Answer (cont.): Whereas the Sugya in 'Makom she'Nahagu', which states that 'All Sefichim are forbidden' is speaking about Sefichim that grew in the Sh'mitah ...

Rebbi Akiva: According to Rebbi Akiva, who, in answer to the Kashya 'Since they did not plant, how can they gather?' explains that 'This indicates that Sefichim are forbiden even to eat, how much more so to do business with' ...

Rebbi Akiva (cont.): And he holds that Sefichim are forbidden in Shevi'is min ha'Torah even prior to the time of Biy'ur; and when thry enter Motza'ei Shevi'is they are Asur mi'de'Rabbanan for the time it takes to prepare others like them.

Rebbi Akiva (cont.): And he also holds that all other Sefichim are forbidden on Motz'ei Shevi'is ...

Rebbi Akiva (concl.): The Chachamim did not however, decree on the Sefichim of cabbages on account of other Sefichim, since they have no equivalent among the vegetables in the field ...

Reason: Because they are (easily) discernable - So the layers that have grown are of Sh'mitah and are forbidden, whereas those that have not yet grown are of Motz'ei Shevi'is and are permitted ...

Reason (cont.): And someone who sees a person eating the Sefichim of cabbages will not come to eat other Sefichim, seeing as they different than other Sefichim, so they did not decree Heter on account of Isur.

Question (concl): In any event, we see that regarding vegetables, the criterion is not the Lekitah but the majority of growth , seeing as the Gemara permits the Sefichim of the sixth year that entered the seventh year?

Answer: Granted that we do not go after the Lekitah nevertheless, we do not go after the Chanatah either, only after grows be'Isur is Asur, and what gros be'Heter is permitted ...

Answer (cont.): Which is not the case by Esrog and other trees, where the criterion is the Chanatah - in that if it occurred be'Isur, then even what grows afterwards be'Heter is Asur.

Conclusion: And it now rgarding Sh'mitah, it is similar to trees, because if it was like vegetables, we would go after the majority of growth.

Source: The Gemara in the first Perek of Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 14a & 14b) gives the reason for 'vegetables' - Because the Torah writes in connection with Ma'aser "Goren ve'Yekev" ("ka'Dagan min ha'Goren ... ", 'Just as the barn and the winepress are special, inasmuch as they rely mainly on water, and are Ma'asered on the previous year ... , precluding vegetables that rely entirely on water'.

Implied Question: And even though Ma'aser Yerek is only mi'de'Rabbanan, and how can one make a Binyan Av on something that is mi'de'Rabbanan? ...

Answer #1: The Chachamim attached it to a Pasuk, as Rashi explains.

Answer #2: The Ri however, explains that if the Pasuk is not needed for Ma'aser, we will transfer it to Shevi'is, which applies to vegetables min ha'Torah ...

Answer #2 (cont.): Seeing as the basic D'rashah regarding Shevi'is pertains to vegetables, since it is d'Oraysa as regards both vegetables and trees ...

Source: As the Gemara says in Rosh ha'Shanah (Daf 15b) 'I spoke to you about the Ma'aser of carobs, which is mi'de'Rabanan, and you replied regarding Shevi'is of 'B'nos Shu'ach (a species of fig-tree), which is d'Oraysa!'

Source (cont.): And presumably vegetables too, are d'Oraysa - like everything that is a food and that keeps, in keeping with the principle cited in the Mishnah in Maseches Shevi'is (7:1).

Answer #2 (concl.): And what the Gemara (in Rosh ha'Shanah) means is 'Just as the barn and the winepress are special, inasmuch as they rely mainly on water, and one goes after the previous year with regard to Shevi'is, so too ... '.

Question: But Esrog too, relies entirely on water, as stated in our Sugya, yet we equate it with trees regarding Sh'mitah to go after Chanatah?

Answer #1: Perhaps one can answer that we only go after Chanatah regarding Shevi'is le'Chumra - i.e. where the Chanatah occurred in the Sh'mitah and it is picked in the eighth year.

Answer #2: Alternatively, we cannot distinguish an Esrog from other trees, despite the fact that it relies entirely on water, since the Torah does not distinguish it from them regarding Orlah and R'vai ...

Answer #2 (cont.): And the D'rashah of "Goren ve'Yekev" pertains to vegetables and not to Esrog.

Answer #2 (concl.): Nonetheless, as far as Ma'aser, which is de'Rabbanan, is concerned, the Chachamim instituted that the criterion for Ma'aser is the Lekitah ...

Reason: Since it relies entirely on water, like vegetables.

Question: Why does the Tana not reckon that Esrog is like trees regarding Kil'ayim; i.e. that it is not considered Kil'ayim in a vineyard, in which case it will be like trees in four ways?

