Question: What is Rava's source for this?

Answer #1 (Mishnah): "He will offer it" teaches that Beis Din forces one to bring an Olah.

Suggestion: Perhaps we force him against his will.

Rejection: It says "willingly"!

Resolution: We force him until he says that he wants to bring it.

Question: Why is this valid? In his heart he does not want!

Answer: This shows that thoughts in the heart are ignored.

Rejection: Perhaps that case is different. Surely, he wants to bring the Korban to get atonement!

Answer #2 (Mishnah): The same applies to Gitin of divorce and freedom. We force the husband or master until he says 'I want to give it'.

Question: He was forced. He does not really want!

Answer: This shows that thoughts in the heart are ignored.

Rejection: Perhaps there is different, for it is a Mitzvah to obey Chachamim.

Answer #3 (Rav Yosef - Mishnah): If one was Mekadesh a woman, and later said 'I thought that she was a Bas Kohen', and she is really a Bas Levi (or vice-versa), or 'I thought that she was poor', and she is rich (or vice-versa), she is Mekudeshes, because she did not trick him.

Question: He erred! He did not want to be Mekadesh such a woman!

Answer: This shows that thoughts in the heart have no bearing in law.

Rejection (Abaye): Perhaps the Mishnah teaches only that we are stringent to consider her (Safek) Mekudeshes.

Answer #4 (Abaye - Mishnah): In all these cases, even if she says 'I intended to be Mekudeshes to him even if it was false', she is not Mekudeshes;

Question: She says that she wanted to be Mekudeshes!

Answer: This shows that thoughts in the heart have no bearing in law.

Rejection: There, he stipulated. Perhaps thoughts in the heart cannot uproot a stipulation, but normally, they have bearing.

Answer #5 (R. Chiya bar Avin): A case occurred, and Rav Huna resolved the question from the following Mishnah:

(Mishnah): If Reuven told Shimon 'bring to me from the window or from the bag' (and Shimon brought him Hekdesh), even if Reuven says that he intended for a different window or bag, Reuven transgressed Me'ilah.

Question: Reuven says that he didn't want from that window or bag!

Answer: This shows that thoughts in the heart have no bearing in law.

Question: Perhaps we suspect that Reuven lies (to avoid bringing a Korban), but if he really did not intend, he is exempt!

Answer #1: If so, he should have said that he was Mezid (he intended to use the Hekdesh. This would certainly exempt him!)

Objection: One does not want to say that he intentionally sinned!

Answer #2: Rather, if he was trying to avoid the Korban, he should have said that he remembered that it was Hekdesh (after he appointed Shimon to bring it).

(Beraisa): If the Meshale'ach remembered, but the Shali'ach did not, the Shali'ach transgressed Me'ilah.

A man sold his property with intention to ascend to Eretz Yisrael. He went, but was unable to settle there.

Version #1 (Rava): Anyone who goes intends to settle. Since he was not able, the sale is void.

Version #2: He stipulated that he was going to Eretz Yisrael. He fulfilled this! (The sale stands.) (end of Version #2)

A man sold his property with intention to ascend to Eretz Yisrael. He never went.

Version #1 (Rav Ashi): He could have gone if he wanted. (The sale stands.)

Version #2: Nothing stopped him from going! (The sale stands.)

Question: What is the difference between the two versions?

Answer: There were problems (surmountable, with difficulty) on the way. (According to Version #1, the sale stands. According to Version #2, it is void.)

(Mishnah): If one told Levi 'go be Mekadesh Leah to me, in Ploni (a place)', and Levi was Mekadesh her somewhere else, she is not Mekudeshes;

If he said 'go be Mekadesh Leah to me. She is in Ploni', and Levi was Mekadesh her somewhere else, she is Mekudeshes.

(Gemara - Mishnah): If one said 'give this Get to my wife, in Ploni', and he gave it to her elsewhere, the Get is invalid;

If he said 'give this Get to my wife. She is in Ploni', and he gave it elsewhere, the Get is valid.

It is necessary to teach both Mishnayos.

If only Kidushin was taught, one might have thought that since he draws close to her, he is insistent to be Mekadesh her in a place where he is popular and people will speak nicely about him, but regarding divorce, he separates from her, and does not care what people will say about him.

If only divorce was taught, one might have thought that since this is shameful, he is insistent where the divorce take place, but he would not care where Kidushin was done.

Both Mishnayos were taught, to teach that he is insistent in both cases.

