Answer #3: R. Meir and his Chachamim all hold like Rav Papa. They argue about Shmuel's law.

(Shmuel): If a lender sold his loan document, and then pardoned the borrower from paying the debt, the debt is cancelled. Even the lender's heir may cancel the debt.

Chachamim hold like Shmuel (she does not resolve to accept Kidushin, due to concern lest he pardon the debt). R. Meir does not hold like Shmuel.

Answer #4: R. Meir and his Chachamim all hold like Shmuel. They argue about the psychology of women;

R. Meir holds that a woman resolves to accept a document. She is not worried lest her husband pardon the debt and prevent her from collecting;

Chachamim holds that she does not accept a document. She is worried lest he pardon the debt.

Question: Regarding a Milveh Al Peh, what do they argue about?

Answer: They argue about Rav Huna's law:

(Rav Huna): If Reuven has money of Shimon, and Shimon says in front of Reuven and Levi 'give the money to Levi', Levi immediately acquires the money. (In Beraisa #1, Shimon told Reuven in front of Leah 'give the money I lent to you to Leah, to be Mekadesh her to me'.)

Chachamim hold that Rav Huna's law applies only to deposits, but not to loans;

R. Meir holds that it applies even to loans.

Suggestion: Tana'im argue about Kidushin with a loan.

(Beraisa - R. Meir): If one said 'be Mekudeshes to me with this document', she is not Mekudeshes;

R. Elazar says, she is Mekudeshes;

Chachamim say, we evaluate the paper. If it is worth a Perutah, she is Mekudeshes. (If not, she is not - Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak (below) held that these words are not in the Beraisa.)

Question: What kind of document is it?

Suggestion: It is a loan document that others owe to him.

Rejection: R. Meir holds that she is Mekudeshes through such a document!

Answer: Rather, it is a document for a loan that she owes to him. The Tana'im argue about whether or not a loan can make Kidushin.

Rejection #1 (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): No, he gave her a Shtar Kidushin without witnesses.

R. Meir holds that a document must be signed by witnesses to be valid;

R. Elazar holds that a document (even without signatures) given in front of witnesses is valid;

Chachamim are unsure whether the Halachah follows R. Meir or R. Elazar;

We evaluate the document. If it is worth a Perutah, she is Vadai Mekudeshes. If not, she is Safek Mekudeshes.

Rejection #2: He gave her a Shtar Kidushin that was not written Lishmah (for her). The Tana'im argue about Reish Lakish's law:

Question (Reish Lakish): If a Shtar Kidushin was not written Lishmah, is it valid?

Do we equate Kidushin to divorce? Just like a Get must be Lishmah, also a Shtar Kidushin;

Or, do we equate all methods of Kidushin? Just like Kidushin money need not be (minted) Lishmah, also a Shtar Kidushin.

Answer (Reish Lakish): We equate Kidushin to divorce. It must be Lishmah.

Rejection #3: All the Tana'im hold like Reish Lakish. He gave her a Shtar Kidushin that was written Lishmah without consulting her;

The Tana'im argue like Rava and Rav Papa argued.

(Rava): Such a document is valid.

(Rav Papa): It is invalid.

Suggestion: The following Tana'im argue about whether or not a loan can make Kidushin.

(Beraisa - R. Meir): If one said 'make this metal into chains and rings for me, and I will be Mekudeshes to you', once he makes them, she is Mekudeshes;

Chachamim say, she is Mekudeshes only when she gets money.

Question: What money do they refer to?

Suggestion: It is the jewelry she requested.

Rejection: R. Meir cannot say she is Mekudeshes before she gets it. He gave her nothing!

Answer: Rather, they refer to additional money. The Tana'im argue about whether or not a loan (what she owes him for his labor) can be Mekadesh.

Both Tana'im hold that wages are accrued continuously, from the start of the job until the end, so they are like a loan that she owes to him.

Suggestion: R. Meir holds that a loan can Mekadesh, Chachamim say that it cannot.

Rejection #1: No, all agree that a loan cannot Mekadesh.

They argue about whether or not wages are accrued continuously.

R. Meir considers it as if all the work is done at the moment it is completed (he gives her new money, not a loan);

Chachamim hold that wages are owed (at each moment, based on how much has been completed) from the start of the job until the end, so it is like a loan that she owes to him.

Rejection #2: All agree that wages accrue from the start until the end, and a loan cannot be Mekadesh;

They argue about whether a worker acquires improvements to a Kli (on which he is working, through the wages due to him).

R. Meir holds that he acquires. (The wages are not like a loan. Rather, it is as if he sells the Kli when he finishes.) Chachamim disagree.

Rejection #3: All agree that a worker does not acquire improvements to a Kli, and that wages accrue from the start until the end, and that a loan cannot be Mekadesh;

The case is, he added to what she gave to him, and also pardoned her debt to him.

R. Meir holds that she intends to become Mekudeshes through his addition (which is worth at least a Perutah);

Chachamim say, she intends to become Mekudeshes through the loan, and this does not work.

They argue like the following Tana'im.

(Beraisa): If one was Mekadesh 'with the wages for the work I did for you', she is not Mekudeshes. If he said 'with the wages for the work I will do for you', she is Mekudeshes;

R. Nasan says, if he said 'with the wages for the work I will do for you', she is not Mekudeshes, all the more so if he said 'with wages for the work I did for you'!

Rebbi says, in either case, she is not Mekudeshes. If he added something of his own, she is Mekudeshes.

The first Tana and R. Nasan argue about wages. The first Tana holds that they accrue from the start until the end. R. Nasan holds that they are due only at the end;

R. Nasan and Rebbi argue about Kidushin with a Perutah and a loan. R. Nasan holds that she intends to become Mekudeshes through the loan (which is invalid). Rebbi holds that she intends to become Mekudeshes through the Perutah.

(Mishnah): If one said 'be Mekudeshes to me with this cup of wine', and it was found to be honey, or vice-versa (he said honey, and it was wine), she is not Mekudeshes;

If he said 'with this silver Dinar', and it was found to be gold, or vice-versa, she is not Mekudeshes;

If he said 'on condition that I am poor', and he was found to be rich, or vice-versa, she is not Mekudeshes;

R. Shimon says, if he tricked her l'Shevach (he gave to her something worth more than what he said), she is Mekudeshes.

(Gemara - Beraisa #1): If one said 'be Mekudeshes to me with this cup' he is Mekadesh with the cup and its contents;

(Beraisa #2): He means only the cup, but not its contents;

(Beraisa #3): He means only the contents, but not the cup.

The Beraisos do not argue. Beraisa #2 discusses a cup of water, Beraisa #3 discusses a cup of wine, and Beraisa #1 discusses a cup of oil (Rashi; Tosfos - in Beraisa #1 the cup holds water, in Beraisa #2 it holds wine, and in Beraisa #3 it holds oil.)

(Mishnah - R. Shimon): If he tricked her l'Shevach, she is Mekudeshes.

Question: Does R. Shimon argue with the following Mishnah?!

(Mishnah): If the seller said that he is selling wine, and it was found to be vinegar, or vice-versa - either party can retract.

This is because some people prefer wine, some prefer vinegar. Here also, some people prefer gold, some prefer silver!

Answer #1 (Abaye): (He does not argue.) In our Mishnah, Reuven told Shimon 'lend to me a silver Dinar, and be Mekadesh Leah to me with it'. Shimon decided to lend and be Mekadesh with a gold Dinar (without telling Reuven).

Chachamim hold that Reuven was insistent that he give a silver Dinar (so the Kidushin is invalid). R. Shimon holds that Reuven merely suggested (that even silver suffices, and all the more so gold).

Objection #1: If so, the Mishnah should say 'be Mekudeshes to him', not 'be Mekudeshes to me'!

Objection #2: If so, it should say 'if he tricked him', not 'if he tricked her'!

Objection #3: If so, it should not say 'it was found to b', since he openly gave her gold!

Answer #2 (Rava and R. Chiya bar Avin): The case is, Leah told a Shali'ach 'go receive my Kidushin from Reuven, who said that he will be Mekadesh me with a silver Dinar', and Reuven gave a gold Dinar.

Chachamim say that Leah was insistent to receive a silver Dinar. R. Shimon says, Leah merely suggested (that even silver is fine, and all the more so gold).

Question: Why does it say 'it was found to be gold'?

Answer: When Reuven gave the money to the Shali'ach, it was wrapped up, and he did not see that it was gold. (The Beis Meir questions why the Tana did not discuss openly giving gold.)

(Abaye): R. Shimon, R. Shimon ben Gamliel and R. Eliezer all hold that one (sometimes) is not insistent that his words be fulfilled exactly, rather he makes a suggestion.

R. Shimon says so in our Mishnah. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says so in the following Mishnah.