1)

(a)We try to learn Kidushei Shtar from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Kidushei Kesef in that if Kesef, which does not take a woman out of her husband's domain, yet it does bring her in, then a Shtar, which takes her out, should certainly bring her in.

(b)We refute this 'Kal va'Chomer' however, on the grounds that Kesef has an advantage over Shtar in another area inasmuch as it redeems Hekdesh and Ma'aser Sheni (which a Shtar cannot do).

(c)So we learn Kidushei Shtar from the Hekesh (in Ki Setzei) "v'Yatz'ah v'Hayesah", comparing Kidushin to Gitin, where the Torah specifically writes "v'Kasav Lah Sefer Kerisus".

2)

(a)Abaye refutes the suggestion that we ought to learn from the same Hekesh that a man can divorce his wife with money by virtue of the principle 'Ein Kateigor Na'aseh Saneigor' by which he means that it would not be appropriate to separate a couple using the same coinage which served to bring them together.

(b)We cannot use the same principle to refute the previous Derashah (that permits Kidushei Kesef from "v'Yatz'ah v'Hayesah") because, unlike the coinage used for the two transactions (which is exactly the same) the wording in the one documents differs from the wording in the other.

3)

(a)Rava disagrees with Abaye. He learns from the Pasuk "v'Kasav Lah Sefer Kerisus" (what Abaye learned from the Sevara of 'Ein Kateigor ... ') 'bi'Kesivah Misgareshes, v'Einah Misgareshes b'Kesef'.

(b)We choose not to switch the Derashos, to Darshen 'bi'Kesivah Misgareshes, v'Einah Miskadeshes bi'Kesivah', and learn from the Hekesh of "v'Yatz'ah v'Hayesah" that one can divorce with money because it is logical to confine the Derashah of "v'Kasav Lah" to Gitin (since that is where it is written).

(c)Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili learns from "v'Kasav Lah" that one can write a Get on anything. He learns that a man cannot divorce his wife with money from "Sefer Kerisus", 'Sefer Korsah, v'Ein Davar Acher Korsah'.

4)

(a)The Rabanan learn from "Sefer Kerisus" that the separation must be complete (that the ex-husband cannot make stipulations that force her to do his bidding after the divorce [effectively binding her to him]).

(b)This does not incorporate a case where the husband gives his wife a Get forbidding her to drink wine or visit her father's house for thirty days because in thirty days time, the condition will no longer apply and the Kerisus will be complete.

(c)Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili learns this Din from "Kares Kerisus" (implying two Derashos).

(d)The Rabanan argue with Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili on the grounds that they do not divide "Kerisus" into two Derashos.

5)

(a)We then attempt to learn one of the three means of acquiring a woman from the other two (not just because we have two others, but ) based on the 'Kal va'Chomer' that we cited earlier by each case, before discrediting it with a Pircha. We are now trying to overcome these Pirchos, by using the other two to overrule it.

(b)We cannot learn ...

1. ... Shtar from Kesef and Bi'ah because unlike them, it does not benefit the woman in any way (since the Shtar does not even need to be worth a Perutah, and it only contains the wording of the Kidushin, and not the details of the contract).

2. ... Bi'ah from Kesef and Shtar because they are more common than it is (seeing as one can acquire land and Avadim with them).

3. ... Kesef from Shtar and Bi'ah because there are occasions where they both take effect against the will of the other party (by a Get and a Yevamah, respectively), whereas by Kesef, this is never the case..

(c)When we ask that we also find Kesef 'Ba'al Korchah' by an Amah ha'Ivriyah, we mean that the girl is acquired against her will (even though her father gives his consent).

(d)We answer that nevertheless, we do find the concept of Kesef against the will of the woman in connection with the laws of marriage.

6)

(a)Rav Huna maintains that Chupah also acquires a woman, and he derives it from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Kesef. We initially think that Chupah enables the newly-wed wife of a Kohen to eat Terumah, which Kesef does not.

(b)We refute this however, from a statement by Ula, who, based on the Pasuk "v'Kohen Ki Yikneh Nefesh Kinyan Kaspo" learns that, min ha'Torah, an Arusah may eat Terumah (seeing as she is included in the 'Kinyan Kaspo' of the Kohen).

(c)The Rabanan decreed otherwise because they were afraid that she might feed her siblings a nice cup of Terumah wine that her Chasan gave her.

(d)The basis of Rav Huna's 'Kal va'Chomer' is the fact that Chupah concludes the Kinyan, whereas Kesef does not.

7)

(a)We just cited Rav Huna, who learns that Chupah acquires a woman from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Kesef. We dispel the Pircha that Kesef acquires Hekdesh and Ma'aser Sheni, by adding Bi'ah, which does not. The reason that we cannot learn Chupah from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Bi'ah alone is because Bi'ah has the advantage over Chupah that it acquires a Yevamah. That explains why we need to learn it from Kesef too.

(b)Neither can we learn Chupah from these two alone, because the woman receives benefit from them both, which she does not do from Chupah. So we add Shtar to the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh'. We cannot learn Chupah from Shtar alone because Shtar has the advantage over Chupah that it sends away a married woman.

