About this episode
Today's daf is sponsored by Susan Gruber Vishner, in loving memory of her father, Everett Gruber, Yehudah Gedalia ben Sender Chaim v'Perl, on the 100th anniversary of his birth. "My father deeply loved Jewish learning, Torah study, and his family." Rabbi Yochanan explains that if one appointed a messenger to betroth a woman for him, without specifying which woman, and the messenger died before returning, one can assume he betrothed the woman before his death and the man who sent him can no longer betroth a woman as it is possible any woman he chooses will be a relative of the woman he is betrothed to who is a forbidden relative, such as mother, daughter, sister, etc. Reish Lakish raises a question against Rabib Yochanan from a Mishna in Kinnim 2:1 where there is a similar doubt and it is permitted. A distinction is made between the cases based on laws of majority and how the law is affected by the status of objects that are stationary and those that move. Rava says that Rabbi Yochanan will agree that if the man finds a woman without any relatives (that would be potentially forbidden to him) or with a sister who was married at the time he sent the messenger, even if she divorced by the time the messenger betrothed someone, he can marry her. On what basis is the woman with a sister divorced after he sent the messenger permitted? First, they think it is based on a particular assumption, but that is rejected on the basis of our Mishna with one who took on sacrifices of a nazir which can apply even to someone who is not a nazir yet. The Gemara then distinguishes between one who takes upon oneself an obligation and one who sends a messenger, as regarding laws of messengers one cannot send a messenger to do something one cannot do oneself. Is that really true? A source is brought to show it is not true, but that source is explained differently. If one takes on a vow for sacrifices of a half nazir or half of a nazir's sacrifices, what is the law? If one says I will be a nazir if I have a son, this means only a son, not a daughter, tumtum or androgynous. But if one used gender-neutral language then it includes all.