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 HA NAMI YOTZ'AH BA'CHALITZAHclick for question
(a) This answers the Pircha 'Mah le'Eishes Ish she'Kein Yotz'ah be'Get, Tomar ba'Zu (Yevamah) Tomar ba'Zu she'Einah Yotz'ah be'Get' - inasmuch as Chalitzah is in place of Get.
TOSFOS DH U'SEHEI EISHES ISH YOTZ'AH BA'CHALITZAHclick for question
(a) We cannot refute this question by pointing out that a Yevamah can go out with Chalitzah, because a Yevamah la'Shuk only involves a Lav, whereas Eishes Ish involves a Chiyuv Misah - because since Chalitzah can remove the Lav of Yevamah la'Shuk, it is not logical to differentiate between an Isur Lav and an Isur Kares in that regard.
(b) We have a precedent for this in Yevamos - where Rav Nachman wanted to draw a similar distinction between an Isur Kares and an Isur Lav, and - Rava remarked that there is no difference between them.
(c) In spite of what we just said, the Gemara earlier, tried to learn an Isur Lav from an Isur Misah with a 'Kal va'Chomer' (with regard to permitting a Yevamah after the death of her husband from an Eishes Ish) - if it is a matter of comparing one to the other, but not to create a distinction between them.
TOSFOS DH U'SEHEI YEVAMAH YOTZ'AH BE'GET MI'KAL VA'CHOMERclick for question
(a) The problem with this, based on the fact that an Eishes Ish can be acquired with a Shtar is - that we can ask on it 'Mah le'Eishes Ish she'Kein Nikneis bi'Shtar, Tomar biYevamah, she'Einah Nikneis bi'Shtar'?
(b) We cannot answer that it is not possible to learn the Din of Hotza'ah (separating) from Hachnasah (bringing in) - seeing as the Gemara asked earlier 'Mah li'Shtar she'Kein Motzi (u'Mishum Hachi Din Hu she'Machnis') indicating that it is.
(c) When the Ram answers that really the 'Kal va'Chomer' is from a Yevamah, whom the refers to as 'Eishes Ish', he means - that the Limud is not from a regular Eishes Ish, but from a Yevamah after the Yavam has married her, who was not acquired with a Shtar.
TOSFOS DH AMAR K'RA "KACHA", IKUVAclick for question
(a) We know that "Kachah" comes to exclude a Yevamah from the Din of Get and not to permit her with the death of the Yavam - from a form of logic in that a Get, like Chalitzah, depends on an act by a man, which the death of the Yavam does not.
TOSFOS DH HA LA'AV HACHI, DARSHINAN 'KAL VA'CHOMER' AF-AL-GAV DE'CHESIV BEIH "CHUKAH"click for question
(a) The Gemara in Yoma establishes the Beraisa from which we are asking like R. Yehudah - because it is a Sifra, and we have a principle that 'Stam Sifra R. Yehudah'.
(b) The problem this creates with the fact that we are currently connecting the Hagralah (the lottery that decides which goat goes to Hash-m and which one goes to Azazel) with the term "Chukah" - whereas elsewhere R. Yehudah confines "Chukah" to the things that are performed with the white garments in the Kodesh Kodshim (which does not include Hagralah).
(c) We answer by switching 'Chukah' for the fact that the Torah writes there "Asher Alah" twice - and whatever is written twice, like Chukah, is Me'akev (but is not confined to the things that are performed with the white garments in the Kodesh Kodshim, even according to R. Yehudah), and which therefore includes Hagralah.click for question
(a) R. Shimshon mi'Coutzi answers differently. According to him, the very fact that R. Yehudah needs "Zos" to reveal that Chukah only pertains to the things that are performed with the white garments in the Kodesh Kodshim proves that we Darshen a 'Kal va'Chomer even when the Torah writes "Chukah". Otherwise - we would not need "ve'Asahu Chatas" to preclude 'Keri'as Shem', seeing as the Torah has already "Chukah", and if a 'Kal va'Chomer' would not override Chukah, Keri'as Shem would already be precluded.
TOSFOS DH HO'IL VE'CHOL KINYANO BA'KESEFclick for question
(a) The reason Rashi gives for this, based on the Pasuk in Behar "O Kanoh mi'Yad Amisecha" is - that seeing the Pasuk confines Meshichah (to which "mi'Yad Amisecha" refers) is confined to a fellow Yisrael, precluding a Nochri (who must therefore employ the Kinyan of Kesef).
(b) the problem with this Derasha is that it follows the opinion of Resh Lakish. According to R. Yochanan in Bava Metzia, "mi'Yad Amisecha" refers to - Kinyan Kesef ('Davar ha'Nikneh mi'Yad le'Yad').
(c) By the same token, we ought then to extrapolate - that a Nochri acquires with Meshichah.
