולם generally doesn’t work. There are two basic possibilities: is it due to a lack of סמיכת דעת of the people doing the transaction since the object isn’t in existence yet or is it simply an inability to sell what you don’t currently have? There are several important נפקא מינהs. For example, the ריב"ש in סימן שכ"ח says that if someone makes a שבועה that as soon as he buys something he will give it to פּלוני then when he buys it he is obligated to give it to פּלוני even though that is a case of a דבר שלא בא לעולם. To say that שבועה overcomes the issue of דבר שלא בא לעולם means that the problem has to do with your lack of סמיכת דעת and not your inability to make a קנין. Another נפקא מינה is mentioned by the שואל ומשיב in חלק ד סימן צ"ז discusses a case  where a person sells something to his friend and he isn’t sure if it’s בעולם yet (such as fruit in a faraway farm) and it turns out it wasn’t around at the time of the sale. If you hold the issue is סמיכת דעת then it is קונה since he thinks it might be there and therefore has סמיכת דעת. However, that certainly would not work if you held the issue was an inability to be מקנה. The קרן אורה at the end of יבמות דף דף צ"ב holds like the opinion that the issue is a lack of סמיכת דעת based on a גמרא in בבא מציעא דף ט"ז that mentions סמיכת דעת. However, the קובץ שיעורים in בבא בתרא אות רע"ו says that while he admits the גמרא in ב"מ is משמע that way, our גמרא in כתובות is a clear proof that the issue is the lack of ability to be מקנה. His proof is as follows: our גמרא says that קונמות can work even by a דבר שלא בא לעולם because just like you can אסור on yourself your friends property, you can also be מקדיש a דבר שלא בא לעולם. If the issue with דבר שלא בא לעולם is that you don’t own it to be מקנה it then we can understand the גמרא very well as you don’t own your friends stuff either. However, if the issue is סמיכת דעת, what would that have to do with the ability to אסור your friends stuff on you? It must be that the issue is an inability to be מקנה.

2.     The גמרא brings the ברייתא that quotes רבי יוחנן בן נורי that if a person’s wife is מקדיש her מעשה ידים the husband should be מפיר lest he divorce her and then remarry her and then he will be stuck. The ריטב"א and other ראשונים ask an interesting question: a husband can only be מפיר נדרים שבינו לבינה (things that affect their marriage). If so, since the נדר will only be חל after they divorce, how is it considered a דבר שבינו לבינה? He shouldn’t be bale to be מפיר at all! He answers that the מסקנא of the גמרא is that the נדר is really חל now but the חכמים just strengthened his שעבוד that it cant be חל now, and they only did that in a way that helps him but not to hurt him and say he cant be מפיר the נדר. The קובץ שיעורים here in אות קצ"ג asks how that works exactly? If they made the נדר not be חל on a דאורייתא  level until after גירושין then how can he still be מפיר? He explains that it works in the following way: it’s similar to a woman who make a נדר with a תנאי that if her husband isn’t מפיר her נדר then the נדר shouldn’t be חל. Similarly,  חז"ל instituted a תנאי of sorts that says her נדר isn’t חל if the husband isn’t מפיר it, but if he is מפיר it then it should be חל immediately. Therefore it is considered a דבר שבינו לבונה.