Inference: 'Ad she'Tikaneis le'Chupah', it implies that it goes according to the Mishnah Acharonah in Perek Af-al-Pi (Kesuvos, Daf 57a) - that she is not permitted to eat T'rumah when the time falls due until she actually goes under the Chupah'.

Introduction to Question: In Perek Af-al-Pi (Ibid.) Amora'im argue according to the Mishnah Rishonah - that 'She cannot eat until the time falls due', as to whether this is on account of Ula or because of 'Simpon' ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): Yet according to the Mishnah Achronah, they agree that the reason is because of Simpon, as the Gemara states there, when it says 'the latter is on account of Simpon' ...

Question: Whereas here the Gemara says that it is because of Ula - i.e. 'Perhaps they will pour her a cup of wine ... '?

Answer #1: 'Until she goes under the Chupah' is La'av Davka, but 'until the time falls due' like the Mishnah Rishonah.

Reason: 'Only because one generally arranges the Chupah when the time falls due, it mentions 'Chupah'.

Answer #2: ha'Rav Moshe from Narvuna however, explains 'ad she'Tikaneis le'Chupah literally, because the Geara holds that, had they not initially decreed on account of Ula, because of Simpon, they would not have decreed and forbidden until she goes under the Chupah ...

Reason: Since blemishes are not common, and most women are without blemish ...

Answer #2 (cont.): But now that they initiated the decree because of Ula - decreeing first until the time falls due on account of 'Perhaps they will pour her a cup ... ', they extended the decree up to the Chupah on account of Simpon, having already seen fit to decree up to the time that it falls due because of Ula.

Answer #2 (concl.): And that is why they attributed the reason to Ula - since that what the basic reason.

Answer #3: Moreover, some Sefarim have the text here 'until she enters the Chupah, on account of both Ula and Simpon - in which case the problem falls away.

Introduction to Question: The Gemara will shortly cite the difference between the opinions as 'Kibel, Masar ve'Halach': By 'Masar ve'Halach', Ula's reason does not apply, whereas Simpon does.

Question: Now according to R. Mosheh's explanation, what does the Gemara mean, seeing as he (See Hagahos ha'Bach) concurs with both reasons, both of Ula and of Simpon?

Answer: We are therefore forced to say that the question 'Mai Benaihu' does not go according to the current ruling, which does take Simpon into account ...

Answer (cont.): And it only comes to explain what will be according to the Mishnah Rishonah, whether the reason is on account of Ula or of Simpon,

Explanation #1: According to Rashi, this means a kidnapper.

Introduction to Question: In the first Perek of Bechoros (Daf 5a) the Gemara relates how Kuntrikus the scribe commented to Raban Yochanan ben Zakai in connection with the Shekalim and the half-Shekel per head ...

Introduction to Question (cont.): 'By the claiming of the money the money amounted to two hundred and one Kikar and eleven Manah, and after the money was given it totalled one hundred Kikar! ...

Introduction to Question (concl.): Yor Rebbe Moshe was either a thief or a Kubyustus, or perhaps he was not good at accounting!'

Question: What does a kidnapper have to do with the missing Shekalim?

Explanation #2: Therefore Rabeinu Chananel that 'Kubyustus' is a gambler.

Proof for Explanation #1: However the Medrash (in Bereishis Rabah, Parshas Vayishlach) which , commenting on the Pasuk "And he said 'Send me because dawn has broken!' explains that Ya'akov replied 'Are you a thief or a Kubyustus, that you are scared of the morning?', goes nicely with Rashi.

Conclusion: Though according to Rabeinu Chananel too, one can explain - that a gambler generally owes a lot of people money, so he hides from them.

Explanation #1: And he considered and accepted it - Rashi.

Question: Rabeunu Tam queries this however, based on the Gemara in Perek ha'Mocher Peiros (Bava Basra, Daf 92b), which specifically states that 'If he (the Eved that he purchased) turns out to be an armed robber or someone who has been sentenced to death by the ruling power, he can say to him 'Here is what belongs to you (Take him back)!'

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explain 'Kala Is l'hu' to mean that it is not common and that, since that is so, they did not take it into account.

Reinstating Explanation #1: Rabeinu Eliyahu however, establishes Rashi's explanation - inasmuch as where the seller has received the money, we say that since the purchaser did not inspect the Eved for these blemishes that have a Kol, before paying, he ust have thought about it and accepted it ...

Reinstating Explanation #1 (cont.): Whereas in the case where he can say to him 'Here is what belongs to you!', IT speaks before the purchaser paid the money.

Proof: And this is somewhat implied there - when it asks "Why can he not claim 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero, alav ha'Re'ayah' (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim), a clear indication that the purchaser is Muchzak (i.e. he has the money).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains - either Kibel, or Masar or Halach - meaning that either the father handed her over to the husband's Sheluchim or he went with them'.

Question: It implies here that where he handed her over to the husband's Sheluchim, we are concerned about Simpon, whereas in Perek Na'arah she'Nispatsah (Kesuvos, Daf 48b) Rav Asi says that 'Handing her over is total, even regarding Terumah' ...

Question (cont.): Implying that we are not concerned about Simpon?

Explanation #2: It therefore seems that 'Masar' and 'Halach' are one and the same, and what he is saying is - 'If the father handed her over to the Sheluchim and accompanied them' ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And we are concerned about Simpon because he does not then examine her until they reach his house, whereas the handing over mentioned there (in Kesuvos) is speaking where he did not accompany them, in which case he examines her immediately.

Clarification: The Gemara thinks that even there where she stretched out her hand and accepted the Kidushin, Rebbi Zeira holds that it is not valid ...

Clarification (cont.): Because she is generally fussy about a Dinar, seeing as the Pasuk writes "Kesef", and regarding the woman, only something that she is generally fussy about is considered Kesef ...

Clarification (cont.): And that is why the daughters of Rebbi Yanai, who were fussy about a Tark'va of Dinrim, should not be betrothed with a Dinar; and even if they were to stretch out their hands and accept less than that, it would not be considered Kesef as far as they were concerned ...

Gemara's Question: But this is not logical!

Rebbi Zeira's Answer: 'I was not referring to where she stretched out her hand and accepted it, because then she would be betrothed even with a P'rutah, since it is called 'Kesef'.

Gemara's Answer (cont.): I was referring to where she was betrothed at night-time or where she appointed a Shali'ach, and that is the Machlokes between Beis Shamei and Beis Hillel in our Mishnah'.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that if the daughters of Rebbi Yanai appointed a Shali'ach, they would not be betrothed for less than a Tark'va de'Dinri.

Question: In that case, it contravenes the principle of "Nasata Devarecha le'Shiurin" (different measures for different people is not acceptable), since one goes after each person according to what he thinks? ...

Precedent: As the Gemara asks in the first Perek of Gitin (Daf 14a) and in Perek Chezkas ha'Batim (Bava Basra, Daf 29a), in connection with 'bar Elyashiv'.

Explanation #2: What the Gemara is therefore asking is 'In that case, the daughters of Rebbi Yanai ... ' ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And if you will say that they are indeed not betrothed for less than a Tark'va of Dinrim, then "Nasata Devarecha le'Shi'urin", inasmuch as, because the daughters of R. Yanai are rich, they cannot be betrothed for less than a Tark'va of Dinrim, whereas other women are betrothed with a Dinar?'

Explanation #2 (cont.): And Rebbi Zeira replies that he was not referring to where she stretched out her hand, where she demonstrated that she is not fussy, in which case she is betrothed even with a Shaveh P'rutah, whereas he was speaking where she as betrothed at night-time or where she appointed a Shali'ach ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): In which case all women are equal, because for less than a Dinar she is not betrothed, and they (the daughters of R. Yanai) are no different than other women ...

Reason: Because they know that they will only give the Shali'ach as much as one gives to other women.

Clarification: Rashi explains that - If he mentioned Shekalim, then he means Shekel Tzuri, and if he said S'tam, then he must give the coin with the smallest Tzuri denomination ...

Clarification (cont.): Consequently, it cannot be a P'rutah, seeing as it is made of copper, and there are no copper coins in the range of Tzuri coins ...

Clarification (cont.): And by Kidushin, by virtue of 'Kichah' 'Kichah', it is written 'silver' ...

Clarification (concl.): So by taking it out of the realm of a P'rutah, it indicates that it must be something of value, so they fixed it at a Dinar.

Text: Later on the Amud, Rashi cites the text as 'Quotation: Rav Yehudah said quoting Rav Asi' ...

Reason: The reason for this is because, if it simply referred to above, the Gemara ought to have asked there and then 'Does this mean that Rav Asi holds like Beis Shamai?'

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that 'Since the Tana says 'two Kesef', we see that when the Torah writes "Kesef" it is La'av Davka, and that it is particular only about money ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): And since it declined to say how much, it left the matter to the Chachamim to decide, and that on less than that one does not swear ...

Proof: Because if the Pasuk of "Kesef" was Davka, granted a Ma'ah is the smallest Tzuri coin, but what is the source for 'two'?

Explanation #1 (cont.): And the Gemara answers - 'Just as "Keilim" implies two, so too is "Kesef" two, and just as "Kesef" is a Davar Chashuv, so too is "Keilim" a Davar Chashuv' ...

Explanation #1 (cont.): Meaning that they must be worth two Kesef, to preclude the opinion that obligates a Shevu'ah in a case where the one claims two needles and the other admits to one (Ta'ano Sh'tei Machtin... ) ...

Explanation #1 (concl.): And that the Torah therefore mentions "Keilim", to obligate a Shevu'ah even on a Kol-Shehu'.

