Masechet Kiddushin (1)

• If someone is selling karkah and mitaltilin, you just have to make a kinyan on the karkah and the mitaltilin is acquired as well (obviously both are paid for and agreed upon but you do not need a separate kinyan). This is called kinyan agav.
• Modeh b'miktzat: when a person says that he owes someone less than the amount that the other person is claiming. In that case you pay what you admit and you have to swear to the other person that you do not owe the other person the rest. You swear b'shem Hashem. If you do not swear than you have to pay the amount claimed.
• Their are many types of shvuot involved in civil litigation.
• You do not swear on Karkah.
• If their is a case where someone is claiming mitaltilin and karkah and you are modeh b'miktzat on mitaltilin but the karkah you are denying. If you are swearing on the mitaltilin than you can also swear be made to swear on the karkah. This is called gilgul shvuah - when the shvuah rolls from the mitaltilin to the karkah.

• When you use something else (object) as money.
• רְשׁוּת הַגָּבוֹהַּ, בְּכֶסֶף- kesef works as a kinyan for hekdesh . Kinyan kesef works for metaltilin if it is hekdesh (but not if it is hedyot).
• Gizbar: Their was a treasurer who would aquire whatever was needed for hekdesh.
• Just saying the words that something is kodesh has the same power as handing it from one hedyot to another. Amirah functions as a kinyan with hekdesh.

• ואם נתן ההדיוט דמים על החפץ- Kesef does not work as a kinyan for mitaltilin (it is a kinyan for karkah but not metaltilin).
• ומחזיר המוכר את הדמים אם חוזר בו ממכירת החפץ- if the seller changes his mind about selling the object after the money has been given but before the meshicha, he can back out of the deal (must give back money though) (same is true with buyer).
• מי שפרע- someone who paid. ( - you can back out of the deal but it is the beginning of a curse like "The One who punished the egyptians will pay you back for backing out of your word".

Ma'amar is th

• All money was coins made from metals then and in the times of the mishna and gemara, the value of money depended on its weight and the metal that was used to make it (silver and gold, copper).
• Dinar: silver coin (24 issarim/ 192 pruttot).
• Pruttah: copper coin (1/8 issar coin).
• Issar: silver coin .
• Ma'amar:
• Ma'amar is the technical
• Yibamah: a woman whose husband died childless. The woman may not marry someone else beside her brother in law unless chalitzah is preformed (which 'divroces' her from him). Only biah works to consummate this relationship in marriage (not kesef or shtar) --> din d'orayta.
• The rabanan introduced kesef or shtar as a way to make it assur for the other brothers to marry her. This is called ma'amar.
• If after he gives money he does not want to marry her than she needs chalitzah but also a get.

• From where do we know that being mekadesh a woman through something that has the same value as kesef is equal to being mekadesh her through kesef.
• Why does the Mishnah have to specify בפרוטה ובשווה פרוטה.
• In Bava Metziah it says "shaveh prutah" (not prutah and shaveh prutah).
• Answer: because the Mishnah started off by saying kesef so it has to specify what kesef. The other Mishnah in Bava Metziah does not have the same structure.
• How do we know that shaveh kesef has the same Halacha as kesef?
• It says pruttah because it is following after kessef.
• לקמן- later on.
• He has to pay more to the owner to be free.
• We know from a passuk that the word yashiv is extra and that you have to return shaveh kesef. This strengthens tosfot's question because we can not assume that shaveh kesef is like kesef because it is not a logical assumption because if it were a logical assumption than we would not need a passuk by eved ivri --> without the passuk you can not assume that shaveh kesef is like kesef.
• דהא - because later on we need a passuk.
• Rav Kahana was a Kohen and accepted shaveh kesef for the pidyon haben.
• How do we know that shaveh kesef is like kesef in kiddushin? How do we know that shaveh kesef is like kesef with pidyon haben? The fact that we need a passuk shows that this is not a logical conclusion to be drawn.
• כלל ופרט וכלל - one of the middot that the torah is nidreshet bahem. When you have a passuk where the passuk begins with a general phrase, followed by something specific, then followed by a general phrase (about the same topic), we learn something out from it. Ex: this exsists by pidyon haben. The klal teaches us that we have a right to add more things to the prat. Whatever we add has to have some of the features of the prat.
• Kesef is the prat.
  • It is mitaltilin.
  • Has intrinsic value (gufo mammon - its essence has monetary value).
• Chazal derive from this that the shaveh kesef has to be both metaltilin and its essence must have intrinsic value. This excludes karkah because it is not metaltilin. This also excludes a shtar (IOU - ex: I owe you 5 shkalim written on a paper - does not count because the paper itself is not gufo mammon, it is worthless).
• However, when it comes to pidyon haben, the source of shaveh kesef is like kesef for pidyon haben (klal, prat, klal) but their is no such passuk for kiddushin.
• Erchin: value. If someone wants to donate his value to the BHMK, the torah gives specific values based on age and value. It mentions kesef by erchin. Tosfot wants to know from where do we know that shaveh kesef is like kesef.
• People would be makdish their fiels, the gizbar would sell it, and from that money they would buy what they needed for the BHMK.
• Hekdesh can not be redeemed into becoming chol through karkah because the phrase says "v'natan hakesef v'kam lo" --> paraphrases what passuk says about giving money (not exact quote). We learn from that that you can not do this through karkah.
• Their is no gemara that says we have a klal, prat, klal by hekdesh but Tosfots suspects that their must be one by hekdesh because the gemara tells us that hekdesh can not be redeemed with karkah or shtar and those are excluded based on a klal, prat, klal (tosfot says "efshar" --> if it were explicitly mentioned in a gemara, Tosfot would not say efshar).
• How do we know with kiddushin and erchin that shaveh kesef is like kesef? We can not take that as something logical.
• It is learned from eved ivri. The torah may state a Halacha in one place and if it is true there than it will be true in all places.
• Tosfot is asking a question: the word "yashiv" is also mentioned by nezikim and the word "yashiv" is used by eved ivri.
• שני כתובין הבאין כאחד ואין מלמדין- if the torah wants to teach us a rule, we would use the rule as a banyan av, that the torah says it once and we would extrapolate and apply it eksewhere. But if the same law is repeated twice we have to wonder why the Torah has to do that (repeat it) if we can use one and extrapolate. This is done to teach us that you can only use the law where it is stated in the torah and not elsewhere. Because the torah says shaveh kesef is like kesef by nezikim and eved ivri we know it applies there but it does not say so by kiddushin.
• We thought that the torah wrote it again by nezikim to derive that it can not be applied anywhere else but Tosfot says that is not so, it is written by Nezikim because you would not have been able to infer nezikim from eved ivri and vice versa because their is something unique in both.
• Is shaveh kesef like kesef intuitive or do you need a limud? Tofafot believes you need a limud.
• Metav: If a person has a debt and wants to pay off the debt with land, then you have to give top quality land. This is only true for karkah. If you pay back the debt in mitaltilin, the Halacha is that you can give whatever mitaltilin you want. We know this Halacha from the word metav in the passuk in mishpatim (Shmot 22: 4) כִּ֤י יַבְעֶר־אִישׁ֙ שָׂדֶ֣ה אוֹ־כֶ֔רֶם וְשִׁלַּח֙ אֶת־בעירה [בְּעִיר֔וֹ] וּבִעֵ֖ר בִּשְׂדֵ֣ה אַחֵ֑ר מֵיטַ֥ב שָׂדֵ֛הוּ וּמֵיטַ֥ב כַּרְמ֖וֹ יְשַׁלֵּֽם׃ .
• Nezikim has the concept of metav and eved ivri does not have that.
• If the torah had not told me by nezikim that shaveh kesef is like kesef, I would've thought that just like when you pay back karkah you have metav, when you pay back mitaltilin their is also metav and the best metav is kesef so the torah specifies shaveh kesef is like kesef to show their is a difference between paying back in karkah and mitaltilin.
• Metav only appears in the torah by nezikim. If the torah would not have told us by eved ivri that shaveh kesef is like kesef, I would have thought that if you were to buy an eved ivri and to buy it with karkah, maybe you have to pay back with top quality land (because youre deriving from nezikim). Therefore the torah had to tell me the principle of shaveh kesef being like kesef - no matter how you purchase the eved ivri (karkah or mitaltilin), shaveh kesef is like kesef.
• כדי שלא יטמע בין העובדי כוכבים- so that he will not assimilate. If an eved ivri is working for a ger toshav. If a jew is so poor that he is forced to sell himself to a gentile (the jew is living amongst goyim). This passuk where we learn out from the word yashiv is talkin about giving money to redeem himself.
• I may have thought that if the torah only told us about the eved ivri case, I would have thought it only applies there because the torah wants to make it easy for him to redeem himself because the longer he stays there he may assimilate so we would not be able to use that logic with nezikim so we would have thought that this does not apply. So that is why we also have nezikim because in that case their is no fear of assimilation.
• על שנשא ונתן בפירות שביעית- a person deserves to be sold as a slave because he sold perot shve'et and one thing leads to another and he gets punished by being sold. So I would have thought that maybe we should be machmir of an eved ivri with specifically kesef because he is a transgressor and maybe we should require of him to pay back specifically in money and so therefore the torah had to tell us that shaveh kesef is like kesef.
• והא דאיצטריך קרא לפדיון הבן והקדש, דשווה כסף ככסף- why does the torah have to give us a klal, prat, klal by pidyon haben, why do we not just learn it out from eved ivri and nezikim? I need the klal, prat, klal not to teach us that shaveh kesef is like kesef, I need it to derive that you can not use karkah and shtar for pidyon haben and hekdesh.
• We learn shaveh kesef is like kesef from a limmud in a passuk to apply it to kiddushin.

a man

• a man wants to be mekadesh a woman with a piece of silk and the question is does the piece of silk need to be appraised before the kiddushin.
• Rabba said you do not need to appraise it.
• Rabbi Yosef says it does need to be appraised.
• If he says to her that she is mekudeshet with whatever that value is worth, than they do not argue and everyone agrees you do not need an appraisal.
• If, before he gave it to her, he says it is worth 50 and it is not worth 50 than she is not mekudeshet (everyone agrees).
• The argument is about if he said to her it is worth 50 and it is actually worth 50 --> machloket Rabbah and Rav Yosef.
• Rabbah: you do not need an appraisal before she receives it because it is worth 50.
• Rav Yosef: you need this appraisal because a woman is not an expert in evaluation so she is not reliant. We can not assume that she is not fully committed because she does not have the da'at to know full knowledge. The only way we can assume she has full gemirat da'at unless it is appraised in advance and it is appraised to be 50. Without that we can not assume that she has the da'at and it lacks the da'at that is required on her part.
• Another way to understand the argument :
• Rav Yosef: in order to use shaveh kesef as a kinyan, its value must also be set. By definition, if you want to use shaveh kesef as kesef, it must be appraised because otherwise it lacks its value as kesef.

• Rav Yosef is trying to find a source for the Halacha that shaveh kesef only works as kesef if it is appraised - kayitz (chiddush).
• Their is no Aramaic in a braysah. All tanaitic literature is in Hebrew.
• "מכסף מקנתו בכסף הוא נקנה ואינו נקנה בתבואה וכלים" - talks about eved ivri
• it can not be p'shat to say that you can not use tevuah and kelim in any case because we know shaveh kesef is like kesef.
• Tevuah and kelim is excluded in a case where it is not appraised.

• Question: it should have used the same lashon as a different Mishnah.
• Answer: the reason we use the language "niknet" is because we can me mekadesh with kesef. Since one of the methods is kesef and kesef is associated with kinyan. The gemara uses a gezerat shavah with kichah.

Thi

• This mitaretz said the whole thing! It is not two different questions with different answers, it is the one question and the answer to that.

Several

• Several Variables. The Gemara is asking why does it not say "haisha mitkadeshet" (Rashi)? Let us teach here haisha mitkadeshet (lashon rashi) (on previous gemara section).
• This is something that the rabanan decided is important to express with reguard to marriage. The first mishna talks about kiddushin because they convey two different lishonot. Kinyan - kesef is associated with kinyan. Kiddushin - implies that she is assur to everyone like hekdesh.
• A woman being asurah to everyone else is a din d'orayta, the rabbis introduced kiddushin - hekdesh. That is why the two mishnayot gives us both the lashon d'orayta and the lashon d'rabanan.
• Why does it not use the lashon of "haish koneh"? It is for literary consistency- since in the latter statement it speaks in her perspective, in the reisha, it also speaks in the perspective of the woman.
• So why not rewrite and say haish koneh u'makneh.
• When It comes to divorce, she is the ekoneh and he is the makneh.
• When the husband dies, it is not that the husband was makneh her, it is that Hashem said that their is no marriage. "Makneh" is appropriate for get but not for mitat haba'al, so they did not use the lashon of "makneh".
• Gemara gives an alternate answer - it does not want to say "haish koneh" because that would imply that he can marry her against her will (which is wrong) so the Mishnah uses the wording "haishah niknet" to show that the woman needs da'at. The gemara feels that the word "niknet" implies her knowledge and willingness.

• Question: Mekudeshet usually means assur. "harei at mekudeshet li" would translate to 'you are forbidden to me'!?
• Answer: He redefines "li"--> for me. לי, כלומר להיות לי מקודשת לעולם בשבילי . Shows us how to interpret the word 'li'.
• If you take mekudeshet to mean assur than you need to redefine "li", but if you go according to the simple meaning of the word 'li' than their is no problem.
• "טלית זו מקודש לי" - what if you used the language of kiddushin in a secular, civil, transaction (if mekudeshet meand meyuchedet), it does not seem that it should be effective because when you are mekadesh a woman, she is forbidden to everyone else but in a civil kinyan, you can buy it and share it with others.

Kiddushin daf 6:

• Goes through different lishonot of what a man will say to a woman - are those propor lishonot of marriage?
• If they had been talking about marriage and he says "harei at miyuchedet li", it is a safek marriage. Problem: Tosafot would assume that this is good for kiddushin.

1. Kiddushin daf 6:
2. Goes through different lishonot of what a man will say to a woman - are those propor lishonot of marriage?

• If they had been talking about marriage and he says "harei at miyuchedet li", it is a safek marriage. Problem: Tosafot would assume that this is good for kiddushin.
• The fact that he said to her mekudeshet, that she will not have a safek to what he means and it will be clear that she.

Several

• Several Variables. The Gemara is asking why does it not say "haisha mitkadeshet" (Rashi)? Let us teach here haisha mitkadeshet (lashon rashi). It should have been consistant.
  

W

• We would have thought that in kiddushin, we would need both parties consent because in any kinyan we need the consent of both participants. It is a kinyan so by definition we need mutual consent. (Tafasta Muat). Tafasta merubah: that is going beyond what we would have thought is the norm. In the term "haisha niknet" we take the conservative approach that she needs da'at. If the mishna had not told us that the yivamah is niknet even without her da'at we would have thought that she needs da'at.
• IN the second pshat, it is not about niknet vs. koneh, it is about the fact that it says ha'isha niknet. The gemrara is saying that since the Mishnah wrote it that haisha niknet from the perspective of the woman, than it is from her perspective than she is participating. If it says haish koneh than the focus would be on the man. We are looking at ish vs. ishah (not kanah vs. niknet). But what should be bothering us now is "hayivamah niknet" where there she does not need da'at. What is a third party coered them to be intimate, the yibum would be considered yibum. The Rashba quotes a gemara from yivamos that says it would word. We learn from that that yibum does not require da'at at all - the initimacy consomates the relationship reguardless of their da'at (so any word you use will not be accurate), so "yivamah niknet" is the best option because niknet implies "niknet actomatically/ by itself without the data of both of them" --> passivity.
• Zikah: when a woman's husband dies without children, their is already a martial connection that is created between the woman and the brother in law. That connection can either be consomated through bi'ah or cancelled out through chalitzah.
• An alternative answer, we use the term "hayivamah niknet" for literary style and to maintain literary consistence because the Mishnah starts with "haishah niknet" so it concludes with "hayibamah niknet".
• Even if the Mishnah was written with "haish koneh", who would have interpreted it to mean against her will ? How could the gemara have had the hava amina to think that any kinyan could be done against the will of either participant??