1)

(a)The Tana of ...

1. ... our Mishnah prefers the expression 'ha'Omer la'Chaveiro' (to 'ha'Omer li'Shelucho') to teach us that even in the case of a casual Shali'ach (where the sender does not perhaps rely on him to the same extent as he would on an appointed one), he is still considered a trickster.

2. ... the Tana in ha'Ish Mekadesh' prefers the expression 'ha'Omer li'Shelucho (Tzei v'Kadesh Li Ishah Plonis b'Makom Ploni ... ') rather than 'ha'Omer la'Chaveiro' to teach us that, even in the case of an appointed Shali'ach, the woman is not betrothed if he found her in another place (because the sender meant specifically in that place), and we do not say that he only intended to indicate the place where he is likely to find her.

2)

(a)In spite of our Mishnah ...

1. ... Ravin Chasida betrothed for himself the woman whom his son had sent him to betroth on his behalf because the parents declined to give their consent to their daughter marrying his son.

2. ... Rav purchased the field that Rabah bar bar Chanah had sent him to purchase on his behalf because the owners were tough characters who were willing to sell him the field (because they happened to respect him), but not to Rabah bar bar Chanah.

(b)Neither of them first informed his sender of his intentions because both felt that by the time they made the round trip, they would have lost their respective opportunities.

3)

(a)Rebbi Aba caused Rav Gidal to complain about him to Rebbi Zeira (who passed on the complaint to Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha) by purchasing the piece of land that he (Rav Gidal) was negotiating for.

(b)The Din of 'Ani ha'Mehapech ba'Chararah' (a poor man who is turning over a cake in order to acquire it from Hefker see also Tosfos DH 'Ani') is that if someone else acquires it, he is called a Rasha.

(c)Rebbi Aba explained to Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha that he had been unaware that Rebbi Zeira was in the process of negotiating the purchase of that piece of land.

(d)In the end, Rebbi Aba declared the field Hefker and Rebbi Zeira declined to take it (so it became known as 'the land of the Rabanan').

(e)Rebbi Aba declined to just sell the field to Rebbi Zeira because it was his first purchase of land, and it is a bad omen to sell one's first land purchase.

4)

(a)In the case in our Mishnah where a man said to a woman 'Hiskadshi Li l'Achar Sheloshim Yom' (and where no second man betrothed her in the middle), assuming that none of the money remains at the end of the thirty-day period, Rav and Shmuel rule that the Kidushin is nevertheless valid.

(b)The reason they give for this is because the money is neither like a loan nor is it like a deposit. If the money was considered ...

1. ... a loan then the Kidushin would not be valid, because 'ha'Mekadesh b'Milveh Einah Mekudeshes'.

2. ... a deposit then we learned in the previous Perek, that if nothing of the deposit remains at the time when the Kidushin is meant to take effect, the Kidushin is not valid either.

(c)Rav and Shmuel's reason for saying that the Kidushin is in fact, valid in this case is because the money is neither of these, but rather Kidushin money, in which case there is no reason to invalidate the Kidushin.

5)

(a)According to Rebbi Yochanan, if, in the Reisha of our Mishnah, another man did not betroth her, the Mekadesh has the right to retract. Reish Lakish says that he does not.

(b)The basis of their Machlokes is whether one Dibur or Machshavah can negate another (Rebbi Yochanan) or not (Reish Lakish).

(c)Reish Lakish will reconcile his ruling here with the Mishnah ...

1. ... in Terumos, which empowers the owner to negate the Shali'ach he sent to separate Terumah on his behalf, as long as he has not yet performed his Shelichus by restricting it (his ruling) to Kidushin, where the Dibur is backed by the act of handing the woman the Kidushin (and is therefore considered an act).

2. ... in Gitin, which empowers the husband to negate the Shelichus of the Shali'ach ha'Get, even though he performed the act of handing the Get to the Shali'ach by differentiating between his ruling and that case, inasmuch as the Get did not yet reach the woman's hands, in which case sending the Get is not considered an act.

6)

(a)When the Beraisa says 'Kol ha'Kelim ...

1. ... Yordin li'Yedei Tum'asan b'Machshavah', it means that vessels that are basically complete, but still require the final touches to render them saleable, become subject to Tum'ah the moment the owner decides to use them as they are.

2. ... v'Ein Olin mi'Yedei Tum'asan Ela Al-Yedei Ma'aseh', it means that having reached that stage, they will not revert to their original status (of unfinished vessels which are not subject to Tum'ah), unless he actually begins the job of completing them.

(b)According to Rebbi Yochanan, Machshavah is not sufficient to take the vessel out of its status of Tum'ah in this case because, with regard to matters concerning Tum'ah, the Torah considers Machshavah a Ma'aseh (as we shall now see).

