5

The case of "טלי גיטיך מעל גבי קרקע" (where the husband told his wife to pick up her גט [divorce document], rather than handing it to her directly) is an invalid divorce (רבא, Gittin 24a). The Rishonim discuss whether "טלי קידושיך מעל גבי קרקע" (the same case, just with קידושין) is the same as the case of גט מעל גבי קרקע.

I'd like to know what, if anything, the Ritva holds about טלי קידושיך מעל גבי קרקע.

The reason I'd like to know this is because the Ritva holds קדושין כ׳ג ע׳ב ד.ה. איבעיא להו (against several Rishonim) that "טלי" is a problem by שחרור עבד (freeing a slave), and because of that, some asked a question on his opinion, why "טלי" is not listed in the mishna on Gittin 10a, that lists those things that גיטי נשים (divorce documents) and שחרורי עבדים (slave-freeing documents) have in common. They wanted to answer that the Ritva may hold that "טלי" is a problem by קידושין as well, rendering "טלי" as a "מילתא דאיתא בקידושין," ("something that [also] applies to קידושין;" which the gemara determines does not belong in the list on 10a) which would mean that "טלי" does not belong in that list. That answer, obviously, hinges on what the Ritva actually holds regarding טלי קידושיך מעל גבי קרקע.

  • 1
    Who are the "some" who asked and answered? – Y     e     z Dec 29 '14 at 18:25
  • 1
  • @Shokhet first of all its on amud alef not beis, my bad. Second of all its in the Kook ritva mahadurei kamma but not in the mahadurei basra. Third of all note 82 there has alot of maareh mikomos regarding who holds like the Ritva in that regard but I didn't see anything about taking the kidushin off the floor. – user6591 Dec 31 '14 at 16:58
  • @user6591 I'll take a look; thanks so much! – Shokhet Dec 31 '14 at 17:07

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .