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 HASHTA BI'SHELUCHO MEKADESH, BO MIBA'Iclick for question
(a) We cannot answer (as we sometimes do) 'Lo Zu af Zu' - since that is only applicable when there are two statements, but not when there is only one statement (as is the case here).
TOSFOS DH I ITMAR DE'RAV YOSEF, A'SEIFA ITMARclick for question
(a) We do not establish Rav Yosef on the Reisha, and establish the case where he recognizes her - since we would query that, in that, perhaps the Reisha is speaking irrespective of whether he knows her or not, and it is forbidden to betroth her under such circumstances (in which case, we will be unable to learn Rav Yosef's Din from there).
TOSFOS DH ASUR LE'ADAM SHE'YEKADESH ISHAHclick for question
(a) We reconcile this with the Lashon 'ha'Ish Mekadesh ... ' (implying Lechatchilah) - in that the Tana is only concerned with teaching that the Kidushin is valid (and is therefore not fussy with the Lashon).
TOSFOS DH KE'SHE'HI NA'ARAH, IN, KE'SHE'HI KETANAH LOclick for question
(a) We try to reject the inference - inasmuch as the Tana means to say 'Na'arah', and Kol-she'Kein Ketanah.
(b) We refute the question however, on the basis of the fact that the Mishnah ...
1. ... says - 'ke'she'Hi Na'arah' (and not just 'Na'arah'), implying that she is specifically a Na'arah, and not a Ketanah.
2. ... does not just say - 'ha'Ish Mekadesh es Bito (Stam)'.
(c) The precedent for the latter answer is (in the Mishnah in Kesuvos) - 'ha'Av Zakai be'Kidushehah'.
TOSFOS DH ASUR LE'ADAM SHE'YEKADESH ES BITO KE'SHE'HI KETANAHclick for question
(a) We reconcile this with what we learned earlier that even if a woman marries a man whom she has not seen, she will probably not retract, due to the form of logic 'Tav Lemeisav Tan Du ... ' - by restricting that to a Gedolah, who betroths herself and who already agreed to the betrothal, but not to a Ketanah, who is betrothed by her father, and who may wel not have agreed to it had she been a Gedolah.
(b) We justify the Minhag of that time to marry off their daughters before they had reached the age of Bas-Mitzvah - to the fact that because the troubles of the Galus were constantly increasing, and if one had the means to give one's daughter a dowry, it was better to do so whilst the going was good.
TOSFOS DH VE'SHILACH VE'SHILCHAH, MELAMED SHE'HA'SHALI'ACH OSEH SHALI'ACHclick for question
(a) The problem with Rashi, who explains that the word "ve'Shilchah" appears twice in the Parshah, and that we learn one Derasha from each on is that we need the first one to teach us - that only a woman who goes out and does not return is divorced (but not one who comes back, such as a Ketanah and a Shotah).
(b) We therefore learn the two current D'rashos (that the husband can appoint a Shali'ach and that the Shali'ach can appoint a Shali'ach) - from the second "ve'Shilchah", from the key word "Shilach", and from "the extra 'Vav' in "ve'Shilchah", respectively.
(c) According to Rabeinu Chananel, we learn from ...
1. ... the second basic word "Shilach" - that the husband can appoint a Shali'ach (as we just explained). Otherwise, the Pasuk should have written - "ve'Nasan be'Yadah" and stopped.
2. ... the extra 'Heh' ("Shilchah") - that the woman too, may appoint a Shali'ach.
3. ... the extra 'Vav' ("ve'Shilchah") - that even the Shali'ach may appoint a Shali'ach.
TOSFOS DH TOREIM KE'DA'AS BA'AL HA'BAYISclick for question
(a) The Tana means - that the Shali'ach must assess the owner, and give Terumah from his crops accordingly ...
(b) ... either the average (one fiftieth), generously (a fortieth) or in a miserly fashion (a sixtieth).
(c) We initially learn from the Pasuk "Reishis Degancha" - that even the smallest amount will suffice for Terumah.
(d) The Yerushalmi learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... in Matos (in connection with the Terumas Meches that was given to the Kohanim) "u'mi'Machtzis B'nei Yisrael Tikach Echad Achuz min ha'Chamishim" - that the average amount that was gives from Terumah is a fiftieth.
2. ... in Yechezkel "Shishis ha'Eifah me'Chomer ha'Chitim, ve'Shishisam ha'Eifah me'Chomer ha'Se'orim" - that a miserly person gives a sixtieth (as we shall now explain).click for question
(a) Regarding the previous question, a Chomer - is half a Kur (i.e. thirty Sa'in).
(b) The equivalent of a sixth of an Eifah - is half a Sa'ah ...
(c) ... which is - a fiftieth of a Chomerclick for question
(a) Assuming that, in the same Pasuk, the word "ve'Shishisam" refers to both Chomer Chitin and Chomer Se'orim mentioned there, that amounts to - one Sa'ah for the two Chomrim?
(b) Bearing in mind that the Pasuk mentions another Sa'ah, the Pasuk now hints at one and a half Sa'ah per two Chomrim ...
(c) ... the equivalent of one in forty - a hint to the fortieth that the generous person gives as Terumah.
TOSFOS DH PICHEIS YUD O HOSIF YUDTERUMASO TERUMAHclick for question
(a) Rashi interprets 'Picheis Yud' - to mean that the Shali'ach added a tenth and gave a fortieth instead of a fiftieth, and it is the owner from whose crops a tenth was deducted.
(b) Others interpret it to mean - that the Shali'ach deducted a tenth, and gave a sixtieth.
(c) Either way, we can extrapolate from here that - in spite of the fact that the owner specifically stated that he did not intend to give as much as the Shali'ach separated - the latter's separation is valid.click for question
(a) The Gemara in Bava Metzia rules in a case where the Shali'ach separated good quality crops and the owner came and said 'Why don't you go to the best ones?', assuming that there are ...
