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'MOCHER SH'TAR-CHOV LA'CHAVERO, VE'CHAZAR U'MACHLO MACHULclick for question
(a) The reason that some commentaries give to explain this - is that seeing as Kinyan Shtaros is only mid'Rabanan, the sale does not have the power to remove the seller's rights (to prevent him from being Mochel the debt).
(b) There is a support for this from the Gemara in Bava Basra - which implies that Kinyan Shtaros is only d'Rebbibanan.
TOSFOS DH KI KA'AMAR RAV BE'PIKADON, AVAL BE'MILVEH, LOclick for question
(a) Rav says - Manah li be'Yadcha, Teneihu li'Peloni be'Ma'amad Shelashtan, Kanah'.
(b) We ask why the Gemara does not establish Rav even by a Milveh, and that the Tana'im (R. Meir and the Chachamim) are arguing over Shmuel's Din of 'ha'Mocher Shtar la'Chavero ... - va'Afilu Yoresh Mochel'.
(c) Alternatively, even if they hold like Shmuel in that point too, the basis of their Machlokes might be - whether a woman relies on that or not (as the Gemara explained earlier).click for question
(a) From the fact that the Gemara does not present either of the two above explanations, we can prove - that even according to Shmuel, an owner who sells a Shtar-Chov be'Ma'amad Shelashtan, cannot be Mochel.
(b) To reconcile this with the Gemara earlier, which rules that Mechilah by Ma'amad Shelashtan is valid - we will have to establish that where the borrower was not present when the sale took place.
TOSFOS DH ILEIMA BI'SH'TAR-CHOV DE'ACHERIM KASHYA DE'R. MEIR A'DE'R. MEIRclick for question
(a) We refute the suggestion that the earlier Beraisa speaks where he said 'K'ni Lach Shtar ve'Chol Shibudeih', whereas the latter Beraisa speaks where he did not - in that, taking into account the similar Lashon used by both Beraisos, it would be a Dochek to make such a distinction.
TOSFOS DH VE'RABBANAN MESAFKA L'HU I KE'R. MEIR I KE'R. ELAZARclick for question
(a) According to this explanation, the text (in the Rabanan) 've'Im Lav, Einah Mekudeshes' is wrong - inasmuch as she would need a Get anyway, even if the Shtar is not worth a Shaveh Perutah (in case the Halachah is like R. Elazar, who holds 'Eidei Mesirah Karsi').
(b) We cannot say that she does not in fact, need a Get - because then they would concur with the opinion of R. Meir ('Eidei Chasimah Karsi'), and how could the Beraisa say that that they have a Safek like whom they hold.
TOSFOS DH SHAMIN ES HA'NEYARclick for question
(a) This is specifically according to the Rabanan, but according to R. Meir - even if the paper was worth a Perutah, she would not be betrothed.
(b) We think that assessing the value of the paper ought not to be necessary even according to the Rabanan - seeing as the Halachah may be like R. Elazar.
(c) We conclude however, that it is - because then, if it is worth a Perutah, she is Vadai Mekudeshes, whereas if not, she is only Safek Mekudeshes (in which case she will require a Get in the event that she marries another man).
TOSFOS DH DE'KULI ALMA YESHNAH LI'SECHIRUS MI'TECHILAH VE'AD SOFclick for question
(a) We cannot extrapolate from here that this is the Halachah - because the Gemara did not have the option of concluding 'de'Kuli Alma Einah li'Sechirus mi'Techilah ve'ad Sof'.
(b) That is - because there would then be no reason to say 'Einah Mekudeshes'.click for question
(a) The Mishnah in Avodah-Zarah discussing someone who is building and reaches the archway one which the idol is placed, prohibits any further building. R. Elazar in the Gemara say rules that in the event that a person did continue to build - he is permitted to accept payment for his work ...
(b) ... because, as the Gemara there explains, of the principle 'Yeshnah li'Sechirus mi'Techilah ve'ad Sof', coupled with the fact that the building only becomes forbidden with the last hammer-blow, which is not worth a Perutah.
