Kiddushin, Daf Vav, Part 3
Introduction
Today s sugya goes back to discussing betrothal or divorce without an explicit statement.
גופא היה מדבר עם האשה על עיסקי גיטה וקידושיה ונתן לה גיטה וקידושיה ולא פירש רבי יוסי אומר דיו ר’ יהודה אומר צריך לפרש
אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל והוא שעסוקין באותו ענין
וכן אמר ר"א א"ר אושעיא והוא שעסוקין באותו ענין
The [above] text [stated]: If a man was speaking to a woman on matters concerning her divorce or betrothal, and gave her her get or kiddushin, but made no explicit declaration:
R. Yose said: It is sufficient;
R. Judah said: He must make an explicit declaration.
Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: Providing that they were engaged in that topic.
R. Eliezer said likewise in the name of R. Oshaia: Providing that they were engaged in that topic.
Several amoraim comment on R. Yose s opinion in the baraita according to which the husband need not make any declaration. They clarify that he must at least be talking about that topic meaning her betrothal or divorce.
כתנאי רבי אומר והוא שעסוקין באותו ענין ר’ אלעזר בר ר"ש אומר אע"פ שאין עסוקין באותו ענין
ואי לאו דעסוקין באותו ענין מנא ידעה מאי קאמר לה אמר אביי מענין לענין באותו ענין
This is like a tannaitic dispute; Rabbi said: Providing that they were engaged on that topic; R. Elazar son of R. Shimon said: Even if they were not engaged on that topic.
But if they were not engaged on that topic, how does she know what he meant?
Abaye answered: [They were moving] from one matter to another matter within the same topic.
There is a tannaitic dispute as to whether they actually have to be talking about betrothal or divorce for the act to be valid without an explicit statement. But R. Elazar holds that they don t even need to be talking about the betrothal or divorce. But this seems perplexing how does she know what he s doing? Abaye explains that the betrothal or divorce is valid only if they were at least talking somewhat about the matter.
אמר רב הונא אמר שמואל הלכה כר’ יוסי
א"ל רב יימר לרב אשי ואלא הא דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל כל שאינו יודע בטיב גיטין וקידושין לא יהא לו עסק עמהם אפילו לא שמיע ליה הא דרב הונא אמר שמואל
א"ל אין הכי נמי :
R. Huna said in the name of Shmuel: The halakhah follows R. Yose.
R. Yemar asked R. Ashi: When Rav Judah said in the name of Shmuel: He who does not know the nature of divorce and betrothal you should have no business with them, is this true even if he has not heard the ruling of R. Huna in the name of Shmuel? He said: Yes, indeed.
R. Huna rules that the halakhah follows R. Yose he need not make an explicit declaration about divorce or betrothal for the act to be valid.
R. Ashi then tells R. Yemar, his student, that Shmuel s warning not to have any official dealings with a judge who does not know how to adjudicate the matters of betrothal and divorce applies even to this case. The consequences of a misjudgment in divorce or betrothal could be that a woman has a child who is a mamzer (offspring of a forbidden union). Therefore, a judge who wishes to take on responsibility in these areas must know all of the relevant halakhot, even that the halakhah follows R. Yose in this issue.