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 BE'ZU U'VE'ZU, IM YESH BE'CHULAN SHAVEH P'RUTAHclick for question
(a) Despite the fact that the Beraisa issues the same ruling in both the Reisha ('Hiskadshi li be'Aeilu') and the Metziasa ('Hiskadshi li be'Zu u've'Zu', the Tana divides them into two separate cases - because in the latter, he wants to draw a distinction between where she ate the dates and where she left them.
TOSFOS DH HANICHA LE'MA'N DE'AMAR A'SEIFA KA'Iclick for question
(a) Rashi comments that the Gemara is not asking on Rava ('Lo Shanu Ela de'Amar lah be'Zu be'Zu u've'Zu ... ', but rather it is querying - Rebbi Ami, who argued with Rav and Shmuel a Daf earlier.
TOSFOS DH HA MANI REBBI HI, DE'AMAR LO SH'NA KE'ZAYIS KE'ZAYIS, LO SH'NA KE'ZAYIS U' KE'ZAYISclick for question
(a) We will now classify the Seifa 'be'Zu Natlaso ve'Ochlaso, ve'Od be'Zu ve'Od be'Zu ... ' - as P'rata (like 'Hiskadshi Hiskadshi').
(b) The Din would have been if she had not eaten the dates ...
(c) ... and the reason that the Tana presents the case where she did is - to teach us that even though she derived immediate benefit from them, she is only betrothed if one of them is worth a Perutah.click for question
(a) The author of the Metziasa 'be'Zu u'be'Zu u'be'Zu, im yesh be'Chulan Shaveh Perutah, Mekudeshes' cannot also be Rebbi - according to whom, one of the dates needs to be worth a Perutah, as we just explained.
(b) To reconcile the Metziasa with the Seifa - we will have to establish the two sections according to two different Tana'im.
(c) Rebbi's Din is cited - in Zevachim.
TOSFOS DH ELA MILVEH BI'RESHUS BA'ALIM LA'CHAZARAH IKA BEINAIHUclick for question
(a) In practical terms ...
1. ... the Tana Kama of the Beraisa rules that, even if a Perutah of the loan remains, the woman is not divorced - because he holds that the loan is in the domain of the borrower.
2. ... R. Shimon ben Elazar hold that she is - because in his opinion, the loan is in the domain of the lender.
(b) Rav (who holds 'ha'Mekadesh be'Milveh Einah Mekudeshes) still appears to be a Machlokes Tana'im - since he cannot hold like R. Shimon ben Elazar, who appears to hold ' ... Mekudeshes'.
(c) We nevertheless reconcile Rav with R. Shimon ben Elazar - by confining his ruling to a case where the borrower began spending some of the money, whereas R. Shimon ben Elazar is speaking when he did not.
(d) And when R. Shimon ben Elazar said 'Im Nishtayer Shaveh Perutah ... ' - he meant, not that the borrower spent, but that it was stolen.
TOSFOS DH ELA HA DE'AMAR RAV HUNA HA'SHO'EL KARDUM ME'CHAVERO BIKA BO, KAN'Oclick for question
(a) This Halachah is applicable - with regard to the borrower being able to retract.
(b) It cannot refer to becoming obligated to pay for Onsin - since he is already Chayav for Onsin from the time that he becomes a Sho'el ...
(c) ... from the time that he makes a Meshichah, as we learned in Bava Metzia.
TOSFOS DH LE'OLAM SH'TAR-CHOV D'ACHERIMclick for question
(a) If the man betroths her with Shtar-Chov Didah (that he has against her) - she is not betrothed.
(b) The reason for this distinction is - because in the latter case, he has not given her anything, seeing as she already owns the money, which is not the case if he gives her somebody else's Shtar-Chov ...
(c) ... where even though he has not given her anything intrinsic, he has however, given her the benefit of a claim consisting of money that she did not own before.
TOSFOS DH DE'KULI ALMA LEIS L'HU DE'REBBIclick for question
(a) Rebbi says 'Osiyos Niknos bi'Mesirah'.
(b) In fact, the Gemara could have said that both opinions hold like Rebbi, and they are arguing over Rav Papa, who says - that according to those who hold 'E~in Osiyos Niknos li'Mesirah', one needs to write when being Makneh the Shtar-Chov 'K'ni Lach Ihu ve'Chol Shibudeih' ...
(c) ... Likewise, the Chachamim would hold that the woman is not betrothed - because she failed to say that orally.click for question
(a) We can now extrapolate from the Gemara's current conclusion ('de'Kuli Alma Leis l'hu d'Rebbibbi', when it could just as well have said 'de'Kuli Alma Is l'hu d'Rebbibbi') - that the Halachah is not like Rebbi.
(b) The Gemara in Bava Basra presents two versions of the Halachah - 'Halachah Osiyos Niknos bi'Mesirah' and 'Halachah Ein Osiyos Niknos bi'Mesirah'.
(c) Our Gemara supports - the latter text (as we just explained).