Question: Why is it any worse than 'Give money to P'loni' (earlier, on Daf 6b) where she is betrothed, how much more so where she says 'Give the money to me'?

Answer: The case here is different, since initially, she asked for the money not to be given as Kidushin, in which case one can say that when she says 'Give!', she means with the intention that she originally had in mind.

Implied Question: The Gemara needs to mention all these three cases ...

Answer: To teach us that her words are ineffective in all regards, whether it is regarding food, drink or anything else.

Question: Why does the Gemara see fit to Pasken like Rabah against Rav Yosef, bearing in mind the Gemara in Bava Basra (Daf 143b [See Masores ha'Shas]) which rules like Rabah in all but three cases - 'Sadeh, Inyan & Mechtzah'?

Answer* #1: Some commentaries confine that ruling to Bava Basra.

Question: This is not correct however, since it is clear that the Halachah is like Rabah in the entire Shas ...

Source: As is evident in Perek Mi she'Achzo' (Gitin, Daf 74b) in the case of 'That man who said to his share-cropper "Everyone else waters three times and takes a quarter of the produce ... ' ...

Question (cont.): And the Gemara then states 'And think it over. How can Rabah hold like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, seeing as we Pasken like Rabah, whereas in this case, the Halachah is not like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel?

Question (concl.): And since the Gemara says 'seeing as we Pasken like Rabah', it implies that the Halachah is like him everywhere?

Answer: Perhaps one can refute this according to the texts there that read 'In this case we Pasken like Rabah' - implying Davka here but not throughout Shas.

Question (2): Why does the Gemara not say explicitly 'Halachah ke'Rabah', in the same way as it says 'Halacah ke'Rebbi Elazar' and 've'Hilch'sa ke'Rava Amar Rav Nachman'?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that the Gemara is coming to teach us that it is specifically silks that do not require assessment, since their value is more or less known, and errors regarding them are not so common ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas other items, such as precious stones and pearls, where one finds some that are less valuable, and where the margin of error is greater than their real value, require assessment, since she does not otherwise rely on the transaction.

Minhag: In fact, that is how the custom evolved to betroth with a ring that does not contain a stone.

Implied Question: Ad when the Gemara states later in the second Perek (Daf 48b) that 'He added a jewel of his own' ...

Answer #1: Presumably speaks where they assessed it.

Answer #2: Alternatively, that, like silks, they had a rough idea of the value of that particular jewel.

Implied Question: And the case (later, Daf 12a) of 'The man who betrothed a woman with a dark-blue stone', where Rav Chisda assessed whether it was worth a P'rutah ...

Answer: A dark-blue stone is not like other precious stones; it is a kind of marble ...

Support: As we find in the fifth Perek of Sukah (Daf 51b) regarding Herod, who built the Beis-ha'Mikdash with marble, blue-stones and white marble.

Answer* #2: Some commentaries ascribe the need to Pasken like Rabah against Rav Yosef to the fact that the latter (earlier, on Daf 8a) supported his opinion with a number of proofs.

Answer* #3: Whilst others explain that the Gemara does not Pasken specifically like Rabah - in order not to explain that it refers to Rabah in the second Lashon - that 'Kol-d'hu does not need assessing, but that if he said "fifty" even if it is worth fifty, it does' ...

Answer* #3 (cont.): Hence the Gemara Paskens that under no circumstances do silks require assessment ...

Conclusion: And according to this reason, we can also understand why the Gemara then sees fit to rule like Rabah, in spite of the fact that we Pasken like him everywhere.

Inference: This implies that a Sh'tar written on earthenware is Kasher ...

Precedent: And this is also implied later in the Perek (Daf 26a), when the says 'If he wrote on paper or on earthenware "My field is sold or given to you", it is sold or given'.

Introduction to Question: The Gemara says in the second Perek of Kesuvos Daf 21a) that a man who wants to show his signature to Beis-Din, should sign on a piece of earthenware ... ' ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): Specifically on earthenware, but not on parchment, in case some shady character finds it and writes on it whatever he wants; and we learned in the Mishnah 'If one produces someone's signature ... ' ...

Question: Implying that if he wrote it on earthenware, there would be nothing to worry about, because even if he were to write on it, it wouldn't help him?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam establishes the Sugya later and the current Sugya like Rebbi Elazar, who holds (in Gitin, Daf 86a) 'It is the witnesses who see the handing over, who count', whereas the Sugya in Kesuvos goes according to Rebbi Meir, who holds that 'It is the witnesses who sign on the document who count'.

Answer (cont.): The current Sugya cannot go like Rebbi Meir, because since he requires witnesses to sign a Sh'tar Kidushin, as is evident later, in the second Perek (Daf 48a) ...

Answer (cont.): And witnesses who sign on earthenware are not counted, so that what is written on earthenware has no Halachic significance ...

Reason: Since it is a material that is subject to forgery ...

