Tosfos DH "Tanina"

תוס' ד"ה "תנינא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains where the statement about Kesuvah was stated previously.)

דכתובה נמי תנינא


Implied Question: [Shmuel himself was the first one to teach that a woman who performs Mi'un has no Kesuvah. How can the Gemara ask that what Shmuel said was already taught beforehand?] The teaching regarding Kesuvah was indeed taught previously.

דהא שמואל תני ממאנת.


Answer: As Shmuel (himself) taught that the Mishnah states that a woman who performs Mi'un (has no Kesuvah).


Tosfos DH "Klalo Shel Davar"

תוס' ד"ה "כללו של דבר"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the seemingly extra statement "The rule is etc.")

מצינו למימר דאתיא לרבויי דאם היא בת ישראל לכהן לא תאכל בתרומה. ואם היא בת כהן לישראל תאכל.


Implied Question: What does Rebbi Eliezer teach us by saying "The rule is etc.?"] We can say that he (Rebbi Eliezer) is teaching us to include that if she is the daughter of a Yisrael who married a Kohen she may not eat Terumah. Similarly, if she is the daughter of a Kohen who married a Yisrael she may continue to eat Terumah.

דהכי תנן בפ' בית שמאי (יבמות קז:): ר' אליעזר אומר אין מעשה קטנה כלום. בת ישראל לכהן לא תאכל. בת כהן לישראל תאכל.


This is indeed stated in the Mishnah in Yevamos (107b). [The Mishnah states] Rebbi Eliezer says the actions (marriage) of a girl who is a minor are (akin to) nothing. If the daughter of a Yisrael (who is a minor) is married to a Kohen she should not eat Terumah. If the daughter of a Kohen (who is a minor) is married to a Yisrael she may (continue to) eat Terumah.


Tosfos DH "u'vi'Hafaras Nedarehah"

תוס' ד"ה "ובהפרת נדריה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the relevance of nullifying her vows. Tosfos also explains how Rebbi Yehoshua can state that a Kohen can become Tamei to his wife.)

היינו משהגיעה לעונת נדרים. דאי לאו הכי, אין נדרה נדר.


Implied Question: [Why is nullifiying her vows pertinent? We know that the vows of a minor are generally invalid!] This is when she reaches the age where her vows become valid. Otherwise, her vows are invalid.

ואפילו אם תמצא לומר מופלא הסמוך לאיש דאורייתא, דאיבעיא לן בנדה (דף מו:), אתי שפיר הא דיכול להפר אף על גב דליכא הכא אלא נשואין דרבנן.


Implied Question: Even if you will say that (the concept of) a minor who is close being a man may be able to make a vow according to Torah law, as the Gemara in Nidah (46b) indeed asks about this possibility, it is still understandable that he could nullify her vows (when she is this age). This is despite the fact that their marriage is only Rabbinic in nature.

דכל הנודרת על דעת בעלה היא נודרת,


Answer: This is because any woman who makes a vow does so while taking into account the opinion of her husband (and only wants her vow to be valid if her husband approves).

דכי האי גוונא מתרץ התם אמילתא אחריתי.


The Gemara (in Nidah 46b) gives a similar answer there (introducing this concept when asked) about something else.

ולדברי רבי יהושע לא תיקשי היאך מיטמא לה אם כהן הוא, הואיל והנשואין לא הוו אלא מדרבנן.


Implied Question: According to Rabbi Yehoshua you should not ask how her husband can become Tamei to her (if she dies) if he is a Kohen, since their marriage is only Rabbinic in nature (and he is seemingly transgressing the Torah law against a Kohen becoming Tamei to a non-relative).

ויש לומר דמיטמא לה משום מת מצוה. הואיל ויורשיה לא ירתי לה קריא ולא ענו היא.


Answer: It is possible to answer that he can become Tamei to her because she is (essentially) a Meis Mitzvah (someone who has noone to bury them). Being that her inheritors (relatives) do not inherit her (she is like a dead person who a Kohen must bury as), he calls out and noone answers (the call to bury her). [The Torah allows any Kohen, even a Kohen Gadol, to become Tamei to a Mes Mitzvah.]

דהכי מתרץ בהאשה רבה (יבמות דף פט:) אמילתא אחריתא


The Gemara (in Yevamos, 89b) gives a similar answer there (introducing this concept when asked) about something else.


Tosfos DH "Ee'leima"

תוס' ד"ה "אילימא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains whether the husband was within his rights to use these clothes. Tosfos also defines the Mishnah's statement that "she has no "Peiros" - "fruits."

בהנך שבלה שלא כדין מיירי, שכלה הקרן.


Explanation: This is talking about the clothes that were worn out unfairly, meaning that the principle worth of the clothes is gone.

דאי בבלה כדין, מאי מסיק בתר הכי גבי אילונית אי דליתנהו איפכא מיבעי ליה? למה יש לו לשלם פירות שאכל כדין? אלא ודאי שלא כדין איירי.


Proof: If it was where the clothes were worn out by the husband who had a right to do so, how can the Gemara later conclude regarding Aylonis that if the clothes no longer exist the opposite should be true? Why should the husband pay for fruits (i.e. benefit) that he rightfully ate (used)? The Gemara therefore must certainly be discussing where the wearing of the clothing by the husband was improper.

והשתא נמי אתיא שפיר הא דאמרינן ביבמות פרק בית שמאי (דף קז.) אי אמרת נשואה תמאן שמיט ואכיל לה.


Now we can also understand the Gemara in Yevamos (107a) that says "If you will say that a married girl can perform Mi'un, he (her husband) will take it away and eat it.

ומה בכך? יתחייב לשלם מה שלא אכל כדין!


So what? He will be obligated to pay that which he did not eat (use) lawfully!

והיה דוחק רבי שמא היא לא תמצא עדים, אבל עכשיו אין צריך דפטור כדפרישית.


Answer: Rebbi pushed this (proof) aside as she might not find witnesses (that he used up her property unlawfully). However, now (in our case) this is not necessary, as her husband is indeed exempt from paying, as we have explained.

והא דתנן דממאנת אין לה פירות


Implied Question: The Mishnah states that a woman who performs Mi'un does not receive "Peiros" - "fruits (benefits)." [What exactly does this mean?]

לא פירות שאכל קאמר דאפילו קרן גופיה אם אכלו אין לה


It is not referring to fruits (benefit) that he has eaten (used), as even if he consumed the principle she does not get it back.[The basic definition is therefore not what the Mishnah is coming to teach us. What is the Mishnah teaching us by saying that she does not receive "fruits?"]

אלא איצטריך לאשמועינן דאין לה פירות שליקט אפילו הן מונחין בעין בביתו


Answer #1: It must be needed to tell us that she does not even get to keep fruits that her husband actually gathered (from her fields), even if they are sitting in their original form in his house.

ואין לפרש פירות דממאנת תקנת פירות כגון פירקונה


It is impossible to explain that the fruits of a woman who performs Mi'un (being discussed in the Mishnah) refers to the "decree of fruits," meaning that he would redeem her (if she was taken captive).

דהיכי דמי? אם מיאנה ואחר כך נשבית, פשיטא! ונשבית נמי ומיאנה בעודה שבויה פשיטא!


What would be the case? If it is that she performed Mi'un and then was taken captive, it is obvious (that he has no obligation to redeem her)! Additionally, a case where she was taken captive and then performed Mi'un when still captive is similarly obvious (in that he has no obligation to redeem her)!

דבאלמנה נמי כי האי גוונא נשבית בחיי בעלה ומת אמרינן בפרק נערה (לעיל דף נב.) שאין יורשין חייבים לפדותה.


Even a widow in a similar scenario, where she is captured when her husband is alive and her husband then dies, is not obligated to be redeemed by her husband's inheritors as stated in the Gemara earlier (52a). [Certainly in a Rabbinic marriage the husband would have no obligation to redeem her if she performs Mi'un while captive.]

מיהו איכא לפרושי כגון שנשבית, ולוותה, ופדתה את עצמה, ומיאנה, דכי האי גוונא מיירי דאין לה מזונות כדמפרש לקמן בפרק בתרא (דף קז:).


