Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Commentary for Kiddushin 99:14

וצריכא דאי אשמעינן גבי קידושין במקום דלקורבה קאתי בהאי אתרא רחמו לי ולא ממלי מילי עלוי בהאי אתרא סנו לי ממלי מילי עלוי אבל גבי גיטין דלרחוקה קאתי אימר לא איכפת ליה

Others state [that R'Ashi declared]: Had he desired, could he have not gone?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely he could (Rashi) - hence the sale stands. [Others: (even) if he desires he cannot go. Hence the sale is null. V, Joseph Karo on Tur. H.M. 206, and commentaries a.l.]');"><sup>16</sup></span> Wherein do they differ? - They differ where an impediment cropped up on the road.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., it became infested with highwaymen. According to the first version, R. Ashi declared that he nevertheless could have gone, e.g., by joining a large company of travellers; hence the sale stands. But according to the second version, 'could he have not gone,' it is implied that there was nothing to prevent him. Here, however, there was, and so the sale is null.');"><sup>17</sup></span>

Daf Shevui to Kiddushin

The Talmud now explains why we need both mishnayot. Had we only the mishnah about kiddushin, I might have thought that a man cares about where he betroths a woman because in some places people like him and in others people do not. He does not want the agent to betroth her in a place where people might say bad things about him.
But when it comes to divorce, he would not care if people like him or not, therefore he might not care where the agent delivers the get. Thus we needed a mishnah to teach us that even with regard to gittin, if he says “give my wife a divorce in such and such a place” the get must be given in that particular place.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse