Gitin Chart #8

Chart for Gitin Daf 73b

WHEN A MAN SECLUDES HIMSELF WITH HIS FORMER WIFE AFTER HE HAD DIVORCED HER, ARE WE CONCERNED THAT IT IS AN ACT OF KIDUSHIN?

(A)
They were seen living together
(B)
They were not seen living together
1 BEIS HILLEL
according to Rebbi Yochanan
might be (1) Kidushin it is not Kidushin
2 RAV NACHMAN might be Kidushin (2) it is not Kidushin
3 ABAYE Tana Kama: it is not Kidushin
RYB"Y: might be Kidushin
it is not Kidushin
4 RAVA Tana Kama: it is not Kidushin
RYB"Y: might be Kidushin
Tana Kama: it is not Kidushin
RYB"Y: might be Kidushin
-------------------------------------------------

==========

FOOTNOTES:

==========

(1) Throughout this chart, we have translated the words "Chosheshin l'Kidushin" as it "might be" a valid Kidushin, based on the conventional translation of the word "Chosheshin." This indeed seems to be the way Rashi (DH v'Ein Chosheshin) understands the word "Chosheshin" in the context of our Sugya. However, TOSFOS (DH Im Ken) may have translated "Chosheshin" as "we consider it a valid Kidushin," i.e. it is not just a Safek Kidushin but it is certainly a Kidushin; see REBBI AKIVA EIGER'S comments on Tosfos.

(2) If he gave money to her afterwards, the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yosi b'rebbi Yehudah argue whether we still suspect there was a Kidushin. The Tana Kama maintains that we do not suspect Kidushin; since he saw it necessary to pay her, it may be assumed that his intentions were only for Zenus and not for Kidushin. According to Rebbi Yosi bar'Rebbi Yehudah, even when he paid her afterwards, we suspect that he might have intended for Kidushin.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF