ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS ON TOSFOS
THE YISRAEL SHIMON HA'LEVI TURKEL MASECHES KIDUSHIN
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler of Kollel Iyun Hadaf
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
TOSFOS DH KE'SHEM SHE'EIN HA'ISHAH NIKNEIS BE'PACHOS MI'SHAVEH P'RUTAH, KACH EIN HA'KARKA NIKNEIS BE'PACHOS MI'SHAVEH P'RUTAHclick for question
(a) The problem with this Limud, bearing in mind the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Kichah" "Kichah" (where we learn Kinyanei Ishah from Kinyanei Sadeh) is - that we ought to have learned this Din by Kidushin from Sadeh, and not vice-versa.
(b) One of the two answers is that Rebbi (the author of this statement) does not learn Kinyan Kesef by Ishah from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' - but from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ve'Yatz'ah Chinam".
(c) The second answer (even assuming that Rebbi does hold of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' is - that even though in reality, we do learn this from Sadeh, we present the Limud the other way round, since the Din of Perutah by Kinyan Kidushin is better known.
(d) The precedence we have for this in Nedarim (regarding Nidrei Shegagos) is where we learn that Shevu'os Shegagos are permitted (without Hatarah) from nidrei Shegagos, even though we actually learn Nedarim from Shevu'os in this regard.
TOSFOS DH HA'ISHAH SHE'HEVI'AH CHATASAH U'MEISAHclick for question
(a) The Mishnah in Kanim concludes the statement, 'Yavi'u Yorshehah es Olasah'. The Seifa says - Hevi'ah Olasah u'Meisah, Lo Yavi'u Yorshehah es Chatasah ...
(b) ... because it is a case of 'Chatas she'Meisah Ba'alehah, which must die.click for question
(a) We can extrapolate from the previous ruling that - the woman herself is permitted to bring her Chatas after her Olah.
(b) The Gemara says in Pesachim however - presents a principle that a Chatas always precedes an Olah (even if it is a Chatas ha'Of and an Olas Beheimah), which seems to clash with the inference.
(c) The obvious answer to that question would appear to be - that the Gemara in Pesachim is referring to lachachilah, but not to Bedi'eved.
(d) We refute this suggestion however, based on another Gemara there, which (with reference to the Pasuk in Metzora "Ve'hikriv es asher la'Chatas Rishonah") - cites the above Binyan Av, but in a manner that implies even Bedi'eved.click for question
(a) We override the current question however, by confining the latter Gemara to a Metzora - whereas everywhere else, the Chatas precedes the Olah Lechatchilah only
(b) The reason for this is because by Metzora - the Torah writes "Zos Tih'yeh Toras ha'Metzora" (and Tih'yeh implies even Bedieved).
(c) Alternatively, Metzora is no different that other similar cases, and we learn from the Pasuk (Ibid.) "Ve'he'elah ha'Kohen es ha'Olah" - 've'He'elah K'var' that Bedi'eved, if the Kohen brought the Olah first, it is Kosher.
(d) We learn this Din with regard to other cases - with a Binyan Av from Metzora.
TOSFOS DH MILVEH HA'KESUVAH BA'TORAHclick for question
(a) ... such as Korbanos, Pidyon ha'Ben and Erchin. What makes them 'Milveh ha'Kesuvah ba'Torah' is the fact - if the Torah would not have fixed the amount, we would not have known how much to pay (or other major details concerning the payment).
(b) The other case included in the list is - Nizakin.
(c) Milveh is not included - because it does not require a Pasuk to teach us that one returns the amount that one borrows.
TOSFOS DH AMAR RAV PAPA, HILCHESA MILVEH-AL-PEH GOVAH MIN HA'YORSHIN VE'SHIBUDA D'ORAYSA', VE'EINO GOVAH MIN HA'LEKUCHOS, DE'LEIS LEI KALAclick for question
(a) We query Rav Papa, who reiterates these two rulings in Baba Basra, but for different reasons. The reason he gives there for ...
1. ... the first ruling is - 'so that one does not close the door before the borrowers (i.e. so as not to discourage people from lending to the poor, if they know that they may not be repaid).
2. ... the second ruling - is because 'Shibuda Lav d'Oraisa'.
(b) Rabeinu Chananel resolves the discrepancy by establishing the Gemara here by Milveh ha'Kesuvah ba'Torah (see previous Dibur). The reason of Ne'ilas Deles (which the Gemara in Bava Basra gives in the Reisha with regard to the Yorshim) does not apply here - since 'Shibuda d'Oraisa' ensures that as far as the Yorshim are concerned, the Chachamim gave it the Din of a Milveh bi'Shtar (see Maharsha) ...
(c) ... whereas the Gemara in Bava Basra is speaking about a regular Milveh-al-Peh, which is not written in the Torah. See Maharsha
TOSFOS DH ELA MISAS BA'AL MINALANclick for question
(a) When in ...
1. ... Sanhedrin, we cite a Pasuk with regard to Eishes Av and other Arayos through marriage even after their spouse's death - we are out to prove that all Arayos remain forbidden even after their spouse's death.
2. ... Yevamos, we cite a Pasuk with regard to a Yevamah who has sons from her husband - we are out to prove that the Yevamah remains Asur to the Yavam even after remain forbidden even after her husband's death.
(b) We reconcile that with our Sugya, where we require a Pasuk to permit an Eishes Ish after the death of her husband - by noting that those two Sugyos follow the Sugya here (i.e. that we need Pesukim to prohibit Arayos and a Yevamah after the death of their respective spouses, in order to to learn from Eishes Ish that they are permitted.
TOSFOS DH LE'KULI ALMA BA'ASEIclick for question
(a) The Asei regarding an Eishes Ish is the Pasuk in Bereishis - "ve'Davak be'Ishto" ('ve'Lo be'Eishes Chavero').
(b) We ask why it is not possible to learn from a 'Kal-va'Chomer' from Get - which does not permit a man's wife to the Yavam) that Misah (which does), should certainly permit an Eishes Ish.
TOSFOS DH MI'D'AMAR RACHMANA ALMANAH LE'KOHEN GADOLclick for question
(a) ... implying that, to anybody else, an Almanah is permitted. We try to refute this proof by confining the Derasha to a Yavam, in which case - it will be coming to teach us - that everyone, except for a Kohen Gadol, is permitted to perform Yibum after his brother's death.
(b) We refute that Derasha however, by questioning its location - inasmuch as the prohibition regarding Almanah le'Kohen Gadol should then have been written in the Parshah of Yibum.
TOSFOS DH CHADA, DE'YAVAM LO IKRI ACHERclick for question
(a) We query this however, from the Gemara later, which states (with regard to the Pasuk "u'Machar es ha'Sadeh le'Ish Acher") - that Yavam is included in Acher.
(b) Granted, the Gemara later considers a Yavam 'Acher' with regard to the Pasuk "ve'Im Machar es ha'Sadeh le'Ish Acher" - but that is only because, since the Pasuk is speaking about selling a field to "another man", a Yavam is included; whereas here, where the Pasuk is talking about her husband dying and another man marrying her, "another man" does not imply specifically the Yavam.