Review the גמ׳ from yesterday with רש״י
רב and שמואל seem to make two points a) you can marry someone doing a מעשה at one time and having the effect take place later b) that effect can take place later even if there is no money left
Are there one or two חידושים in their statement ?
learn the עצמות יוסף
In contrasting this case to a מלוה and פקדון is the גמ׳ just saying why it doesn't have those חסרונות or is it giving us an understanding of how this קידושין works ?
Learn the ר״ן and the רשב״א from yesterday
An issue the ראשונים seem to be addressing is how you can have a חלות קנין without any of the מעשה remaining, as you go through the ראשונים try to notice how they are resolving this issue
Both the ר״ן and the רשב״א say that if you married a woman with a שטר to take effect after thirty day and the שטר gets ripped the קידושין is not good. Do they share the same reasoning?
The ר״ן is very clear that if the man would back out of the קידושין he would not be able to demand the money back. What do you think the רשב״א would say about this?
How would the רשב״א argue on the reasoning of the ר״ן ?
רב and שמואל seem to make two points a) you can marry someone doing a מעשה at one time and having the effect take place later b) that effect can take place later even if there is no money left
Are there one or two חידושים in their statement ?
learn the עצמות יוסף
In contrasting this case to a מלוה and פקדון is the גמ׳ just saying why it doesn't have those חסרונות or is it giving us an understanding of how this קידושין works ?
Learn the ר״ן and the רשב״א from yesterday
An issue the ראשונים seem to be addressing is how you can have a חלות קנין without any of the מעשה remaining, as you go through the ראשונים try to notice how they are resolving this issue
Both the ר״ן and the רשב״א say that if you married a woman with a שטר to take effect after thirty day and the שטר gets ripped the קידושין is not good. Do they share the same reasoning?
The ר״ן is very clear that if the man would back out of the קידושין he would not be able to demand the money back. What do you think the רשב״א would say about this?
How would the רשב״א argue on the reasoning of the ר״ן ?