(c)The Tzad ha'Shaveh of them all is that they acquire elsewhere (outside Kidushin). Chupah acquires the woman regarding nullifying her Nedarim whilst she is alive, and inheriting and burying her after her death.

8)

(a)The Chachamim disagree with Rav Huna, because they have a Pircha on his 'Kal va'Chomer' in that Kesef, Shtar and Bi'ah can all apply against the will of the other party, whereas Chupah cannot.

(b)Rav Huna counters this with the argument that Kesef does not acquire against the will of the other party with regard to marriage (as we learned earlier).

9)

(a)Rava asks two questions on Rav Huna: Firstly, he asks, our Mishnah specifies three ways of acquiring, and not four. Secondly how can Rav Huna learn that Chupah should acquire without Kesef from the fact that it acquires with Kesef?

(b)Abaye refutes Rava's first Kashya. He justifies the Tana's omission of Chupah from the list by virtue of the fact that the Tana only lists the methods of acquiring that are mentioned explicitly in the Torah (but omits Chupah, which is derived from a Derashah).

(c)And he refutes his second Kashya by pointing out that this is precisely what Rav Huna meant if Kesef, which cannot complete the Kinyan after it (Kesef) began the process, nevertheless acquires, then Chupah, which can, should certainly acquire.

10)

(a)The Beraisa rules that if a man gives a woman money or value of money to a woman and says 'Harei At Mekudeshes Li', 'Harei At Me'ureses Li' or 'Harei At Li li'Intu', then she is betrothed.

(b)In the Seifa, he says that in the event that she gives him the money and says 'Hareini Mekudeshes Lecha ... ', she is not betrothed.

(c)Rav Papa points out the implication from the Reisha (that in the case of 'Nasan Hu v'Amrah Hi', the woman is not betrothed), clashes with the implication from the Seifa (that she is).

11)

(a)We reject the suggestion that the Tana was specific in the Reisha, but not in the Seifa (where the Tana speaks about 'Nasnah Hi v'Amrah Hi', but really means to incorporate 'Nasan Hu v'Amrah Hi') on the grounds that a Tana should not have written a Lashon which incorporates other things, if the Lashon itself, by virtue of its implication, clashes with another section of the same Beraisa.

(b)We initially reconcile the Reisha with the Seifa by explaining the the Seifa to mean that 'Nasan Hu v'Amrah Hi' is considered as ineffective as 'Nasnah Hi v'Amrah Hi'.

(c)Alternatively, both the Reisha and the Seifa are specific, and there is no discrepancy because 'Nasan Hu v'Amrah Hi' is a Safek, fitting neither into the Reisha nor into the Seifa.

(d)The Halachah by 'Nasan Hu v'Amrah Hi' is Chayshinan mid'Rabanan, and she requires a Get from both men (Note: The Lashon 'mid'Rabanan' is unclear. See Ran).

12)

(a)Shmuel says that, if a man gives a woman a Perutah and says to her ...

1. ... 'Harei At Mekudeshes; 'Harei At Me'uereses; 'Harei At l'Intu she is betrothed.

2. ... 'Hareini Ishech; 'Hareini Ba'alech, 'Hareini Arusech she is not betrothed 'Ein Ka'an Beis Michush'.

(b)Similarly, Shmuel concludes that if a man says to his wife 'Eini Ishech; 'Eini Ba'alech; 'Eini Arusech ... Ein Ka'an Beis Michush'.

(c)The ramifications of 'Ein Ka'an Beis Michush' by ...

1. ... Kidushin are that she is not even Safek Mekudeshes, and does not therefore require a Get from the man.

2. ... Gerushin are that she is permitted to marry a Kohen.

13)

(a)Rav Papa asked Abaye whether Shmuel really holds 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos Havyan Yadayim' because in the first three cases of Kidushin, he ruled 'Mekudeshes', despite the fact that the man omitted the word 'Li' (with possible connotations of his having betrothed her to someone else).

(b)Shmuel established the Mishnah in Nazir 'ha'Omer Ehei, Harei Zeh Nazir' when a Nazir was walking in front of him.

(c)Otherwise he might have meant 'Ehei b'Ta'anis'. And we extrapolate from there that in fact, Shmuel holds 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos, Lo Havyan Yadayim'.

(d)In order to resolve the obvious discrepancy between Shmuel's two statements, we amend his first statement to include 'Li' in all the statements of Kidushin.

14)

(a)Although Shmuel is speaking when he said 'Li', as we just explained, his Chidush lies in the Seifa (of both Kidushin and Gerushin respectively), where the man's words are not effective ...

1. ... by Kidushin because the Torah writes "Ki Yikach Ish Ishah", 've'Lo she'Yikach Es Atzmo' (i.e. that he must take her to him, and not bring himself to her).

2. ... Gerushin is because the Torah writes "v'Shilchah", 've'Lo she'Yishlach Es Atzmo' (that he must send her away and not take himself away from her).