Question (Tivyomi's Beraisa): If Reuven has five sons and David has five daughters, and Reuven was Mekadesh 'one of your daughters to one of my sons', each daughter needs a Get from each son;

If a brother died, each daughter needs a Get from each remaining brother, and one Chalitzah.

Suggestion: Perhaps here also, they knew at the time of Kidushin, and forgot later.

Rejection: He said 'one of your daughters to one of my sons'!

Rava is refuted.

Whenever Abaye and Rava argue, the Halachah follows Rava, except for six Halachos. The acronym for these Halachos is 'Ya'AL K'GaM'. (K is for Kidushin that forbids Bi'ah.)

(Mishnah): A case occurred with five women...

(Rav): We learn four laws from this case, but one of these is not clear.

If one was Mekadesh with Peros Shemitah, she is Mekudeshes;

If one was Mekadesh with stolen property, even if it is her property, she is not Mekudeshes;

We learn this from the fact that the Mishnah needed to say that the fruits were of Shemitah (and therefore Hefker), even though the women owned the field. Had it not been Shemitah, they would not be Mekudashos.

Sarah can be a Shali'ach to receive Kidushin for Leah, even if through this they become co-wives;

The Mishnah also teaches the law of Kidushin that forbids the husband to have Bi'ah with her.

Question: Why didn't Rav consider this something we clearly learn from the Mishnah?

Answer: He was unsure if we explain as Abaye or like Rava (above).

R. Yochanan: Did Rav really say this?!

Question: R. Yochanan himself taught that if Reuven stole something from Shimon, and Shimon did not despair from getting it back, neither of them can make it Hekdesh;

Reuven cannot, because it is not his. Shimon cannot, because he has no control over it.

(Likewise, Reuven cannot be Mekadesh with it, because it is not his.)

Answer: R. Yochanan was surprised that Rav agreed with him.

Question (Beraisa): If one was Mekadesh a woman with extorted or stolen property, or he grabbed money from her hand and was Mekadesh her, she is Mekudeshes.

Answer: The case is, he was Mekadesh her with property he stole from her.

Question: The Seifa says that he grabbed money from her hand. This implies that the Reisha discusses property stolen from others!

Answer: The Seifa explains the Reisha;

If he was Mekadesh her with extorted or stolen property, e.g. he grabbed money from her hand and was Mekadesh her...

Question: Our Mishnah discusses property stolen from the women, and Rav said that they would not be Mekudashos if it was not Shemitah!

Answer: Rav discusses a case in which there were no Shiduchin. The Beraisa discusses when there were Shiduchin.

A woman was washing her feet. Reuven came and grabbed money from Shimon. He threw it to her and said 'you are Mekudeshes to me with this.'

(Rava): No one is concerned for R. Shimon's opinion, that one that is openly robbed immediately despairs of getting it back (for he saw the Gazlan. Therefore, she is not Mekudeshes.)

A sharecropper took a handful of onions and was Mekadesh a woman with them.

Rava: The landowner did not agree that you may take these. (She is not Mekudeshes.)

This applies only to a handful. If he took a bundle, the landowner surely agrees (for he will likewise take a bundle. They are partners in the Peros.)

A beer brewer was Mekadesh a woman with the dregs of beer. The owner found out and said 'why didn't you give her good beer?!'

(Rava): The concept of 'why didn't you take better ones?' was said only about Terumah.

(Beraisa): Sometimes, one can separate Terumah without being appointed by the owner. Reuven entered Shimon's field, gathered fruit, and separated Terumah without asking Shimon. If Shimon suspects that Reuven wanted to steal, the Terumah is invalid. If not, it is valid.

Question: How do we know whether or not he suspects him of theft?

Answer: If when Shimon sees him he asks 'why didn't you take better ones?', if there really are better Peros, he does not suspect him of theft. If there are no better Peros, he suspects him.

If Shimon added on more, in either case the Terumah is valid.

Regarding the brewer, the owner said 'why didn't you give better?' because he was embarrassed to say that he does not consent!

(Mishnah): If a man was Mekadesh with Chelko (the share of Kodshim that he received), whether of Kodshei Kodoshim (that only Kohanim may eat) or of Kodshim Kalim, the Kidushin is invalid.

R. Meir says, if a man was Mekadesh with Ma'aser Sheni, whether he was Shogeg (he was unaware that it was Ma'aser Sheni) or Mezid, the Kidushin is invalid;

Rebbi Yehudah says, if he was Shogeg, the Kidushin is invalid. If he was Mezid, it is valid.

R. Meir says, if a man was Mekadesh with Hekdesh b'Mezid, the Kidushin is valid. If he was Shogeg, it is invalid;

Rebbi Yehudah says, if he was Shogeg, the Kidushin is valid. If he was Mezid, it is invalid.

(Gemara) Suggestion: The Mishnah is not like Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili.

(Beraisa - Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili): "If one will be Mo'el (benefit from Hekdesh) in Hash-m (and deny his fellowman)" includes (for Me'ilah) Kodshim Kalim, which belong to the owner (and also pertain to Hash-m).

Rejection: The Mishnah can be like Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili.

Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili said that they belong to the owner only when they are alive, but not after they are slaughtered.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: They are considered Hash-m's. The owner is allowed to eat from Hash-m's table.

Support (Mishnah): If one was Mekadesh with Chelko (i.e. after it was slaughtered), whether of Kodshei Kodoshim or Kodshim Kalim, the Kidushin is invalid.

(Beraisa - Sumchus): If one was Mekadesh with Chelko, whether of Kodshei Kodoshim or Kodshim Kalim, the Kidushin is invalid.

Objection (Rebbi Yehudah): (If Kodshei Kodoshim leave the Azarah, they are disqualified and worthless.) Why would a woman be in the Azarah to receive Kidushin?!

Rebbi Yosi: If she made a Shali'ach to receive Kidushin, or she forced her way in, we must know the Halachah!

(Beraisa - Rebbi Yehudah): (If a man was Mekadesh with Kodshei Kodoshim or Kodshim Kalim,) the Kidushin is valid;

Rebbi Yosi says, it is invalid.

(R. Yochanan): They both learn from "this will be to you from the Kodshei Kodoshim from the fire." Rebbi Yehudah explains "to you" - for all your needs;

Rebbi Yosi explains, they are like "fire". Just like the Mizbe'ach's share is consumed by fire, the share of Kohanim is (solely) for consumption.