1)

(a)The Beraisa quoted by Tivyumi rules that if a man arranged that one of his friend's five daughters should be betrothed to one of his own five sons, without specifying which daughter to which son each woman subsequently requires a Get from each of the sons.

(b)In the event that one of the sons dies each woman will require four Gitin (from each of the four surviving brothers, in case he is the one who betrothed her) and Chalitzah (from one of them, in case the deceased brother was her betrothed).

(c)Rava cannot establish this Beraisa too, when they originally specified which daughter to which son, and forgot only afterwards seeing as the Tana specifically said 'One of your daughters to one of my sons'.

(d)This Beraisa proves that 'Kidushin she'Ein Mesurin l'Bi'ah, Havu Kidushin'.

2)

(a)The acronym 'Ya'al K'gam' signifies the first letters of the six places in Shas where we rule like Abaye against Rava).

(b)'Ya'al' stands for 'Yi'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as', 'Eid Zomem Lemafre'a Hu Nifsal' and 'Lechi ha'Omed me'Elav'. 'K'gam' stand for 'Kidushin she'Ein Mesurin l'Bi'ah', 'Giluy Da'atah b'Gitah' and 'Mumar Ochel Neveilos Lehach'is'.

3)

(a)Rav extrapolates from the words in our Mishnah 'she'Lahen Hayesah v'shel Shevi'is Hayesah' that 1. if someone betroths a woman using Shemitah-fruit, the Kidushin is effective, and 2. if he betroths her with a stolen object, even if he stole it from her, it is not (as implied by 'Shelahen Hayesah').

(b)We might otherwise have thought that ...

1. ... one cannot be Mekadesh with fruit of Shevi'is either because it is not considered his money, but remains Hefker; or because the Torah writes 'le'Ochlah', forbidding all other forms of use.

2. ... if a man betroths a woman with something that he stole from her she is Mekudeshes because her silent acceptance is tantamount to forgiving and forgoing.

(c)The third Chidush that Rav extrapolates from our Mishnah is that a woman can become a Shali'ach on behalf of her friend even when she is destined to become her Tzarah even though she is not believed to permit the Tzarah to remarry should she testify that her husband died (as we learned in Yevamos).

4)

(a)The fourth Chidush, about which Rav was uncertain is 'Kidushin she'Ein Mesurin l'Bi'ah Havu Kidushin' (see Rashash).

(b)What made him uncertain is the fact that he was not sure whether to establish the Mishnah by Bas Achas (where the man betrothed the five women simultaneously), in which case we would have a proof that 'Havu Kidushin', or whether he was Mekadesh only one of the five women, in which case we have a proof that 'Lo Havu Kidushin' (as we learned earlier).

5)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan ruled that 'Gazal v'Lo Nisya'ashu ha'Be'alim Sheneihem Einam Yecholim Lahakdish, Zeh Lefi she'Eino she'Lo, v'Zeh Lefi she'Eino bi'Reshuso'.

(b)When Rebbi Zeira told him that Rav had said 'Kidshah b'Gezel, Einah Mekudeshes', his expression of surprise was (not because he disagreed with him, but) of pleasure, that Rav agreed with him.

6)

(a)We establish the Beraisa which says 'Kidshah b'Gezel, b'Chamas, u'vi'Geneivah, Mekudeshes' by Gezel Didah (what he stole from her).

(b)The Seifa 'O she'Chataf Sela mi'Yadah' (from which we might have extrapolated that the Reisha speaks in a case of Gezel d'Alma [what he stole from others]) actually comes to qualify the Reisha, not to add another case (giving rise to the inference), like we at first thought.

(c)In view of the fact that Rav rules in our Mishnah 'Einah Mekudeshes', despite the fact that the Tana is speaking about something that he stole from her, we establish the Beraisa by Shadich (when they had already agreed to become betrothed), whereas Rav speaks when they did not.

7)

(a)According to Rebbi Shimon, a Gazlan (who steals an article in broad daylight) acquires it because seeing as the owner knows who stole it and is unable to regain possession of it (see Bava Kama 114a) , he is Meya'esh (despairs from getting it back).

(b)That man threw a Zuz that he grabbed from someone else to the woman who was washing her foot in a bowl of water.

(c)In the ...

1. ... current case, when the owner of the Zuz came to complain Rava ruled that nobody rules like Rebbi Shimon (in which case the Kidushin was invalid).

2. ... case of an Aris who betrothed a woman with a handful of onions Rava asked him whether the owner had been Mochel his share of the handful (because if he hadn't, the Kidushin was invalid).

(d)He qualified this ruling by differentiating between a handful of onions and a bunch. Regarding the later, where one tends to divide onions in bunches, the Aris can say to the owner 'I took a bunch, now you take one'.

8)

(a)

1. P'ruma (or P'ruzma) d'Shichra is dates that have been soaked in water to make beer, after the beer has been extracted and poured out.