1. ... better quality crops - that the Shali'ach's Terumah is valid.
2. ... no better quality crops - that it is not valid.
(b) We reconcile the latter ruling there with the ruling in our case - by drawing a distinction between superior quality crops, which people do not tend to separate, and which the Shali'ach therefore had no right to separate, and more in quantity, which they do.
TOSFOS DH MAH LE'GERUSHIN SHE'KEIN YESHNAN CHOLclick for question
(a) We do not say 'she'Kein Yeshnan Ba'l Korchah' - because we could then counter it with 'Kidushin Yochi'ach'.
(b) The reason that we said it earlier was - because there we were trying to learn Kidushin from Gerushin.
TOSFOS DH SHE'KEIN YESHNAH BE'MACHSHAVAHclick for question
(a) We could learn Kidushin from Gerushin and Terumah, by answering to the question 'Mah ...
1. ... le'Gerushin she'Kein Yeshnan Ba'l Korchah' - 'Terumah Tochi'ach'.
2. ... li'Terumah she'Kein Yeshnah be'Machshavah' - 'Gerushin Yochichu'.
(b) We cannot learn Kidushin from Gerushin via the Hekesh of "ve'Yatz'ah ve'Haysah" - because since we have question 'she'Kein Yeshnan Ba'l Korchah', the Hekesh still applies to the many other D'rashos that we learn from it.
TOSFOS DH NAFKA LEIH MI'DE'R. YEHOSHUA BEN KORCHAHclick for question
(a) We learn from ...
1. ... 'R. Yehoshua ben Korchah - the principle 'Shelucho shel Adam Kamoso'.
2. ... the words "Asher lo" (in the Pasuk Acharei-Mos, in connection with the bull of Aharon on Yom-Kipur, "ve'Shachat es Par ha'Chatas Asher lo") - that it is only the Aharon's bull on Yom Kipur that he must bring himself, but all other Kodshim can be Shechted by a Shali'ach.
(b) The problem this now poses is - why we then need R. Yehoshua ben Korchah's Derasha.click for question
(a) We answer that the Limud from Aharon's bull is confined - to a Chatas (but not to other Korbanos).
(b) What makes a Chatas different than other Korbanos is - the fact that it can be brought even against the will of the owner, which will explain why it can be brought via a Shali'ach, whereas other Korbanos, which cannot be brought against the owner's will, would not be eligible to be brought by a Shali'ach either (were it not for R. Yehoshua's Derasha).
TOSFOS DH SHE'KEIN YESHNAN BE'MACHSHAVAHclick for question
(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... in Korach "ve'Nechshav Lachem Terumaschem" - that Terumah takes effect with Machshavah alone.
2. ... in Divrei ha'Yamim "Kol Nediv Leiv Olos" - that Kodshim does, too.
TOSFOS DH HA'OVED-KOCHAVIM VE'HA'KUTI SHE'TARMU, TERUMASAN TERUMAHclick for question
(a) According to Rashi, this means that Zarim are forbidden to eat it - based on the fact that a. 'Ein Kinyan le'Akum be'Eretz Yisrael Lehafki'a mi'Yedei Terumah' and b. that the Miru'ach of a Nochri does not exempt from Terumah.
(b) The Gemara in Menachos learns the latter ruling from the fact that the Torah writes "Degancha" twice (once in Re'ei and once in Shoftim). 'Digun' - is synonymous with Miru'ach (flattening the pile of wheat after the winnowing).
(c) We learn that the Digun of a Nochri does not exempt from Terumah - in that a. "Degancha" implies 'your Digun, and not that of a Nochri', whilst on the other hand, from the fact that the Torah writes "Degancha" twice, we include the Digun of a Nochri (rather than exclude it), due to the principle 'Ein Miy'ut Achar Miy'ut Ela Lerabos' (two exclusions actually come to include).click for question
(a) R. Shimon learns from "Degancha" - 'your Digun, and not that of a Nochri'.
(b) And as far as 'Ein Miy'ut Achar Miy'ut Ela Lerabos' is concerned - he does not consider it a 'Miy'ut Achar Miy'ut' (since both Miy'utim are needed).
(c) Rashi apparently establishes the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and R. Shimon - as to whether we say 'Yesh Kinyan le'Akum be'Eretz Yisrael ... ' (R. Shimon) or 'Ein Kinyan ... ' (the Tana Kama).
(d) The problem with that is - that this is a machlokes Amora'im in Gitin (and it is illogical for Tana'im to dispute the same point as Amora'im).click for question
(a) The Ri therefore establishes the Tana Kama, even if we hold 'Yesh Kinyan le'Akum ... '. In is nevertheless possible for the Terumah of a Nochri to be subject to Terumah - if the crops grew a third whilst in the possession of a Yisrael.
(b) Neither does the Miru'ach of the Nochri exempt it either - because it speaks when it was the Yisrael who performed it.
(c) Despite the Din that purchased crops are not subject to Terumah, the fact that the Yisrael purchased it from the Nochri does not exempt it in this case, Rabeinu Tam explains - because it speaks when he purchased it before performing the Miru'ach (and it is only someone who purchases it after the Miru'ach who is exempt from Terumah).
(d) The problem with this explanation is - on what grounds R. Shimon's then exempts it?click for question
(a) We resolve the problem with the Gemara in Zevachim, where R. Shimon learns from a Gezeirah-Shavah that the Kodshim of a Nochri is not subject to Me'ilah - "Chet" "Chet" from Terumah.
(b) That solves our problem - inasmuch as he learns that the Terumah of a Nochri is not valid from "B'nei Yisrael", 've'Lo Akum', which is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv.