Question #2: Furthermore, the Tana Kama in Gitin (Daf 85a), describes a basic Ger as 'Harei At Muteres le'Chol Adam; According to Rebbi Yehudah a basic Get must also contain 'And this is what I am giving you', but the Rabbanan disagree - And Shmuel holds like the Rabbanan?

Answer: "Harei At Mekudeshes without 'Li' does not imply at all that he is betrothing her to him, since people tend to betroth a woman on behalf of one's friend, and it is not Mochi'ach at all ...

Answer (cont.): In such a case, Shmuel certainly holds 'Lo Havyan Yadayim' ...

Answer (concl.): Whereas the case in Nedarim is more Mochi'ach; as is the case there of 'ha'Koseiv Tofsei Gitin', since one does not divorce one's friend's wife.

Text #1: However, at the beginning of Maseches Nazir (Daf 2b) there are some texts which, regarding the Beraisa 'ha'Omer "Ehei", harei Zeh Nazir, cite Shmuel as saying 'Provided a Nazir was passing in front of him" ' ...

Text #1 (cont.): And on the question whether this means that Shmuel holds 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos, Lo Havyan Yadayim', the Gemara replies 'Indeed it does, which is why if a Nazir is passing in front of him, it is Yadayim Mochichos, and it is effective, whereas if he is not, it is Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos, and it is not.

Text #2: Whilst other texts read, in reply to the same question, answers that if a Nazir is passing in front of him it is at least Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos, whereas if he is not, it is not even Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos.

Explanation #1: Rashi translates it as a Lashon of 'Atzares' (gathered in) - i.e. 'that you shall be gathered into the house together with me'.

Explanation #2: But Tosfos' Rebbes connect it to the Pasuk (in Shmuel) "Ki Ishah Atzurah lanu".

Refutation: This does not seem right however, since the Pasuk means that 'they are closed from us ...

Proof: Seeing as Achimelech said to David "Provided the young men have kept themselves from thier women", to which David replied that "women hace been closed from us, and we are Tahor" (Till here are the words of the Talmid).

Reinstating Explanation #2: The Ri however, resolves the words of the Pasuk according to his Rebbe's interpretation like this - 'Because the women who were with us, that was yesterday and the day before, but now we are Tahor'.

Proof: And this makes good sense, since now all the L'shonos (cited in the Gemara) are based on Pesukim.

Clarification: And he (the Tana) holds that the Pasuk is talking about a half-Shifchah/half bas Chorin who is betrothed to an Eved Ivri ...

Clarification (cont.): According to the opinion in ha;Shole'ach (Gitin, Daf 43a) that 'Kidushin takes effect on her'.

Clarification: Exclusively in Yehudah, but not elswewhere ...

Reason: Since he (now) holds that the Pasuk is talking about a Shifchah Cana'anis, on whom Kidushin does not take effect.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that one should not be a judge in these matters, in case one comes to permit an Isur Ervah, a sin that one cannot rectify.

Explanation #2: According to R. Ezriel however, it refers to not speaking with women regards matters concerning Kidushin having in mind to betroth them, since it will sometimes happen that she is betrothed with his words or with what he gives her and he doesn't realize it.

Question: This makes sense regarding Kidushin, but with regard to Gerushin, what difference will it make if he thinks that she is not divorced?

Answer: Perhaps he needs to be wary if he is a Kohen.

Question #1: The Lashon 'with them' does not imply that however, seeing as a man can only give a Get to his own wife

Question #2: Moreover, later in the Perek (on Daf 13a), it implies that the concern is of Eishes Ish, since the Gemara says there that 'They are a worsescourge on the world than the generation of the Flood'?

Answer: One can explain in connection with where she stretched out her hand and accepted Kidushin from another man.

Clarification: This means 'Do we need to inform a person who has been placed in charge over Gitin and Kidushin, to prevent him from erring in the matter, seeing as it is common ...

Clarification (cont.): Or perhaps one needn't worry about it, since it is not so common.

Support: And this, it appears, is how Rashi explains it.

Implied Question: Even though with regard to 'Harei At bas Chorin, the Kal va'Chomer is not effective ...

Answer: That is due to the fact that the term 'Cheirus' is not applicable to a woman ...

Answer (cont.): And the Gemara only makes a Kal va'Chomer regarding expressions that apply to both cases (Ishah and Shifchah).

Clarification: This means - from the Nochri ...

Refuted Explanation: But not 'When you run away from me, from now I will relinquish all rights on you' (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim).

Refutation: Because if that were so, he would be free immediately, and he would be Chayav to observe the Mitzvos, which he would be unable to do in the house of the Nochri ...

Refutation (cont.): And that would mean that writing for him 'Ono' would be bad for him.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that she owe him money and he extended the time and said to her 'Be Mekudeshes to me with the benefit that you would have had to give someone a P'rutah to persuade me to do that'.

Explanation #1 (cont.): If he says that to her, she will be betrothed; that is 'Ha'aramas Ribis' and not proper Ribis ...

Reason: Since he did not fix her Ribis, nor did he take anything from her - and all the more would she be betrothed if he was simply Mochel her the entire debt and said to her 'Hiskadshi li be'Ha'ana'as Mechilah Zu'.

Explanation #1 (concl.): Whereas if he was Mekadesh her with the actual money, he would not be giving her anything, seeing as it is already hers and in her domain.

Introduction to Refutation: What Rashi says however, that it is not 'Ribis Ketzutzah' since he did not give her anything, is not correct ...

Refutation (cont.): Because, since he would have had to give her a P'rutah for Kidushin, and in fact, he gave her nothing, it is as if he actually gave her a P'rutah - and this is proper Ribis ...

