Clarification: The Gemara which states later in connection with a man who betrothed a woman with a bundle of cotton-wool 'Rav Shimi bar Ashi sat and looked into the matter - If it was worth a P'rutah, she was betrothed, but not if it was not' ...

Clarification (cont.): Appears to go not like Rav Yosef.

Clarification, Eved Ivri: An Eved Ivri can neither be acquired nor can he acquire himself with Chalipin ...

Reason: Since the fact that he acquire with Kesef we learn later (on Daf 14b) from the Pasuk "mi'Kesef Miknaso" ...

Clarification, Eved Cana'ani: Whereas an Eved Cana'ani can be acquired with Chalipin ...

Source: As the Mishnah learns in Perek ha'Shole'ach (Gitin, Da'af 39b) in the case of a man who threw his hat to his Shifchah Cana'anis an said to her "Acquire this and acquire yoursel" ' ...

Source (cont.): Implying that he failed to achieve his objective because the object belonged to the Makneh (i.e. himself), but had it belonged to the Koneh (the maidservant), she would have acquired it ...

Source (concl.): on account of Chalipin, not Kesef. And this conforms with the explanation of Rabeinu Chananel there.

Clarification: The proof goes according to the first Lashon.

Inference: It implies here that Rav Kahana was a Kohen.

Question: At the end of 'Eilu Ovrin' (Pesachim, Daf 49a) it is implied that he was no ...

Proof: When he declared that, had he not married a Kohen he would not have gone into exile.

Answer #1: There were two Rav Kahana's.

Answer #2: Alternatively, he took Pidyon ha'Ben on account of his wife ...

Proof: Like we find in Perek ha'Zero'a (Chulin, Daf 132a) that he ate (Matanos) on account of her.

Question: Why in fact, is it not effective? Why is it any worse thaan a Matanah al M'nas Lehachzir (above, on Daf 6b) which is a Matanah?

Answer: It is indeed worse - inasmuch as the latter is a Matanah that consists of a valuable article, even though it is given on condition that it is returned ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas here in the case of Pidyon, that head-scarf was not worth five Sela'im, in which casewhen he initially gave itto the Kohen, he did not fulfill the Mitzvah.

Question: Perhaps it is coming to teach us that by 'Manah Zu' it is not Kidushin even though she does not retract, seeing as it found to be short?

Answer: We know that from the Reisha - seeing as by 'Manah S'tam' she is able to retract, and we do not tell him to complete the required amount ..

Answer: So we see that the Kidushin do not take effect at all until he completes the full amount ...

Answer (cont.): Likewise when he says to her 'Manah Zu' and it turns out to be short, the Kidushin does not take effect, and even making it up will not help ...

Reason: Seeing as she relied, not on what he adds later, only on the Manah that he showed her - and that Manah was short.

Clarification: And she is not Mekudeshes

Reason: Since the woman is only acquired with money, and the money is not available, how can he acquire her? ...

Reason (cont.): Bearing in mind that the deposit is not in place of the money, seeing as it will not remain in her hands?

Clarification (cont.): To be sure, if he would say to her 'Be Mekudeshes to me wsith this deposit, and the deposit will become yours', she would be Mekudeshes ...

Matanah: And similarly if a man would say to his friend 'I will give you a Manah as a gift', and he left him a deposit against it, he would not acquire the Manah with the Meshichah of the deposit.

Matanah (cont.): Because one cannot differentiate between a Matanah and Kidushin.

Matanah (cont.): Rabeinu Chayim ha'Kohen says in the name of Rabeinu Tam that if a man says to his friend 'I will give you a gift of a Manah; here is a deposit against it! - and don't give the deposit back to me until I give you the Manah' ....

Matanah (concl.): That he will definitely be permitted to keep the deposit until he gives him the Manah.

Introduction to Question: The Gemara in 'ha'Socher es ha'Umnin' (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 75b) says - in connection with 'Somebody who hires laborers to fetch flax or anything that spoils and they retract' rules that he is permitted to hire other laborers at their expense or trick them ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): And in answer to the question 'Up to how much can he offer the second set of laborers?, Rav Nachman replies 'As much as the first ones were due to receive'.

Introduction to Question (cont.): And in answer to Rava's query from the Bersaisa 'Up to forty or fifty Zuz', Rav Nachman replied that 'That speaks where he has already received the bundle' ...

Introduction to Question (concl.): Meaning that the tools of the first workers are in the hands of the Balabos.

Question: Now so what if he has the bundle in his hands? Why do we not say there too 'Manah Ein Ka'an, Mashkon Ein Ka'an'?

Answer #1: It is not comparable (to our case) since thdfd they csaused him a loss.

Answer #2: Mofreover, the bundle is not his in the form of a deposit, but rather he acquires it in order to hire laborers with it.

Shiduchim; Opinion #1: When one arranges Shiduchim, one should take great care to say 'I am being Makneh to you so much money (i.e. an amount) in the (actual) object itself' ...

Reason: Because if he were to say 'If I retract, I will give you so much, and here is a deposit' - 'Manah Ein Ka'an, Mashkon Ein Ka'an'.

Shiduchim: Opinion #2: but perhaps we will not apply 'Manah Ein Ka'an ... ', seeing as if side retracts, the other side is (too) embarrassed (to claim).

Implied Question: Even though Rebbi Even though Rebbi Yitzchak is speaking about a deposit that is given not at the time of the loan ...

Answer: We can say that since a creditor acquires the deposit that is given not at the time of the loan totally, as long as the debtor has not redeemed it ...

Answer (cont.): A deposit at the time of the loan too, has a strong Shi'bud - to be considered his property with which to be Mekadesh a woman or to purchase with it Avadim and Karka'os.

Introduction to Precedent #1: And this is also how we will need to explain the Gemara in Perek ha'Shole'ach (Gitin, Daf 37a) which rules that if someone lends (ha'Malveh) his friend against a deposit, the debt is not cancelled (in the Sh'mitah) - Because he acquires it like Rebbi Yitzchak ...

Question: Despite the fact that Rebbi Yitzchak is speaking about 'not at the time of the loan', whereas 'ha'Malveh' implies 'at the time of the loan'? ...

Source: As the Gemara implies at the end of Perek ha'Umnin (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 81b & 82a).

Answer: What the Gemara therefore must mean is that 'Since one acquires one that is 'not at the time of the loan' completely, then it is a S'vara that will acquire one that is 'at the time of the loan' to the extent that it will not cancel the debt, since it is considered 'what you (already) have of your brother's'.

Source: And the Gemara Darshens in the Sifri (Parshas Re'ei) "What is your brothers you shall cancel", 'but not what you (already) have of your brother's'.

Introduction to Precedent #2: And this is also how we will explain the Gemara in Perek Kol Sha'ah (Pesachim, Daf 31b & 32a), which rules that 'Someone who lends a Nochri against his Chametz, transgresses after Pesach according to Rebbi Meir' ...

Precedent #2: And the Gemara explains there 'Because he acquires it, like Rebbi Yitzchak ...

Precedent #2 (cont.): Because since he acquires it like Rebbi Yitzchak 'not at the time of the loan', 'at the time of the loan' too, he will acquire it to the extent that it falls under the category 'Yours shall not be seen'.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains elsewhere (See Masores ha'Shas) - 'To be liable for Onsin (accidents)'.

Refutation: But Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah (in Bava Metzi'a 39b) argue over 'Someone who borrows against a deposit', as to whether he is a Shomer Sachar or a Shomer Chinam, but not a borrower ...

Refutation (cont.): And the Gemara establishes Rebbi Meir like Rebbi Yitzchak - implying that Rebbi Yitzchak does not render him liable for Onsin?

Explanation #2: Tosfos therefore explains that he acquires the deposit to make him liable for theft and loss.

Question: Why is the fact that he gives it to him to lie on not Tzedakah?

Answer #1: The Gemara is referring to the words "And he will lie on his garment and bless you - because unless one acquires it, when the poor man blesses him, it will be a verbal interest.

Answer #2: Some commentaries explain that the definition of Tzedakah is something that one gives of one's own ...

Support: Such as 'Tzadek mi'she'Lecha ve'Tein lo' - as the Gemara states in Bava Basra (Daf 88b).

Question: The Gemara said above (on Daf 6b) that 'If a woman says to a man "Give a Manah to P'loni and I will become betrother to you", she is Mekudeshes'.

Answer: That is not comparable to this case, since there she was the one to make the initial statement, indicating that she wanted to be betrothed ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas here, he was the one to state 'Become betrothed to me', to which she replied 'Give it to whoever you wish, insinuating that she did not want to be betrothed, and didn't really care, but was merely teasing him.

Question: Why did the Beraisa earlier need to mention 'Avicha', seeing as 'Aba and P'loni' would have sufficed to make all the Tz'richusas that it made there?

Answer #1: Perhaps we can say that it doesn't matter, since it did not mention 'Avicha' independently.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Tana mentioned both 'Avicha' and 'P'loni', because we might have thought that it is more logical to say that she is Mekudeshes when he mentions 'P'loni' than when he mentions 'Avicha'

Reason: Since she relies on it more when it is in the hand of a stranger.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that it is because her Chatzer acquires on her behalf.

Refutation: This is not correct however, because if so, what is the Gemara's She'eilah 'What if the rock belongs to both of them?' - It is obvious that she dos not acquire it, seeing as they both own it? ...

Source: As the Gemara in Perek ha'Mocher es ha'Sefinah (Bava Basra, Daf 84b), citing Rebbi Yanai says 'a Chatzer that is owned by two partners can acquire from one on behalf of the other' ...

Source (cont.): And the Gemara establishes it where the one measures in the box belonging to the other, but not if he measures it on the ground.

Explanation #2: We must therefore explain that the criterion is not the Kinyan of her Chatzer, but that when the rock belongs to her, she relies on the Kinyan, but not when it doesn't ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And the She'eilah is whether she relies on it if it belongs to both of them.