Answer (cont.): And we learned in the second Perek of Gitin (Daf 21b) that 'One may not write on paper where the script has been rubbed out or on Dift'ra unfinished parchment), whereas the Chachamim permit it' ...

Answer (cont.): And the Gemara establishes the Chachamim as Rebbi Elazar (See Masores ha'Shas) ...

Answer (concl.): So we see that writing on something that is subject to forgery, is not effective.

Implied Question: And even though the Gemara says at the end of the second Perek of Gitin (Daf 22b & 23a) that Rebbi Elazar only validates Gitin, but not other Sh'taros ...

Answer: That speaks specifically by Sh'taros that serve as a proof, and which therefore need to last a long time, but the current one, which is meant to betroth a woman or to acquire a field is like Gitin, which are written to divorce a woman there and then.

Implied Question: And even though a Sh'tar that acquires also serves as a proof ...

Answer: So does a Get ...

Source: As the Gemara explains in Perek ha'Koseiv (Kesuvos, Daf 89b) and in the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a (Daf 19a) - 'And if you will suggest to tear it', she will say "I need it to get married!" ' ...

Answer (cont.): We must therefore say that even though it is needed as a proof, that is not its main purpose.

Clarification: Here it is understandable, since there is a bit of a Chidush in that, were it not for the Sh'tar she would have had to be betrothed with a Shaveh P'rutah ...

Question: But late (on Daf 26a) the question arises why, in connection with 'My field is sold to you', the Gemara sees fit to mention 'even though it is not worth a P'rutah' ...

Question (cont.): Seeing as there, it is the seller who gives the Sh'tar, in which case it makes the slightest difference whether it is worth a P'rutah or not?

Answer: Because the Torah writes 'Nesinah' - "After I gave the document of sale" (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim) ...

Answer (cont.): We would therefore have thought that it requires a Shaveh P'rutah, since the seller is being Makneh the field to the purchaser

Conclusion: So it teaches us that it does not.

Implied Question: It could not have asked from Get ...

Answer: Since in one way it is indeed similar to Get, inasmuch as - just as Get, the husband writes it (in Beis-Din - See Rashash) ... .

Question: Since they are 'Hilch'sa', why do we need the Pasuk "ve'Yatz'ah ve'Haysah" (See Masores ha'Shas) to teach us that a woman is acquired with a Sh'tar?

Answer: It is only a Sh'tar Mecher that is 'Hilch'sa', and SH'tar Kidushin we learn from "Ki Yikach", that the husband writes it (as it is similar to Mecheiur - See Hagahos R. Simchah mi'Desvi).

Question: And although it says 'They are Hilch'sa' in the plural ...

Answer: It does not refer to both of them.

Precedent: And we find a similar thing at the beginning of 'B'nos Kutim' (Nidah, Daf 32b), where it says 'Which one is the Pasuk and which one is Hilch'sa?

Question: However later on (on Daf 26a) the Gemara asks from where we know that a field can be acquired with a Sh'tar, and it quotes the Pasuk "va'Ekach es Seifer ha'Miknah"?

Answer #2: It may be that since that Pasuk is only from Nevi'im, it doesn't matter.

Answer #2: Alternatively, one can interpret 'Hilch'sa' to mean Medinah (See Hagahos ha'Bach & Tal Torah) - meaning that it was merely a Minhag.

Introduction to Question: The Mishnah in Perek Sh'nei Daynei Gezeiros (Kesuvos, Daf 109a) states that 'If a man fixes money for his son-in-law and goes bankrupt, his daughter will have to wait until her hair turns white' (if necessary).

Question: Why should she have to wait? Why can he not marry her and call his father-in-law to a Din Torah, seeing as 'These are the things that are acquired with mere words'?

Answer #1: The Chasan does not want to trouble himself to go to Beis-Din and to initiate a Din Torah.

Answer #2: The Rashbam however, answers that they are only acquired with words there where following the Tana'im they concluded the deal and became betrothed.

Proof: And he learns this from the word (mentioned in the Gemara) 'They arose' (Amdu)

Answer #2 (cont.): Whereas the case cited in 'Sh'nei Daynei Gezeiros' speaks where they did not finaliz the Kidushin ...

Answer #2 (cont.): In spite of which, since they reached an agreement, 'She is forced to wait until her hair turns white'.

Refutation: There is no proof from the word 'Amdu', as it is the way of the Gemara to mention it ...

Example: As we find in Perek Beis Shamai (Yevamos, Daf 108a) 'A Ketanah who did not perform Miy'un, and who stood up (ve'Amdah) and got married'.

Answer #3: And Rabeinu Tam explains that 'Niknim ba'Amirah' applies specifically to the first Kidushin, where the father marrying of his daughter feels extremely close to his son-in-law ...

Answer #3 (cont.): Whereas there (in Sh'nei Daynei Gezeiros) it is speaking by the second Kidushin.

Answer #3 (concl.): Rabeinu Tam also said that 'Niknin ba'Amirah' is confined to where it is her father who arranges the transaction, and not her brother or her mother.