Explanation #1: It implies here that the opinion that holds 'Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba le'Olam' requires one to say 'me'Achshav' ...

Precedent: And this is also implied in the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a (Daf 16b), where Rava discussses the case 'When I buy this field, it will belong to you from now'.

Introduction to Question: Rebbi Meir will shortly say that 'le'char she'Esgayer , le'Achar she'isgayri, Mekudeshes', making no mention of 'me'Achshav'? ...

Question (cont.): Why need one mention it by a field and an Eved more than by a Ger?

Refuted Answer: And if you will answer that when Rebbi Meir says 'Mekudeshes', he is speaking where he said 'me'Achshav', even though the Berasisa does not menton it ...

Precedent: Like we find in Perek ha'Ishah she'Naflu (Kesuvos, Daf 82a) in the case of 'Make Meshichah on this cow, but it will not become yours until thirty days' time' ...

Precedent (cont.): Which the Gemara establishes by 'me'Achshav', despite the fact that the initial statement omitted it.

Refutation: It is not correct to say this however, since logically speaking, it ought to be effective according to the opinion that holds 'Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba le'Olam' like something that is in the world

Reason: Bearing in mind that we do not find a distinction between them, and that by a Davar she'Ba le'Olam, 'me'Achshav' is not necessary ...

Proof: Like we find in the Mishnah (above 58b) 'Harei At Mekudeshes li le'Achar Sheloshim Yom' where, if nobody else comes to betroth her, she is Mekudeshes - even though he did not say 'me'Achshav' - and the question remains intact.

Answer #1: The Ri therefore explains that the cases are not comparable - because the reason that Kidushin does not require 'me'Achshav' is since S'tam Kidushin is performed with money, and a Kinyam with money does not become Bateil ...

Proof: As the Gemara stated above (Daf 69a) - 'If nobody else came and betrothed her, she is Mekudeshes' - even though the money has been spent.

Answer #1 (cont.): Whereas in the current case, regarding the Shichrur of an Eved and the Kinyan of a field, most of which are performed with a Sh'tar ...

Answer #1 (cont.): And had he not said 'me'Achshav', we would have thought that, in the event that the Sh'tar is torn up within the specified time, the Eved will not go free, and the purchaser will not acquire the field ...

Answer (cont.): That is why, by both the field and the field, the Gemara inserts a Lashon that will be effective in all circumstances, even should the Sh'tar be torn up - namely where he said 'me'Achshav'.

Answer #2: Whereas the Ram explains that it mentions 'me'Achshav' by a field and an Eved, to teach us that he holds like Rebbi Meir that 'Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba le'Olam' ...

Answer #2 (cont.): And even if he wants it to take effect from now (retroactively), he will acquire it ...

Answer #2 (cont.): Because had he not mentioned 'me'Achshav', we would have thought that it goes even according to the Rabbanan, and that he needs to make another Kinyan and another Shichrur (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim) ...

Question: Seeing as the Kinyan is not effective, why does the Torah prohibit handing the Eved back to his master, since he did not set him free?

Answer: Nevertheless, when he redeemed or purchased him, we carry out his Sh'lichus, since he will be pleased to make a name of being honest ...

Precedent: As the Gemara says in the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a (Daf 15b) regarding 'Someone who steals a field and buys it from the original owner' ...

Answer (cont.): Where the Gemara concludes that 'he is pleased to make a name of being honest' ...

Answer #2 (concl.): Whereas by Kidushin, where that is not relevant, it is not necessary to say 'me'Achshav'.

Introduction to Question: There is a Kashya however, on the explanation of the Ri, that 'me'Achshav' is effective even if the Get got torn up ...

Introduction to Question: In that case, in the case where one makes Meshichah on a cow from now and after thirty days, why does Rebbi Yochanan see fit to establish it where it is standing in a meadow, a location in which one can acquire - and that it need not be in one's Chatzer ...

Question: Since he will acquire it even if it is standing in the R'shus ha'Rabim - seeing as he said 'me'Achshav'?

Answer: Rebbi Yochanan follows his reasoning earlier in the Perek (Daf 60a) where he said that 'From now and after thirty days is a Shiyur' ...

Clarification: Because what he means is that the Kidushin begins now and doesn't terminate until the thirty days are up; and the same will apply to the 'me'Achshav' of Meshichah.

Answer (cont.): Consequently, since he has not acquired it completely, when the Meshichah does terminate, the cow must be in a location which is eligible for Meshichah ...

Answer (cont.): And that explains why Rebbi Yochanan established it where it is standing in a meadow, where Meshichah can be performed, but not in the R'shus ha'Rabim.

Answer (concl.): And when the Gemara rules here that she is Mekudeshes even if the Sh'tar gets torn up, that goes according to Shmuel, who holds there that it ('me'Achshav') is a condition (that takes effect retroactively).

Question: The question remains however, according to Rebbi Yochanan, how can we ever acquire anything at a later date - such as Shiduchim and other conditions? ...

Question (cont.): Seeing as, in his opinion, even of one stipulates 'me'Achshav', it will not be effective in the event that he retracts, or if it is done via a Kinyan Sudar, which is not in the hands of the acquirer when the final moment arrives, since one returns the Sudar to its owner ...

Precedent: As the Gemara says in Nedarim (Daf 48b) in connection with 'The man who wanted to be Makneh his property to his son on condition that his grandson will become a Talmid-Chacham ...

Precedent (cont.): And the Gemara explains that he did not acquire it for the same reason - because 'When will he acquire it? When his son will become a Talmid-Chacham, at which point the Sudar will have already been returned to its owner'.

Answer: The Ram answered that perhaps 'Al-M'nas' is effective, even according to Rebbi Yochanan, and it will be, not a Shiyur, but a T'nai.

Conclusion: Consequently, it is advisable to say 'Al-M'nas me'Achshav'.

Clarification of Text: We do not have the text 'Eini Osah'.

Reason: Seeing as she is Meshubad to her husband, she cannot render it Asur to him with a Konam (See Meharam).

Question: He only has a mandate to annul Nedarim that affect their interpersonal relationship or cause her anguish?

Answer: This is indeed an issue that affects their interpersonal relationship ...

Answer (cont.): Because since it is impossible for him to benefit only from what she is Chayav to give him, and not from what is over and above that, he will have to desist from benefiting from what she produces altogether.

Conclusion: That is why he is able to annul it.

Clarification: It is comparable to someone who declares a date-palm Hekdesh for its fruit, which is effective even according to the opinion that 'Ein Adam Makdish Davar she'Lo Ba le'Olam'.

Alternative Answer: The Gemara could also have answered that 'Konamos are different, seeing as they constitute Kedushas ha'Guf' (i.e. they are intrinsically Kadosh) ...

Source: As the Gemara answered in Perek Af-al-Pi (Kesuvos, Daf 50a).

Authentic Explanation: This means, Rashi explains, that he is silent when he hears it.

Refuted Explanation: It cannot mean that he is silent forever ...

Refutation: Because that would equivalent to 'that he will not object' that the Gemara will mention shortly, in which case, how can the Tana say there that if her father consents, she is Mekudeshes, since he may object later and negate the Kudushin? ...

Conclusion: It must therefore mean that he is silent (only) at the time when he hears it.

Explanation of Mishnah: And this is the explanation of the Mishnah: 'If the father consents' - by being silent when he hears about it - 'she is Mekudeshes' ...

Explanation of Mishnah (cont.): 'In the event that he dies' - before having heard about it - 'she is Mekudeshes' ...

Refuted Explanation: It cannot mean that after he heard about it, he was silent and did not object ...

Refutation: Since that would not be a Chidush.

Question: Since he died before having heard about it, why is she Mekudeshes, when maybe, had he heard, he would have objected?

Answer: We asses him and presume that he would not have objected.

Question: In that case, why does the Gemara ask 'But he did not say "Yes"? - Why do we not say there as well, that, had he known, he would have given his consent? - as we are forced to say regarding his silence, as Tosfos just explained?

Answer: The Ram explains that one can draw a distinction between where his statement of approval is lacking and where it is only silence that is missing.

Refuted Explanation: We cannot explain that 'Melamdin ha'Av' refers to where he has not yet heard about it ...

Refutation: Since 'Melamdin' implies after he has heard.

Conclusion: Hence the Gemara asks 'But he was silent; And what will teaching him achieve after that?

Establishing Authorship: This is not like Rebbi Yochanan in Perek ha'Mafkid (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 41a) in connection with 'a barrel', Tosfos Yeshanim]

Implied Question: Although one of them is definitely lying ...

Answer: The one who is lying will be afraid to marry her , and give her a Get.

Question: But is it not written in that Parshah (Devarim 22) "es Biti Nasati la'Ish ha'Zeh u'Sekaluhah" - indicating that the Torah even believes him with regard to having her sentenced to death?

Answer: "u'Sekaluhah" is speaking where there are witnesses.

Conclusion: The Torah does believe him however regarding Isur, as the Torah writes "es Biti Nasati la'Ish" (further on, Daf 64a).

Question: How can the Gemara say that Rav Chisda follows his reasoning, when presumably Rav Asi does not dispute the Mishnah later, which rules that the Chachamim do not believe him (the father) regarding the Din of a captive ...

Question (cont.): And there is no reason to believe him regarding Makos and punishments any more than by a captive? Tosfos Yeshanim].

Clarification: Rashi explains that it speaks where he has grown two pubic hairs (Simanim), yet we need to know his age, because years without Simanim are not effective until the age of thirty-six, which is the majority of a person's regular life-span ...

Clarification (cont.): And likewise Simanim without years - i.e. before the age of thirteen - are considered merely a wart ...

Clarification (concl.): Nevertheless the Gemara says here that, concerning Makos (where there was no warning) and punishments (where there was), he is not believed.

Question #1: In that case, how can we allow women who come before Beis-Din to perform Chalitzah, to do so?

Question #1 (cont.): They may well have Simanim, but since we do not know their age, that is ineffective, since the Yavam may well be a Katan, and the Torah, in the Parshah of Chalitzah writes "Ish", to preclude a Katan ...

Question #2: Moreover, when men appear before Beis-Din accused of incest/adultery, how can they be sentenced to death?

Question #2 (cont.): They may well have Simanim, but we do not know their age, and perhaps they are Ketanim?