(c)From the fact that the Torah writes (in connection with preparing a food for Tum'ah) "v'Chi Yutan Mayim Al Zera", without a 'Vav' (as if it was writing "v'Chi Yiten" ... ") Rav Papa learns that as long as the owner is pleased with the seeds becoming wet, it is as though he had actually poured the water himself (and this Sevara extends to all matters regarding the Machshavah of Tum'ah).

7)

(a)Rav Zevid learns the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish on the Mishnah in Asarah Yuchsin, where it is the woman who negates the Shelichus of her Shali'ach, and not in connection with our Mishnah(where it is the man) because, in his opinion, Rebbi Yochanan will agree in the case of our Mishnah (where the Dibur is backed by the act of handing the woman the Kidushin [and is therefore considered a Ma'aseh]), that the second Dibur cannot negate the first one, as we explained earlier according to Reish Lakish.

(b)According to Rav Zevid's version of the Machlokes, the entire Sugya repeats itself, except for the Kashya from the Mishnah in Terumos (where the initial answer that we gave is no longer relevant). Reish Lakish now explains that the Tana denies the owner the right to negate what his Shali'ach did because he is speaking when the denial took the form of actually separating Terumah himself, which is a Ma'aseh (and certain has the power to negate the Dibur of the Shali'ach).

(c)We rule like Rebbi Yochanan, not only according to Rav Zevid's version of the Machlokes (which pertains to the Mishnah in Asarah Yuchsin) but even according to the original Lashon (that pertains to our Mishnah) where the act of handing the Kidushin to the woman was also performed.

8)

(a)Rav Sheshes holds that once the husband negates the Shali'ach ha'Get, the Get itself becomes invalid. Rav Nachman declares the Get valid for future use.

(b)We reconcile our previous ruling like Rebbi Yochanan (regarding 'Asi Dibur u'Mevatel Dibur'), with the fact that we rule like Rav Nachman here on the grounds that, in the latter case, he only negated the Shelichus, not the Get (and even Rebbi Yochanan will agree that the Get remains valid).

9)

(a)Regarding the second case in our Mishnah (where the man said 'Harei At Mekudeshes li l'Achar Sheloshim Yom ... '), Rav says 'Mekudeshes l'Sheni l'Olam'. Shmuel says until thirty days, when the second Kidushin falls away and the first one takes effect.

(b)The problem that Rav Chisda has with Shmuel's ruling is that there are no grounds for the second Kidushin to fall away.

(c)Rav Yosef resolves this problem by citing Rav Yehudah, who establishes the Machlokes on the Seifa (on the case of 'me'Achshav u'Lachar Sheloshim'). The opinion ...

1. ... of Rav is that she remains Safek Mekudeshes to both men from the moment the second man betroths her.

2. ... of Shmuel is that she remains Safek Mekudeshes to both only until the termination of the thirty-day period, at which stage, the first Kidushin takes effect.

(d)The reasoning of ...

1. ... Rav is because he is uncertain whether, 'u'le'Achar Sheloshim Yom' was meant to be a clause pertaining to 'me'Achshav' (in which case, the first Kidushin will take effect then) or whether he meant to retract from 'me'Achshav' altogether (in which case, the second Kidushin will negate the first from the moment it is performed).

2. ... Shmuel is because he considers 'u'le'Achar Sheloshim Yom' to be a clause (which, when fulfilled, will negate the second Kidushin.

10)

(a)The Chachamim in a Beraisa say 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Miysah, Get v'Eino Get'. Rebbi says 'ka'Zeh Get'.

(b)The basis of their Machlokes is whether 'u'le'Achar Miysah' is a Safek (the Rabanan [like Rav]), or a clause (Rebbi [like Shmuel]).

(c)The reason that according to the Rabanan, the Get might not be valid is because, if 'u'le'Achar Miysah' is a retraction, we will apply the principle 'Ein Get l'Achar Miysah'.

(d)Despite the fact that Rav and Shmuel repeat the same basic Machlokes as that of the Rabanan and Rebbi ...

1. ... Rav did not say 'Halachah k'Rabanan because then we would confine the possibility that it is a retraction to the case of Get (where it is natural for the husband to want to delay the separation), whereas by Kidushin, where he probably wants to marry her as soon as possible, Rav would concede to Shmuel that it is a clause).

2. ... Shmuel did not say 'Halachah k'Rebbi' because then we would confine his ruling (that it is a clause) to the case of Get, because everyone knows that a Get cannot take effect after the husband's death, but in the case of Kidushin, he will concede to Rav that maybe it is a retraction.