Answer #2: However, it is possible to explains that the case is where she was captured, and subsequently borrowed money and redeemed herself. She then performed Mi'un. In this type of case we say that she is not entitled to food support, as explained later (107b). [It is therefore possible that the Mishnah would inform us that he is not entitled to redeem her in this case, as it is not an obvious conclusion like the other possibilities that were negated above.]


Tosfos DH "Hachi Garis"

תוס' ד"ה "הכי גריס"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the double fine.)

פירוש אותה קנסו בנכסי מלוג שלה, ואותו קנסו בנכסי צאן ברזל שהן שלו ברשותו.


Explanation: This means that she receives a fine that she will not collect her Nichsei Mi'loog, and he receives a fine that he should pay for the Nichsei Tzoan Barzel that are in his possession.

וקשיא לי, מאי קנס קנסו אותו? כך דין כל מגרשי נשותיהן לפרוע נכסי צאן ברזל!


Question: This is difficult. What kind of fine is this? All people who divorce their wives have to pay (the original evaluation) for Nichsei Tzoan Barzel!

ויש לומר דזהו קנס שהוא סבור להרויח ואין לו


Answer: The fine is that he thought he could profit and cannot.



Tosfos DH "ha'Nosei"

תוס' ד"ה "הנושא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it was necessary for the Mishnah to teach us this Halachah.)

סלקא דעתין דלא מיחייב


Implied Question: [The reason that the Mishnah has to say that her husband must also support her, even though it is obvious that a husband is always obligated to provide his wife with food support, is because] one would have thought that her husband is not obligated (to give her food support, in this case).

דכיון דיש לה מזונות מאחר כאילו התנה עמה על מנת שאין לה עליו מזונות. קא משמע לן.


Answer: Since once she has food from someone else (her stepfather), it is as if her husband married her on the condition that she has no claim of food support. The Mishnah therefore teaches us (that he is obligated to provide his wife with food).


Tosfos DH "v'Hein"

תוס' ד"ה "והן נותנין"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why it was necessary for the Mishnah to teach us this Halachah.)



Implied Question: [Why would we think that her past and present stepfather do not have to keep giving her food support, to the point that the Mishnah has to tell us that they must keep giving her this support?] It is necessary to teach this Halachah.

סלקא דעתך דלא פסקו אלא כל זמן שלא נשאת.


Answer: One might think that (their intent was that) they only committed to supporting her as long as she did not get married. [The Mishnah therefore states that they are obligated to continue supporting her.]


Tosfos DH "v'Hee"

תוס' ד"ה "והיא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos clarifies our Mishnah's statement in light of the Gemara in Gitin 50b-51a.)

אף על גב דלעיל (דף נא: ושם) תניא חמשה גובין מן המשוחררים המקבל עליו לזון את בת אשתו,


Implied Question: The Gemara earlier (51b) quoted a Beraisa stating that five people collect (only) from possessions that do not have liens on them, one of them being someone who accepts upon himself to give food to his stepdaughter. [This does not contradict our Mishnah that says she can even collect from possessions that do have liens on them.]

למאן דאמר בהניזקין (גיטין נא.) קצובין לחוד טרפה לא קשיא מידי, דהכא משום קצבה.


Answer #1: According to the opinion in Gitin (51a) that only debts of a set amount can be collected (from possessions that have a lien on them) there is no question, as here there indeed is a set amount (of five years).

ולמאן דאמר כתובין בעינן מוקי לה בשקנו מידו.


Answer #2: According to the opinion (in Gitin ibid.) that the possessions must be as if they are written (in a document in order to be able to collect from possessions that already have a lien on them), the case must be that a Kinyan was done to this effect.

ואם תאמר, למאן דאמר קצובין אף על פי שאין כתובין, אמאי לא חשיב להו קצבה למזון הבנות דהוי עד דתבגרן?


Question: If you will ask, according to the opinion that a debt of a set amount even if it is not written down (can be collected from possessions with a lien), why isn't the general supporting of girls considered to be a set amount? It is only until they reach maturity (and therefore is a set amount)!

ומיהו מן האב אין קשה כל כך דלא ידעינן כמה בנות יהיו לו לפיכך אין קצובין


Answer: However, there is no real question on a father (that his support should be considered a set amount). This is because he has no idea how many daughters he is going to have. Therefore, the amount of support (he will end up having to pay for his daughters) is not a set amount.