Answer: It only lists cases where it is like trees to go after Chanatah and vegetables after Lekitah.

Question: Why does he not reckon that it is like vegetables in two ways, i.e. regarding Pe'ah? Since Esrog is not Chayav Pe'ah because it is not picked in one go ...

Source: Since a field is only subject to Pe'ah if it is all picked in one go - the reason that we preclude figs, as the Gemara explains in Perek K'lal Gadol (Shabbos, Daf 68a) and in Perek Mamom she'Nahaagu (Pesachim, Daf 56b) ...

Question (cont.): And vegetables too, are not subject to Pe'ah, because they are not included in 'something that keeps', as the Gemara explains there.

Answer: Since there are many trees that are not Chayav Pe'ah, such as cherries and carobs, as listed in Maseches Pe'ah (1:5), it would be inappropriate to state 'like vegetables'.

Answer (cont.): And it is also for this reason that it does not say that it is 'like vegetables' regarding Bikurim ...

Reason: Seeing as Bikurim are confined to the seven species, as the Sifri says, in which case, it is like other trees as well.

Opinion #1: Regarding interbreeding, Rashi explains, since the Gemara is not sure whether it is a species of Chayah or Beheimah.

Refutation: Rebbi Eliezer asks that, according to the opinion in Chulin (Daf 80a) that considers a Coy in independent species, why do we need to come on to the fact that it is a doubt; Even if we were certain that it is a Chayah, we would not be permitted to interbreed it with another Chayah ...

Source: Since one is not allowed to breed a gazelle with a deer?

Opinion #2: This Sugya follows the opinion there that a Coy is the product of a he-goat and a female deer, and the Safek is whether we take into consideration the seed of the father or not ...

Answer (cont.): And if we don't, then one can breed it with a deer.

Explanation (Text) #1: Rashi explains because it nis demeaning for her; therefore the Din of Chalipin is Bateil with regard to Kidushin, even if he gives her a K'li that is worth a P'rutah, should he give it to her in the form of Chalipin.

Question #1: If so, asks Rabeinu Tam, if the woman stretches out her hand and accepts it, why is she not Meekudeshes even if it is worth less than a P'rutah?

Question #2: Moreover, since the reason is the fact that it is demeaning for her, why does the Gemara not ask from the daughters of Rebbi Yanai, who are Makpid not to accept less than three Kabin of Dinrim ...

Precedent: Like it asks later (on Daf 11a) on the ruling of Beis Shamai?

Question #3: Furthermore, since the Gemara currently thinks that we can learn the Kinyanim of Ishah from those of Sadeh, why can she not also be acquired with Chazakah, like a field?

Question #4: And why does the Gemara later (on Daf 5a) ask from where we know Sh'tar; Why can we not learn it from Sadeh?

Explanation (Text) #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore amends the text to 'be'Pachos mi'Shaveh P'rutah Lo Miknaya' - without the word 'Nafshah' - because it is not a matter of personal fussiness ...

Reason: But rather because we learn 'Kichah' 'Kichah' from S'dei Efron, where the Torah writes "Kesef", and less than a Shaveh P'rutah is not called Kesef.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And when the Gemara inititially asks 've'Eima Hachi Nami?' it is not asking with regard to Sh'tar and Chazakah

Reason: Since it is obvious that we will not learn 'Kichah' to give a woman all the Dinim of Sadeh.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And that is why the Gemara asks later (on Daf 5a) from where we know Sh'tar ...

Reason: Because we only learn Kesef from Sadeh, since it is written by it 'Kichah'.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And it only asks from Chalipin because of its similarity to the Kesef in the Pasuk, which is worth a P'rutah.

Explanation #2 (Continuation): And when the Gemara continues 've'Eima Hachi Nami', it means to ask why the woman cannot be acquired with Chalipin that is worth a P'rutah - like the Kesef in the Pasuk ...

Explanation (Part #2): More than from Sh'tar, which does not need to be worth a P'rutah, as the Gemara explains in Gitin (Daf 20a) 'If he writes it on Isurei Hana'ah, it is Kasher'.

Explanation (Part #2 [concl.]): But Chalipin that is worth a P'rutah is comparable to Kesef.

Explanation (Part #3): And the Gemara answers that 'Chalipin applies even if it is worth less than a P'rutah' - in which case it is not due to a connection with Kesef, but is an independent Kinyan.

Question: How can the Gemara even think to learn from S'dei Efron that a woman can be acquired with Chalipin, when S'dei Efron itself could not have been acquired wwith Chalipin, seeing as we do not find Chalipin by a Nochri?

