About this episode
Presentation in PDF format Today's daf is sponsored by Daniel and Sara Berelowitz in honor of their granddaughter, Chamutal Matalon's Bat Mitzvah. Why did the Mishna not mention a case of doubt in divorce when he threw her the get and it is unclear if it was closer to him or closer to her? Raba answers, but Abaye tries to ascertain why the same issues wouldn't apply to kiddushin. The cases are different as in a case of doubt about divorce, the chazaka (presumptive status) is that the woman is married and would thereby exempt the co-wife, whereas, in the case of doubt about kiddushin, the chazaka is that she is unmarried and would not exempt the co-wife. Therefore, in kiddushin we are stringent and have the co-wife do chalitza and we are not worried that perhaps one may accidentally do yibum if chalitza is permitted, as based on the chazaka , the co-wife is obligating in yibum . Abaye questions the explanation that chazaka in a divorce would lead us to assume the woman was married and the co-wife exempt, so why in a case when a house fell on a husband and wife and killed them both and we are unsure who died first, we have the co-wife do chalitza (just in case the husband died first)? There is reason to distinguish between the two cases - two different suggestions are brought. A further question is raised from an explanation on a Mishna that states that in a case of doubt of divorce - when it is unclear if the get was closer to him or her - we have the co-wife do chalitza . The answer is that the case there had two sets of witnesses - one said it was closer to him and one said it was closer to her. On account of the witnesses, we no longer rely on the chazaka . How do we know that our Mishna is only one set of witnesses? And is it really the case that with two sets of witnesses, we don't rely on the chazaka ? Based on a source that indicated otherwise, we reject this line of reasoning and suggest that the Mishna in fact included the case of a doubt of divorce when it is unclear if the get was closer to him or her and require chalitza . What is left to explain is why the Mishna uses the language "this is a case of..." which seems to exclude other cases. The answer given is that it excludes cases of kiddushin that are similar to the divorce cases - like a document that doesn't have a date as a date is not important in kiddushin. Why? Two answers are given.