(Mishnah): If one was Mekadesh a woman on condition that she is not bound by any vows, and he found that she has vows, she is not Mekudeshes;

If he made Nisu'in with her Stam (without stipulating again), and found that she has vows, she does not receive a Kesuvah;

If one was Mekadesh 'on condition that she has no blemishes', and she was found to have blemishes, she is not Mekudeshes;

If he made Nisu'in with her Stam, and found blemishes on her, she does not receive a Kesuvah;

Any blemish that disqualifies a Kohen, it disqualifies (Kidushin with) a woman. (It is a Safek if this is only if he stipulated about blemishes, or even if he did not stipulate.)

(Gemara): This Mishnah is also taught in Maseches Kesuvos!

Here, the Tana teaches about Kidushin. By the way, he teaches about the Kesuvah;

There, the Tana teaches about Kesuvos. By the way, he teaches about Kidushin.

(Mishnah): If one was Mekadesh two women with one Perutah, or one woman with a half-Perutah, even if he later sent Savlonos (gifts sent to one's Arusah), she is not Mekudeshes, because he thought that she was already Mekudeshes (and did not intend to be Mekadesh her with the Savlonos);

The same applies to a minor who was Mekadesh a woman (and sent Savlonos after he grew up).

(Gemara): It is necessary to teach all three cases.

Had it taught only the first case, we would think that people err and think the Kidushin was valid, since he gave a Perutah, which is considered money;

But we would think that all know that less than a Perutah cannot be Mekadesh, and in the second case, he sent Savlonos to be Mekadesh her.

Had it taught only these two cases, we would think, people are not so exacting about the difference between a Perutah and less than a Perutah (so they err);

But we would think that all know that a minor cannot be Mekadesh, and in the third case, he sent for Kidushin.

The Mishnah teaches that this is not so (in every case, he errs, and thinks that she is already his wife).

(Rav Huna and Rabah): We are concerned for Savlonos.

Version #1 - Question (Rabah, against himself - Mishnah): Even if he later sent Savlonos, she is not Mekudeshes.

Answer (Abaye): The Mishnah gives the reason. He thought that she was already Mekudeshes!

Version #2 (Rabah): We learn our law from the Mishnah.

(Mishnah): (She is not Mekudeshes) because he thought that she was already Mekudeshes!

If not for the mistake, she would be Mekudeshes!

Objection (Abaye): This is no support. The Mishnah teaches a bigger Chidush.

In a normal case, when a man never expressed intent to be Mekadesh, surely we are not concerned for Savlonos;

In our Mishnah, he intended to be Mekadesh. One might have thought that we are concerned for Savlonos. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so. (end of Version #2)

Question: What was the final decision?

Answer (Rav Papa): In an area where people are Mekadesh and later send Savlonos, we are concerned (lest he already was Mekadesh her).

In an area where people are Mekadesh after sending Savlonos, we are not concerned.

Version #1 (Rashi) Question: This (latter law) is obvious!

Answer: There is a minority who are Mekadesh and later send Savlonos. One might have thought that we are concerned for the minority. Rav Papa teaches that this is not so.

Version #2 (R. Chananel, in Tosfos) Question: The first law is obvious!

Answer: The majority send Savlonos before Kidushin. Only a minority are Mekadesh first. One might have thought that we are not concerned for the minority. Rav Papa teaches that this is not so. (end of Version #2)

Question (Rav Acha bar Rav Huna): If people saw that a Kesuvah was written, are we concerned that she is Mekudeshes?

Answer (Rava): (No!) Will we forbid a woman just because a Kesuvah was written?!

Question: What was the final ruling?

Answer (Rav Ashi): In an area where people write the Kesuvah after Kidushin, we are concerned. In an area where people write it before Kidushin, we are not concerned.

Question: The first law is obvious!

Answer: The case is, scribes are hard to find. One might have thought that since he found a scribe, he seized the opportunity (even before Kidushin). Rav Ashi teaches that we do not rely on this.

(Mishnah): If one was Mekadesh simultaneously a woman and her daughter, or two sisters, they are not Mekudashos.

A case occurred with five women, two of whom were sisters. A man collected a basket of figs from their field in Shemitah, and said 'you are all Mekudashos to me with these figs.' One of the women took them on behalf of all of them. Chachamim ruled that the sisters are not Mekudashos.

(Gemara) Question: What is the source for this?

Answer #1 (Rami bar Chama): "Do not take a woman in addition to her sister to be a rival" teaches that if the Kidushin would make them rivals to each other, neither is Mekudeshes.

Question (Rava): If so, how do you understand "the souls who do so will get Kares"? If neither is Mekudeshes, no one is Chayav Kares!

Answer #2 (Rava): Rather, the verse discusses when one received Kidushin after her sister. The reason for the Mishnah is like Rabah;

(Rabah): If either of two things cannot take effect after the other, and they were done simultaneously, neither takes effect.