Refutation (concl.): Now the case cited in Bava Metzi'a (Daf 62b) - 'I do not have a Manah, but I do have wheat to the value of a Manah ... ' can be termed 'Ha'aramas Ribis', since by means of a trick he avoids 'Agar Natar leih' (the rewards of waiting).

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that it speaks here where she owed a third person money, and the time had arrived to pay, and where the man now went and gave a P'rutah to the creditor to exctend the time of payment; and it is with that Hana'ah that he now betroths her.

Question: Why is it is Asur to do that on account of Ha'aramas Ribis? ...

Source: Bearing in mind the Gemara in 'Eizehu Neshech' (Ibid., Daf 60b) - 'A man is permitted to say to his friend "Take four Zuzim and lend P'loni a sum of money" ...

Reason: Since the Torah only forbids Ribis that is given by the borrower to the lender'?

Answer: That only applies if the borrower does not give anything in exchange to the benefactor, but if he does, he would look like his Shali'ach, and it would be Asur.

Precedent: And the same will apply in the Gemara there (Ibid.), when it permits a man to say to his friend 'Take four Zuzim and ask P'loni to lend me a sum of money' ...

Precedent (cont.): That is only if the recipient does not give anything to the creditor, but if he does, he looks like his SHali'ach, and it is Asur.

Question: Why does the Gemara establish the case where he extended the time, it could just as well have established it by 'Hana'as Milveh', where she is also Mekudeshes ...

Question (cont.): i.e. Where the Mekadesh gives the creditor a P'rutah to lend her money, and she is betrothed with that P'rutah?

Answer: 'be'Hana'as Milveh' implies a loan that is already in existence.

Question: Why is he not Yotzei, seeing as it is not a double T'nai (a T'nai Kaful)?

Answer: There are some conditions that do not need to be doubled, such as here, where his intention was merely that his ffriend should recite a B'rachah over his Esrog.

Proof #1: Even more than this they said (later on Daf 49b & 50a) in a case where 'A man sold his property unconditionally, with the intention of going to Eretz Yisrael, and when eventually he did not go, he wanted to retract ...

Proof #1 (cont.): And Rava ruled that it was Devarim she'ba'Lev, which are not valid ...

Proof #1 (concl.): Implying that this is only because he did not say anything, but that, if he had, the T'nai would be valid even though, he did not double it.

Proof #2: And in similar vein, the Gemara says in 'Mi she'Meis' (Bava Basra, Daf 147a) in a case where 'A Sh'chiv-M'ra declared 'I thought that my wife was pregnant, but now that she is not, my property should go to P'loni' ...

Proof #2 (cont.): The Gemara rules there that when they later discovered that in fact, she was pregnant, the Matanah was invalid ...

Reason: Because at the outset he did not intend to give the property to that P'loni in the event that his wife was pregnant'.

Proof #2 (concl.): In the current case too, a T'nai Kaful is not necessary, since that was his intention.

Question: Why would he not be Yotzei, even if he did not return it, seeing as it is a case where 'The T'nai and the Ma'aseh are on the same thing', in which case, the T'nai is invalid? ...

Source: As the Gemara says in Gitin (Daf 75a) 'Indeed, from where do we learn the Dinim of T'nai? From the T'nai of B'nei Gad and B'nei Reuven - where the T'nai was on one thing, and the Ma'aseh, on another?

Answer #1: That is not the Gemara's conclusion there, since there are other answers.

Answer #2: Alternatively, T'nai u'Ma'aseh be'Davar Echad' is only not valid where they contradict one another ...

Precedent: Like the case in Perek mi'she'Ochzo (Ibid. [regarding Get]) 'On condition (al M'nas) that you return me the paper' ...

Reason: Since the Gemara there thinks that 'When one says "al M'nas" is not considered as having said 'me'Achshav', in which case she is not divorced until she returns the paper, at which stage it is no longer hers ...

Answer #2 (concl.): Whereas here, the Gemara holds that 'al M'nas is considered like 'me'Achshav'.

Introduction to Implied Question: When, in Maseches Sukah (Daf 41b), the Gemara relates how, after being Yotzei with Raban Gamliel's Esrog, Rebbi Yehoshua handed it to Rebbi Akiva, who was Yotzei with it before returning it to Raban Gamliel ...

Introduction to Implied Question (cont.): And the Gemara extrapolates 'Matanah al M'nas Lehachzir is considered a Matanah' ...

Question: Despite the fact that Rebbi Yehoshua did not return it to Raban Gamliel ...

Answer: that was what Raban Gamliel had in mind, in that he was only concerned that it should be returned to him after they had all been Yotzei.

Question: In what way is this comparable to Chalipin?

Question (cont.): If it is because Chalipin is returned, the Gemara in Nedarim (Perek ha'Shutfin, Daf 48b) rules that 'If one retains it, he may keep it'.

Answer: The Ri explains that granted, it is not Chalipin, only the Rabbanan instituted that the Kidushin should not be valid ...

Reason: Since people tend to return Chalipin, thereby making the current Kinyan similar to Chalipin ...

Answer (cont.): And people will come to say that 'A woman can be acquired with Chalipin.

Answer (concl.): That explains why the Rabbanan negated the Kidushin from her.

Proof #1: If it (Matanah al M'nas Lehachzir) would really be like Chalipin, how could one acquire with the Manah regarding a sale, since a coin cannot become Chalipin (Bava Metzi'a, 45b)?

Proof #2: And similarly regarding Pidyon ha'Ben, how could one's son be redeemed, seeing as the Torah writes "Kesef Chamishah Shekalim" (Bamidbar, 18:16), 'but not Chalipin'?