(c) Bearing in mind that nobody disagrees with that, we can prove from there that 'Yeshnah li'Sechirus mi'Techilah ve'ad Sof' is Halachah.click for question
(a) The ramifications of the Machlokes (whether Sechirus is mi'Techilah ve'ad Sof or only be'Sof) cannot be with regard to whether one may or may not, retract - since Rav, who rules that a worker may retract even in the middle of the day, issues this ruling even according to the opinion that holds 'Einah li'Sechirus Ela li'be'Sof'.
(b) In fact, its ramifications are - with regard to Kidushin (where, the Gemara just explained, the money is a Milveh if we hold 'Yeshnah li'Sechirus mi'Techilah ve'ad Sof', but not if we hold 'Einah li'Sechirus Ela li'be'Sof'.
(c) With regard to Avodas-Kochavim, one is permitted to accept payment even if we take on 'Yeshnah li'Sechirus mi'Techilah ve'ad Sof' - because even if we do, there is another principle 'Sechirus Einah Mishtalemes Ela li'be'Sof' (the obligation to pay only takes effect at the end).
(d) The Gemara in Bava Metzia learns this from the Pasuk in B'har "ki'Sechir Shanah be'Shanah ... " - hich implies that the Sechirus of this year only falls due next year.
TOSFOS DH HA BE'MAYAclick for question
(a) Rashi explains that 'be'Maya' refers to 'Bo ve'Lo ba'Meh she'be'Socho', because water is not Chashuv. By the same token, the Tana says, when the cup contains ...
1. ... wine - Bameh she'be'Socho, ve'Lo Bo', which is Chashuv, and which one drinks, retturning the cup immediately.
2. ... fish-juice - 'Bo u'va'Meh she'be'Socho', because a. Fish-juice is Chashuv and b. one tends to retain the cup for a long period of time, until the fish-juice, which is eaten slowly as a condiment, is finished.
(b) 'Tzihara' might also mean - oil (from the word 'Yitzhar').
(c) The problem with Rashi's interpretation of the three Beraisos is - that they do not follow the order in which the Beraisos are cited ('Bo u'va'Meh she'be'Socho', 'Bo ve'Lo Bameh she'be'Socho', 'Bameh she'be'Socho ve'Lo Bo'?click for question
(a) Rabeinu Tam therefore explains ...
1. ... 'Bo u'ba'Meh she'Besocho' - with regard to water, which is Bateil to the cup.
2. ... 'Bo, ve'Lo ba'Meh she'Besocho' - with regard to wine, which is sufficiently Chashuv not to be Bateil to the cup, but not Chashuv enough for the woman's mind to be on it (rather than on the cup).
3. ... 'ba'Meh she'Besocho ve'Lo Bo ' - refers to the fish-juice, which is Chashuv (and to which the cup is not Bateil).
(b) We answer the question on Rashi - based on the fact that the Gemara is not fussy with regard to following the order of the quotations, like we find with regard to the Beraisa in Sukah concerning the prohibition of sleeping with Tefilin even casually).
TOSFOS DH IKA DE'NICHA LEIH BE'KASPA, VE'IKA DE'NICHA LEIH BE'DAHAVAclick for question
(a) A person would prefer silver to gold - if he needs it for a silver ornament that he is in the process of manufacturing.
(b) This form of logic explains why the Rabanan argue with R. Shimon. By 'Sh'vach Mamon' however (where she received more money than he stipulated) - the Rabanan will concede that she is Mekudeshes (see Maharsha).
TOSFOS DH DE'HAVAH TZAYAR BI'VELISAclick for question
(a) Rashi explains this statement to mean - that the man gave the Dinar to the woman's Shali'ach wrapped in a cloth, and that, when it reached the woman's hand she found that it was a golden Dinar.
(b) The Gemara could not have given the same answer earlier to answer the question 'Nimtza! Me'ikara Nami Zahav Havah' - because there it was the woman herself who received the Kidushin from the man's Shali'ach, in which she must have known at the outset that it was gold ...
(c) ... because, if she initially believed it to be of silver - the Gemara ought to have then asked 'that the Kidushin should be nullified' (since a. Some people prefer silver ... , and b. the form of logic of 'Mar'eh Makom Hu Lo' is not applicable either) ...
(d) ... and for the same reason the Shali'ach must also have known, seeing as it was his own money that he was lending the Meshale'ach.