Hello I was reading the very interesting "daf discussion" on daf 97 and had two questions.
1)When the Jews returned to their wives after matan torah, did they all need to do kiddushin Bc they were geirim and their prior marriage (effectuated through biah I assume) would need to be redone. Were the laws of kiddushin known right at matan torah?
2) how do we understand that statement in bava basra that brothers can't be eidim together "even moshe and aaron", since ger kenolad dami, there should be no halachic relationship btw moshe and aaron after matan torah.
Thank you!
Josh
1) The Noda bi'Yehudah, in Sefer Dagul Merevavah, maintains that Gerim who were previously married require a new Kidushin. However, this is problematic because -- as the Chida (Birkei Yosef, Even ha'Ezer 17, quoted by the Ben Yehoyada to Megilah 7b) infers from Matan Torah, there was no need for a new Kidushin even though they were Gerim and had even died and been revived, since the Torah says, "Go back to your tents," meaning to their wives and it does not require a new Kidushin. (The Ben Yehoyada infers that even Rebbi Zeira, who was revived by a miracle, would not need new Kidushin, just as the people of Yisrael at Har Sinai did not need new Kidushin.)
However, the Dagul Merevavah maintains that the return to the tent was with Kidushin, and the fact that they were Gerim meant that they required a new Kidushin. This is difficult to understand, because the Gerus was not a total Katan she'Nolad in this case since they had to divorce sisters and other Arayos. This is the opinion of the Da'as Zekenim (Beha'aloscha) and also the Gur Aryeh (Vayigash), who says that this Gerus was not a regular Gerus since it was under duress and therefore they did not become a Katan she'Nolad through it and could not stay with Arayos. According to this opinion, they would not require a new Kidushin as they were not Katan she'Nolad.
The Meshech Chochmah (Va'eschanan), however, says that they were allowed to go back even to Arayos, since it says, "Go back to your tents," and does not specify that some are forbidden. According to this opinion, it is possible that Kidushin was required since they were like Katan she'Nolad.
2) Your second question is raised by the Kli Chemdah (Purim #30), but in reality it is not difficult because the proof is from a Pasuk in Mitzrayim ("ha'Chodesh ha'Zeh Lachem"), and at that point they were definitely brothers.
Yoel Domb