אלא האחין ששעבדו בההיא שעתא קצובין נינהו עד דתבגרן


However, the brothers who are indebted at that time (when their father dies) should indeed be obligated to pay a set amount (from their estate) until their sisters reach maturity.


Tosfos DH "Ee d'Lo"

תוס' ד"ה "אי דלא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rebbi Yochanan should exempt a person who makes such a statement from paying.)

הוה ליה למפטריה


Implied Question: [The Gemara implies that Rebbi Yochanan would not have a valid reason to say that someone who simply tells his friend he owes him a Manah is obligated to pay him. Why would he be exempt from paying?] The answer is that Rebbi Yochanan should have said he is exempt from paying for the following reasons.

או משום משטה אני בך או משום אדם עשוי שלא להשביע את עצמו.


Answer: Either because he can claim "I was merely fooling around with you" (see Yevamos 106a), or because a person will not usually make himself take a vow.


Tosfos DH "d'Amar"

תוס' ד"ה "דאמר"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the case stated in the Gemara's answer, and why one would be obligated to pay according to Rebbi Yochanan in such a case.)

דאלימא מילתא דשטרא לרבי יוחנן


Implied Question: The reason that this case gives Rebbi Yochanan more reason to say that he should be obligated to pay is because] according to Rebbi Yochanan, saying that he owes the money in a document is a strong statement.

וחשיבא הודאה אף על גב דלא אמר אתם עדיי


Answer: And it is is equivalent to a valid admission, even though he did not say "you are my witnesses."

ולא מיירי כשכתב לו "חייב אני לך מנה" וחתם תחתיו. דהיינו הוציא עליו כתב ידו, וגובה לכולי עלמא מנכסים בני חורין.


This is not talking about a case where he wrote, "I am obligated to (pay) you a Manah" and he signed his name underneath. This would be a case where the owner of the document takes out a document with the defendant's own handwritten admission, and everyone would therefore agree that he could collect from possessions that do not have a lien.

ולא מיירי נמי כשכתב לו "אני, פלוני, חייב לך מנה," דהא נמי כחתם תחתיו דמי.


It is also not discussing a case where he wrote "I, Ploni, am obligated to (pay) you a Manah," as this would also be a case of handwritten admission.

ואף על גב דבריש מגילתא מוכיח בגט פשוט (ב"ב דף קסז.) דיכול לחתום ולא חיישינן דלמא משכח לה איניש דלא מעלי וכתיב מאי דבעי,


Implied Question: Although the Gemara in Bava Basra (167a) proves that one can sign their name on the top of a document, and we do not suspect that an unsavory character will find it and write whatever he wants, (if someone would write "I, Ploni, am obligated to (pay) you a manah" it would still be a valid admission).

התם ודאי לא גבי כלל הואיל ואינו מכתיבה אחת, דחייב אני לך מנה כתב האי איניש דלא מעלי.


Answer: There he certainly wouldn't collect anything, since his (authentically) written name at the top of the document is clearly not part of the continuation of the sentence "...am obligated to give you a Manah" which this unsavory character wrote. [The combination of two different styles of handwriting in the same sentence shows it is not authentic. However, if someone signs at the bottom of a page his signature obligates him to whatever is stated at the top of the page, even if the handwriting is different.]


Tosfos DH "Chayav"

תוס' ד"ה "חייב"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how the Gemara knew that the document was not written in the normal manner, and why the Halachah of the Gemara applies to such a document.)

דאי בשטר גמור,


Implied Question: [The reason that the Gemara thinks that we are discussing a case in which an abnormal document was used is because] if a regular document had been used...

מה חדוש דחייב?


Answer: ...what is being taught by stating that he is obligated (to fulfill what he signed on? Of course he must fulfill what he signed on in a legal document!)

ואע"ג דלא הוי שטר גמור גבי ממשעבדי


Implied Question: Even though this is not a regular document, she (the daughter) could still collect from possessions that have a lien on them. [Why indeed does it have the power to collect from possessions that have a lien?]

דאית ליה קלא.


Answer: This is because it (the document) has a "voice" (it becomes known to people, which is the reasoning why debts in a regular document can be collected from possessions with a lien).