Source: Since the Gemara says in Bechoros (Daf 13a) 'Since a Yisrael has one Kinyan, so too, does a Nochri'?

Answer: That speaks besides Chalipin, similar to the one Kinyan of a Yisrael ...

Answer (cont.): And what the Gemara means is 'Since a Yisrael has one Kinyan' - a new Kinyan besides Chalipin, which applies to both of them.

Proof: And this is also implied later (on Daf 8a), in connection with 'Someone who is sold to a Nochri' - "mi'Kesef mi'Kenaso", 'he can be acquired with money and not with the Din of produce and Keilim - with reference to Chalipin'.

Proof (cont.): So we see that with other commodities, one can be acquired by a Nochri via Chalipin.

Rabeinu Tam: And so Rabeinu Tam would send a Harsha'ah (power of attorney) with a Nochri, which he would be Makneh to him via Chalipin.

Halachah: In such a case however, one should take care not to write 'An I acquire from him', since a Nochri is not subject to Shelichus and Zechiyah, as the Gemara says in the fifth Perek of Bava Metzi'a (Daf 71b) ...

Halachah (ont.): Only (one writes) 'And the Nochri acquired ... '.

Question: In that case, seeing as it is obvious that a woman cannot be acquired with Chalipin, why does the Gemara later (on Daf 8a) require "mi'Kesef m i'Kenaso" to teach us that an Eved Ivri cannot be acquired with the Din of produce and Keilim - which is Chalipin ...

Question (cont.): When there is the reason that Eved Ivri is compared to Ivriyah, from which we will learn later that an Ivri can be acquired with Kesef ...

Question (concl.): And Ivriyah in turn, is compared to Ishah, as the Torah writes "If he takes another woman" - 'the Torah compares her (an Ivriyah) to another woman, as we learn 'Just as the other woman can be acquired with a Sh'tar ... '?

Answer: We learn from the Hekesh to include Kinyanim, but not to preclude them ...

Proof: In similar vein to the Gemara in 'Kol ha'Basar' (Chulin, Daf 117b) - 'The Torah writes three Pesukim with regard to Dam - One to preclude it from Nosar, one, from Me'ilah and one from Tum'ah ...

Proof (cont.): Now in Perek Beis Shamai (Zevachim, Daf 45a) the Gemara learns Nosar, 'Chilul' 'Chilul' from Tum'ah, in which case, why do we need two Pesukim, one for Nosar and one for Tum'ah [See Masores ha'Shas])?

Proof (concl): It must be because the Gezeirah Shavah of 'Chilul' was not said to be lenient only to be stringent.

Question: Why does an Amah ha'Ivriyah not go out with Chalitzah with a Kal ve'Chomer from Yevamah - using the same Kal va'Chomer?

Refuted Answer: Nor can one answer with a Yochi'ach (counter-proof) from Ishah ...

Refutation: Since a woman does not go out with Kesef, whereas an Amah does.

Answer: We would bring a Yochi'ach from Shifchah Cana'anis, who goes out with Kesef but not with Chalitzah (later, on Daf 22b).

Question: Why do we not learn ffrom the same Kal va'Chomer that she too, goes out with Chalitzah?

Answer: We could ask on that 'Whereas a Yevamah goes out with the death of the Yavam - and therefore she also goes out with Chalitzah', a Shifchah Cana'anis does not - and will therefore not go out with Chalitzah either.

Question: In that case, how can we then use Shifchah Cana'anis as a Yochi'ach, since we can therefore counter 'Whereas a Shifchah Cana'anis does not go out with the death of her master, an Amah ha'Ivriyah does'?

Answer: We would make the Yochi'ach from Ishah and Shifchah Cana'anis ...

Answer (cont.): Because if one were to ask 'Whereas a Shifchah Cana'anis, does not go out with the death of her master, we would answer with a Yochi'ach from Ishah, who goes out with the death of her husband but not with Chalitzah ...

Answer (concl.): And whereas Ishah does not go out with Kesef, Shifchah Cana'ais Yochi'ach.

Clarification: The Yerushalmi (in Kesuvos 4:6) explains that he has a right as regards Bi'ah, in that they will will pay him to be Mekadesh his daughter with Bi'ah.

Question: But the Pasuk is only needed to teach us that it goes to the father, since as far as the actual Kidushei Kesef is concerned, we learn that 'Kichah' 'Kichah' from S'dei Efron (on Daf 4b)?

Answer: Nevertheless, from the extra words we would not learn that the father gets it, if it would not be explicit in the words of the Pasuk ...

Answer (cont.): And later in the Maskana (Ibid.), the Gemara explains that both Pesukim are necessary.