Explanation #2: Rashi's Rebbes however, explain that a Dinar is the smallest Tzuri coin - and that the Gemara's Kashya is based on the fact that the Tana says 'Sh'tei (feminine) Kesef' with refers to Ma'os, and not 'Sh'nei (masculine), which would have implied two Dinrim.

Explanation #2 (cont.): And it answers 'Just as Keilim are a Davar Chashuv, so too is "Kesef" A Davar Chashuv - and a Ma'ah is a Davar Chashuv.

Question #1: Rashi queries that however, firstly, because if that were so, that every "Kesef" in the Torah is a Dinar, how can the current Hekesh and detract from that, since we need the Hekesh to teach us that Kesef, like Keilim must consist of two?

Question #2: Moreover, what does the Gemara mean when it says 'Just as Keilim are a Davar Chashuv', since when is a needle a Davar Chashuv? ...

Question #2 (cont.): And does the Gemara not say 'That is why the Pasuk mentions "Keilim", to obligate a Shevu'ah for whatever they are worth' - from which we see that needles are not considered Chashuv?

Question #3: And furthermore, the Gemara there, specifically states the opposite - 'Just as Kesef is a Davar Chashuv, so too must whatever it is also be a Davar Chashuv, and when it mentions "Kesef" comes to teach us this D'rashah? (Rashi).

Question #1 on Explanation #1: The Ri however, queries Rashi's explanation, inasmuch as since the smallest Tzuri coin is a Ma'ah, how is it possible to say 'Since it (the Torah) removed it from a P'rutah, establish it by a Dinar', it should rather have said ' ... by a Ma'ah', the smallest Tzuri coin? ...

Question #1 on Explanation #1 (cont.): Since, granted later (on Daf 12a) when it says 'Since it removed it from a P'rutah, establish it by a Dinar' - that speaks after having discovered that a P'rutah is considered Kesef regarding an Aah Ivriyah ...

Question #1 on Explanation #1 (cont.): Since it has removed it from a P'rutah, which is Kesef, it establishes it by a Dinasr, which is a Davar Chashuv ...

Question #1* on Explanation #1 (concl.): But at this point, where the Gemara says that there is no P'rutah in the Tzuri range of coins, and the smallest denomination is a Ma'ah, having removed it from a P'rutah, why establish it by a Dinar and not a Ma'ah?

Question #2 on Explanation #1: Furthermore, Rashi explains that it comes to preclude from the opinion that holds 'Ta'ano Sh'tei Machtin ve'Hodeh lo be'Achas meihen, Chayav' ...

Question #2 on Explanation #1 (cont.): Since in Perek Shevu'as ha'Dayanim (Daf 39b) it implies that the D'rashah 'Mah Kesef Davar Chashuv ... ' goes according to Shmuel? ...

Proof: Since, according to Rav, "Kesef" comes with regard to the denial.

Reinstating Explanation #2: The Ri therefore concurs with Rashi's Rebbes - that a Dinar is the smallest Tzuri coin ...

Question #1 (Repeat): And regarding Rashi's Kashya that 'If all Kesef written in the Torah would be a Dinar, how can the Hekesh detract from that, seeing as the Hekesh is needed to teach us that "Kesef, like Keilim, must consist of two? ...

Answer: This is not a Kashya at all - due to the principle 'A Hekesh does not come in halves', so that just as we learn from it two, we also learn from it Davar Chashuv.

Question #2 (Repeat): And as for his Kashya 'Since when is a needle a Davar Chashuv; and does the Gemara not say 'That is why the Pasuk mentions "Keilim", to teach us Mashehu'?

Answer: That too, is not a problem, since even a needle possesses a great Chashivus, inasmuch as it is fit to use it for an important Melachah.

Answer (cont.): And when the Gemara says 'It mentiones Keilim for whatever they are worth', La'av Davka 'whatever they are worth, but to preclude the notion that the K'li must be worth a Ma'ah; But it must be worth a P'rutah.

Answer (concl.): In any event, the fact that they are used for an important Melachah is considered a great Chashivus.

Question: And regarding the question that Gemara in Shevu'os, reads the opposite ...

Answer: That too is not a Kashya, because there it is going according to Shmuel, who does not need "Kesef" for anything else, and who Darshens there to teach that Keilim must be a Davar Chashuv ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas the Sugya here goes according to Rav, who establishes "Kesef" with regard to denial and according to whom we learn both D'rashos - 'two' and 'Davar Chashuv' from Keilim.

Question: However, the Kashya remains according to this explanation, that there was no such thing as a Ma'ah in Tzuri coins, from the Pasuk in Vayikra (27) "The Shekel was twenty Geirah", which Unklus translates as 'twenty Ma'in' ...

Question: From which we see that a Ma'ah did exist in connection with Kesef in the Torah in the days of Moshe?

Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that the Geirah was not a Ma'ah, but a weight that they had in the days of Moshe which they later transformed into a coin which they called 'a Ma'ah'.