(d) Added to that, the Gemara says in Bechoros rules - "mi'Yad Amisecha", 'be'Kesef, Ha le'Akum, bi'Meshichah!' (as we just explained).click for question
(a) To reconcile 'Ho'il ve'Chol Kinyano ba'Kesef' with the two above Gemaras, Rabeinu Tam therefore adds a few words to the statement, to read 'Ho'il ve'Chol Kinyano de'Akum be'Eved Ivri, be'Kesef'.
(b) We learn from the Pasuk there (in connection with the Eved Ivri of a Nochri) "mi'Kesef Miknaso" - that a Nochri cannot acquire an Eved Ivri with a Shtar.click for question
(a) And we prove this from the source of the ruling that permits a Yisrael to acquire an Eved with a Shtar - i.e. the Hekesh of an Eved Ivri to an Amah Ivriyah.
(b) And we know that one can acquire an Amah Ivriyah with a Shtar - because the Torah compares her to "Acheres" (the wife of the master who married her, via Yi'ud.
(c) This proves that a Nochri cannot acquire an Eved Ivri with a Shtar - because he is not subject to Gitin and Kidushin (in which case, "Acheres" does not apply to him).
(d) Rabeinu Tam further proves from the Gemara in Bava Basra 'Oved-Kochavim mi'Chi Mata Zuzi li'Yedei Istalik Leih, ve'Yisrael Lo Kani ad de'Mata Shtara li'Yedeih' - implying that a Nochri cannot acquire through a Shtar.click for question
(a) Neither can we turn the Pircha (in the heading) into a 'Kal va'Chomer', 'u'Mah Akum she'Eino Koneh Eved Ivri bi'Shtar Koneh be'Kesef ... ' (permitting a Yisrael to acquire an Eved Ivri with a Shtar) - because it is more logical to say that each one is allotted his own independent Kinyan ...
(b) ... as the Gemara says in Bechoros (regarding Metaltelin) - since a Yisrael has one specific Kinyan, so too does a Nochri.
TOSFOS DH MOCHER ATZMO MINALEIH? YALIF "SACHIR" "SACHIR"click for question
(a) The Gezeirah-Shavah "Sachir" "Sachir" creates a problem regarding the Gemara's Limud from "mi'Kesef Miknaso", inasmuch as - we could have learned Kinyan Kesef regarding an Eved Ivri by a Nochri from "Sachir" "Sachir", Akum ("ki'Schir Shanah be'Shanah") from from Nimkar le'Yisrael, and Nimkar le'Yisrael from Amah Ivriyah (as the Gemara explained earlier).
(b) We answer that "mi'Kesef Miknaso" is anyway needed for the Derasha (cited earlier in the Perek [Daf 8a]) - 'be'Kesef Hu Nikneh, ve'Eino Nikneh bi'Tevu'ah ve'Kelim.
(c) We ask a similar question on the Derasha "ve'Hefdah" (regarding Kinyan Kesef by Amah Ivriyah), which we could also just as well have learned this from "Sachir" "Sachir" - from Eved Ivri ha'Nimkar le'Yisrael, and Nimkar le'Yisrael from Nimkar le'Akum.
(d) And we answer in the same way as we answered the previous question, inasmuch as we learn from "ve'Hefdah" - that the purchaser must deduct money from the sale price according to the number of years that the Amah Ivriyah worked for him.click for question
(a) In similar vein, we query the Hekesh of Ivri to Ivriyah to teach us Kinyan Kesef by an Eved Ivri. There too, we could have learned it from "Sachir" Sachir" - from Nimkar le'Akum.
(b) And there too, we need the Hekesh to compare ...
1. ... an Eved Ivri to an Amah Ivriyah - in that he, like her, does not go free if the master knocks out one of his limbs.
2. ... an Amah Ivriyah to an Eved Ivri - inasmuch as, like him, she goes free - after six years service or in the Yovel year.
TOSFOS DH "LECHA", 'VE'LO LE'YORESHclick for question
(a) This Derasha comes to preclude - a daughter or a brother (should they be next of kin), but ...
(b) ... not - a son, whom the Eved Ivri continues to serve.
TOSFOS DH "OZNO", VE'LO OZNO SHEL MOCHER ATZMOclick for question
(a) Mocher Atzmo cannot have his ear pierced (to continue to work after six years) - because his master is not permitted to give him a Shifchah Kena'anis to live with (in which case, he cannot say 'Ahavti es Ishti ... ').
(b) The problem this create with the above Derasha is - that it therefore appears to be redundant?
(c) We answer that were it not for the Derasha of "Ozno (she'Lo)", ve'Lo Ozno shel Mocher Atzmo' - we would have permitted him to have his ear pierced in spite of the fact that he cannot say 'Ahavti es Ishti'.