Implied Question #1: Even though the Pasuk is speaking about a Na'arah, as it writes (Devarim, 32) "And they shall stone her"?

Question #2: Moreover, Motzi-Shem-Ra on a Ketanah is Patur )Kesuvos, Daf 40b)?

Answer: Nevertheless, the Pasuk "es Biti Nasati la'Ish ha'Zeh" could refer to a Ketanah who has now become a Gedolah.

Question: But a Ketanah does not need a Pasuk, since now that he is permitted to sell her, need it mention that he receives the money of her Kidushin?

Proof: Because the Gemara in Perek Na'arah she'Nispat'sah (Kesuvos, Daf 47a) asks a similar Kashya regarding the work that she produces?

Answer: It is not comparable (to there), since the question fits nicely by the work that she produces, because, when he sells her, he sells her for the work of her hands ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas Kidushin and selling her are two different things ...

Implied Question: And even though he has the right to be Meya'ed her ...

Answer: That is confined to the money of her sale, but as far as the actual money of her Kidushin is concerned, we do not find that the father has any rights over it.

Introduction to Question: The Gemara says in Perek Na'arah (Ibid.) that 'The products of the daughter go to the father, seeing as the Torah authorizes him to hand her over to the Chupah, despite the fact that this stops her from working ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): Rashi there explains that the Torah gave him the right, since it writes "es Biti Nasati la'Ish ha'Zeh", implying all 'givings' even handing over to the Chupah.

Question: What is the proof from there? Perhaps that speaks about a Ketanah, but not a Na'arah, as the Gemara says here?

Answer: The Pasuk "es Biti Nasati" can only be speaking about a Na'arah as Tosfos explained, because even though, regarding the Kidushin, it can be explained with regard to a Ketanah, the Chupah can only be referring to a Na'arah ...

Proof: Because if she was a Ketanah, she would have been married when she committed adultery, in which case she would be subject to Chenek (strangulation) and not Sekilah, seeing as she is not Chayav for the adultery that she performs when she is a Ketanah.

Question: How can one learn Kidushin from Boshes and P'gam, seeing as Boshes and P'gam themselves, we only know from Kidushin ...

Question: As the Gemara says at the end of 'Eilu Na'aros' (Kesuvos, Daf 40b) - 'Since he can hand her over to someone who is ugly or to a leper' (See Masores ha'Shas).

Refuted Answer: And if you want to say that we learn from here that he is able to hand her over when she is a Ketanah and that that Boshes will still be his even after she becomes a Na'arah ...

Refutation: In that case, by the same token, the Boshes and P'gam should belong to him even after she becomes a Bogeres?

Answer (Explanation #1): A Bogeres is not comparable to a Na'arah, because, granted, we do not learn everything from Hafaras Nedarim, we will learn that the father's rights do not extend beyond the period of Na'aros ...

Proof: Like the Gemara says later (Daf 4a) 'If already Simanim, which do not take her out of her father's jurisdiction, take her out of her master's, a Bogeres, which does ... .' ...

Proof (cont.): Now from where would we know that Bagrus takes her out of her father's jurisdiction regarding Kidushin and other matters, unless we learnt it from Hafaras Nedarim.

Refutation: This is not correct however - because, since it is dependent on the S'vara - 'If he wanted he could hand her over to a Menuval and a Mukeh Sh'chin', it will apply to a Bagrus no less than to Na'arus?

Explanation #2: Therefore Tosfos explains that when the Gemara asked earlier 've'Eima Hani Mili Ketanah?', it means that one can learn the Kal va'Chomer by a Ketanah, since now 'Her father accepts her Kidushin, should she take the money?'

Explanation #2 (cont.): Whereas - 'A Na'arah who has a Yad, she can betroth herself and take the money'.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Though in truth, even when she is a Na'arah, her father can betroth her, and when he does, he takes the money as well.

Answer to Question #1: And now the question raised earlier is not difficult, because the Pasuk is referring to a case where the father betrothed her, and there they derive Boshes and P'gam from a Kidushin done by the father that the father is entitled to.

Answer to Question #1 (cont.): And here, what the Gemara means is 'And if you will say that we will learn it from Boshes and P'gam' - that the Kidushin that she performs herself should belong to her father, from Boshes and P'gam ...

Answer to Question #1 (cont.): Since it is obvious that we cannot learn it from her father's Kidushin, since her Kidushin comes entirely through herself ...

Answer to Question #1 (concl.): Whereas initially it learned Boshes and P'gam which did not come through herself, from her father's Kidushin, and then one is able to learn what comes about via herself from what does not come about via her father.