2. A Sirsaya is a man who produces beer from the owner's dates for half the profits.

(b)When the owner of a barrel of beer discovered that the Sirsaya had betrothed a woman with P'ruma d'Shichra he asked why he didn't take from those superior-quality dates (which had been soaked in water less times).

(c)In the case of 'K'lach Etzel Yafos' ('Why do you take from the better crops,' [which we are about to discuss]) Rava ruled that the Terumah which Reuven separated from Shimon's crops without permission is sometimes valid (as we shall see).

(d)The same ruling does not apply here however because since he is under no obligation to give the Sarsaya anything, he is not Mochel him under any circumstances, and what he said, he said only to spare him the shame (out of courtesy), whereas by Terumah, since he is obligated to give Terumah one way or the other, he really meant what he said.

9)

(a)The Beraisa illustrates the case of 'Chosheshin Mishum Gezel' (with regarding to 'Torem she'Lo mi'Da'as Ba'al ha'Bayis') when the owner told the Torem to go to the better quality crops, which did not exist. What he must therefore have meant was that, had he found better-quality crops, he would have 'stolen' them too.

(b)In the event that he did however, find better-quality crops, then his Terumah would be valid, and it would be valid even if he did not if the owner actually began picking himself, and adding more to the pile.

10)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that if a Kohen betroths with his portion of Kodshei Kodashim or Kodshim Kalim, the Kidushin is invalid.

(b)Rebbi Meir holds ha'Mekadesh b'Ma'aser Sheni Lo Kidesh. Rebbi Yehudah holds b'Mezid Kidesh. Their bone of contention is whether Ma'aser Sheni is Mamon Gavo'ah (it belongs to Hash-m Rebbi Meir) or Mamon Hedyot (it belongs to the owner Rebbi Yehudah).

(c)With regard to Hekdesh, Rebbi Meir holds 'be'Mezid Kidesh, b'Shogeg Lo Kidesh' Rebbi Yehudah holds the reverse.

11)

(a)Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili learns that one brings a Korban Shevu'ah for swearing on Kodshim Kalim (even though one does not swear on Hekdesh, because it is not considered "ba'Amiso"), from the Pasuk "u'Ma'alah Ma'Al ba'Hashem" (because even though it falls under the category of "la'Hashem", it nevertheless belongs to the owner).

(b)We reconcile Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili with Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah, who invalidates the Kidushin in a case where a Kohen (or a Yisrael) betroths a woman even with Kodshim Kalim by establishing Rebbi Meir by Kodshim Kalim after they have been Shechted (when the Kohanim and the owner acquire their respective portions from the Table of Hash-m), whereas Rebbi ha'Glili is speaking when the animal is still alive.

(c)The portion of Kohanim of Kodshim Kalim constitutes the Chazeh v'Shok (the breast and the right calf, which he received from every Shelamim).

(d)We support this distinction from the wording of the Mishnah itself 'ha'Mekadesh b'Chelko' implying after the Shechitah, because otherwise, the Torah ought to have written simply 'ha'Mekadesh b'Kodshim Kalim'.

12)

(a)After Rebbi Meir's death, Rebbi Yehudah instruct his Talmidim not to allow Rebbi Meir's Talmidim into his Beis ha'Midrash because, he claimed, they came to antagonize him and not to search for the truth.

(b)Nevertheless Sumchus managed to gain entry.

(c)Rebbi Yehudah tried to prove his point when Sumchus quoted the statement of Rebbi Meir 'ha'Mekadesh b'Chelko ... Einah Mekudeshes' which in his opinion, was totally impractical, since on the one had, it is forbidden to take Kodshei Kodashim outside the Azarah, and on the other, a woman is not permitted to enter the Azarah.

(d)Neither could Rebbi Yehudah be speaking when the Kohen took his portion of Kodshei Kodashim into the Ezras Nashim and betrothed her there because it is forbidden to remove Kodshei Kodashims from the Ezras Yisrael (even to the Ezras Nashim).

13)

(a)Rebbi Yosi felt that, with Rebbi Meir no longer alive, and Rebbi Yehudah angry, he could not remain silent. He resolved Rebbi Yehudah's Kashya in two ways. Firstly, he argued, the girl's father could have been a Shali'ach to accept her Kidushin in the Azarah on her behalf and secondly, we would need to know what the Halachah would be in the event that the girl herself entered the Azarah without permission.

(b)Rebbi Yosi, like Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah, argues with Rebbi Yehudah and holds 'ha'Mekadesh b'Chelko, Einah Mekudeshes. Rebbi Yochanan ascribes both opinions to the same Pasuk in Korach "v'Zeh Yiheyeh Lecha mi'Kodesh ha'Kodashim min ha'Esh". Rebbi ...

1. ... Yehudah learns from "Lecha" ('le'Chol Tzorchecha') that 'ha'Mekadesh b'Chelko Mekudeshes'

2. ... Yosi learns from "min ha'Esh" ('Mah Esh la'Achilah, Af Hu Nami la'Achilah') ' ... Einah Mekudeshes'.