Implied Question: One cannot learn it from Amah ha'Ivriyah, who cannot be acquired with Bi'ah, but who can be acquired with a Sh'tar ...

Answer #1: Firstly because we only learn Amah herself from the fact that she is compared to Acheres (i.e. Ishah)

Answer #1 (cont.): And even according to Rav Chisda, who learns her from "Lo Seitzei ke'Tzeis ha'Avadim", 'Aval Nikneis hi ke'Tzeis ha'Avadim', one can counter like we did earlier - from the fact that she goes out with Kesef.

Answer #2: Moreover, since, according to Rav Chisda, it is her father who writes the Sh'tar, one cannot learn from Ishah who is not acquired in the same way, seeing as it is the husband who writes it.

Question: Why can we not enter all this into the Kal va'Chomer - 'If already Kesef, which even though one can redeem with it Hekdesh and Ma'aser, it does not take out, yet it does bring in, Sh'tar, which even though one cannot redeem with it Hekdesh and Ma'aser, takes out, ought certainly to bring in'?

Answer: One cannot enter into the Kal va'Chomer a Chumra which is specifically written in the Pasuk ...

Reason: Because, although a Chumra that is based on a S'vara can be brought into the Kal va'Chomer, one that is written in the Torah is obviously what causes its current status.

Question: Why can we not learn a Kal va'Chomer from Karka'os, which do not take out, yet they bring in - 'A man can be Mekadesh a woman with Karka, but cannot divorce her with Karka? (See Masores ha'Shas) ...

Question: And there one cannot counter that 'One can redeem Hekdesh with it (later, 16a).

Answer: Because one can counter that Karka is different in that one can acquire Metalt'lin together with it, which one cannot do with a Sh'tar.

Question: Metalt'lin will prove otherwise - since one cannot acquire other Metalt'lin and which do not take out, yet they do bring in, in which case, why should Sh'tar not also bring in?

Answer: Metalt'lin are different inasmuch as one can redeem Hekdesh with them.

Implied Question: Regarding Bi'ah one cannot say that 'Just as she comes in with Bi'ah, so too, should she go out with Bi'ah ...

Answer #1: Since he divorces her in order to distance himself from her.

Answer #2: Moreover, one generally divorces after discovering an immoral act on the part of one's wife, in which case he is obligated to separate from her.

Question: In that case, how can the Gemara say earlier 'Just as an Amah ha'Ivriyah goes out with Kesef, so too, does she come in with Kesef' ...

Question #1: On the contrary, that is a disadvantage, because 'Ein Kateigor Na'aseh Saneigor'?

Answer: One cannot apply this to Amah ha'Ivriyah ...

Answer (cont.): Because initially, her father who sells her as a Shifchah receives the money from the master. Consequently, when he wants to redeem her, it is only correct that the master receives the money ...

Answer (concl.): Whereas when a man betroths a woman, he performs everything, both the betrothal and the divorce; That is why there it is appropriate to ask 'They will say "Money brings in ... "? '

Implied Question: It is not a S'vara to say 'If it speaks about writing it precludes writing' ...

Answer: Since the Pasuk "If she does not find favor in his eyes, he shall write for her" implies that it is speaking specifically about doing it in this way.

Clarification: Rashi explains that 'All her life she is bound to to fulfill this condition on account of him'.

Question: Why should it not be a Get, bearing in mind that, in the event that her father dies, she is permitted to enter the house, at which point she is no longer bound to him? ...

Reason: Because after her father's death it is no longer considered her father's house ...

Source: As the Gemara says in Nedarim (Daf 46a), that, if one makes a Neder not to enter so-and-so's house, and the latter dies or sells his house, he is permitted to enter.

Answer: All the descendents are included in 'Beis Avihah', even after his death ...

Source: As the Torah writes (in Bereishis 38) in connection with Tamar "Remain a widow in 'your father's house' - eve though her father had already dies, as is evident from the Pesukim (See Masores ha'Shas).

Question: In Perek ha'Megaresh (Gitin, Daf 83b) the Gemara states that the Rabbanan of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah, among them Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, do not Darshen "Kareis, Kerisus" ...

Question (cont.): And here the Gemara says that Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili Darshen "Kareis Kerisus"?

Answer: The Gemara there says, not that he does not accept the implication (of "Kareis Kerisus"), but that he does not Darshen it regarding the D'rashah there ..

Answer: Because he needs it for the D'rashah here.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains 'Bi'ah by a Yevamah, Sh'tar by Gerushin and 'Kesef by an Amah ha'Ivriyah - when her father sells her against her will'.

Question: Rabeinu Tam queries this however, in that if a father selling his daughter is considered Ba'al Korchah, why will Rav Huna say shortly that 'We do not find Kesef Ba'al Korchah by Ishus' ...

Question (cont.): Seeing as a father is Mekadesh his daughter with Kesef against her will?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that, since the girl's father represents her, it is not considered Ba'al Korchah, seeing as it is with his consent.

Question: How can the Gemara then say that 'Ba'al Korchah too, applies to Kesef by Amah ha'Ivriyah', seeing as the father sells her willingly?

Answer: What the Gemara means is that 'Ba'al Korchah too, applies to Kesef by Amah ha'Ivriyah' - there where the master performs Yi'ud with the Ivriyah with the money of her sale against the wishes of both herself and her father.

Implied Question: Because when the Gemara says later (on Daf 19a) "asher Lo Ye'adah", 'that he needs to make Yi'ud with her' ...

Answer: It does not mean that he does so with her consent, but that he must inform her that he is Meya'ed her in the form of Kidushin.

Implied Question: And when the Gemara will shortly say that 'At least we do not find it by Ishus' - and in the current case, he is Meya'ed her in the form of Ishus ...

Answer: Nevertheless, the money was not given for the sake of Ishus.

Reinstating Explanation #1: Some commentaries resolve the Kashya on Rashi - in that as the sale of an Amah ha'Ivriyah is certainly considered Ba'al Korchah, inasmuch as it is to her detriment since, if she would be a bas Da'as (mentally mature), she would not agree to it ...

Reinstating Explanation #1 (cont.): As opposed to the Kidushun of a Ketanah, which is not detrimental like a sale, since, if she was a bas Da'as, she would agree ...

Reinstating Explanation #1 (concl.): In which case it cannot be considered Ba'al Korchah.

Question: Why do we not apply 'Dayo' to the end of the Kal va'Chomer - Because from where do we learn that Chupah is Koneh? Since it concludes ...

Question (cont.): 'Dayo Lavo min ha'Din Lih'yos ke'Nadun' - Just as there it is only after Kesef, so too here, only after Kesef?

Answer: The Sugya goes according to Rebbi Tarfon, who says (in Bava Kaman, Daf 25a) that - 'If the Kal va'Chomer is no longer effective, then we do not say "Dayo" ' ...

Answer (cont.): And in our case, if we were to say 'Dayo', the Kal va'Chomer would not be effective - since after Kesef, it is no longer needed.

Question: According to the Halachah, that Chupah is not Koneh, why do we not say that Kesef concludes from a Kal va'Chomer from Chupah - 'Just as Chupah, which is not Koneh, yet it concludes, Kesef which is Koneh, ought certainly to conclude?

Answer: We can only prove that it concludes after Kesef like Chupah - and on what grounds will the second Kesef conclude more than the first one?

Implied Question: Even though a man can hand over his daughter to he Chupah against her will ...

Answer: Since he represents her, it is not considered Ba'al Korchah.

Question: We still find Chupah Ba'al Korchah, because, seeing as Yi'ud is not considered marriage, it transpires that after the Yi'ud, the master performs Chupah against the father's will?

Answer: In spite of the fact that the YI'ud can take place against the father's will, the Chupah can only be performed with his consent.

Implied Question: Despite the fact that a father has the authority to betroth his daughter against her will ...

Answer #1: Seeing as the Kidushin is performed with the consent of the father, it is not called 'Ba'al Korchah', as Tosfos already explained (Amud Alef, DH 'she'Kein Yeshnan).

Answer #2: Moreover, By Chupah too, we find a similar ruling (in Kesuvos, Daf 47a), where the father may hand over his Ketanah daughter for Chupah.

Implied Question: The reason that the Gemara does not mention 'Nasnah Hi ve'Amar Hu' is ...

Answer: Because it is not absolute, since sometimes she is Mekudeshes - in a case of Adam Chashuv ...

Reference: As the Gemara will say later, on Daf 7a) See Hagahos ha'G'ra.

Question: Why does the Gemara not answer that really 'Havyan Yadayim', and the Gemara in Nazir, where he says 'Ehei', it is not even Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos' ...

Reason: Because he may have meant to say 'Ehei be'Ta'anis'?

Answer: Since 'Ehei' has stronger connotations of Nezirus than of Ta'anis ...

Reason: Because 'Ehei be'Ta'anis' implies immediately, and sometimes he has already eaten, in which case it would only take effect on the following day ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas Nezirus can always take effect on the same day, should he so want.

Clarification: This implies that the Gemara concludes here that according to Shmuel, 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos Lo Havyan Yadayim'.

Introduction to Question: At the beginning of Maseches Nedarim (Daf 2a) the Mishnah rules that if someone says to his friend 'Mudrani mi'Mecha, Mufreshani mi'Mecha, Meruchkani mi'Mecha she'Eini Ochel lach, she'Eini To'em lach', he is prohibited ...

Introduction to Question: The Gemara there (on Daf, 4b), citing Shmuel, explains that in all the cases, it is imperative that he says 'she'Eini Ochel lach, she'Eini To'em lach' ...

Introduction to Question: And it concludes that this is because, otherwise, 'Mudrani mi'Mecha' may mean that he will will not talk to him, 'Mufrechani mi'Mecha', that he will not do business with him, and 'Meruchkani mi'Mecha', that he will not stand within his four Amos.

Introduction to Question: On which the Gemara then asks (on Daf 5b) 'Does this mean that Shmuel holds 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos Lo Havyan Yadayim'?, to which it replies that Shmuel establishes the Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah, who holds 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos Lo Havyan Yadayim'.

Question #1: And since the Gemara says that Shmuel establishes the Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah, we can extrapolate that he himself does not hold like him, but that 'Havyan Yadayim'?

Refuted Answer: We cannot explain that Shmuel establishes the Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah and also holds like him ...

Refutation: Since the Gemara then asks 'What pushes Shmuel to establish the Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah?' ...

Refutation (cont.): What would the problem in Shmuel establishing the Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah if he held like him?

Question #1 (cont.): Clearly, it is because he holds 'Havyan Yadayim'.