Quotation for Temurah 22:20
איכא בינייהו טרפה חיה
R'Hisda holds according to the one who says that a trefah cannot live,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The difference of opinion is mentioned in Hul. 42b. Consequently since the animal cannot live, then he dedicated something the removal of which results in the death of the animal, and therefore he holds that R. Judah will agree in such a case.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
Tosafot on Kiddushin
"Let the kiddushin spread through all of her! Is it not taught etc." Problem: Terumah 11b derives [the law in the case of] "This [animal's] leg is an olah" and "with regard to a vital organ" from a verse, as it is written, "Anything that he gives from it to God", but regarding a wife there are no verses written [to derive this information]. If this is so, how [can Mar Zutra] challenge "Aren't they not similar!?" Solution: It is because of this that Rashi was particular and explained that this "mekudeshet" that [the man] said to [his prospective wife] is the terminology of "sanctified property (hekdesh)" [and did not mean "betrothed"], and this is like at the beginning of this chapter [of Kiddushin] that [kiddushin is like hekdesh through analogy] "he forbade her to everyone else like hekdesh", that a man can make her like hekdesh. Therefore, it is possible that the ruling of this case could be like hekdesh [since this is what the man in the case actually said]. However, if he had said "engaged" or any of the other earlier formulae [for betrothing a woman, see Kiddushin 6a], then it would not have been possible [for Mar Zutra] to raise the challenge "Let the kiddushin spread through all of her".
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Tosafot on Kiddushin
"Let the kiddushin spread through all of her! Is it not taught etc." Problem: Terumah 11b derives [the law in the case of] "This [animal's] leg is an olah" and "with regard to a vital organ" from a verse, as it is written, "Anything that he gives from it to God", but regarding a wife there are no verses written [to derive this information]. If this is so, how [can Mar Zutra] challenge "Aren't they not similar!?" Solution: It is because of this that Rashi was particular and explained that this "mekudeshet" that [the man] said to [his prospective wife] is the terminology of "sanctified property (hekdesh)" [and did not mean "betrothed"], and this is like at the beginning of this chapter [of Kiddushin] that [kiddushin is like hekdesh through analogy] "he forbade her to everyone else like hekdesh", that a man can make her like hekdesh. Therefore, it is possible that the ruling of this case could be like hekdesh [since this is what the man in the case actually said]. However, if he had said "engaged" or any of the other earlier formulae [for betrothing a woman, see Kiddushin 6a], then it would not have been possible [for Mar Zutra] to raise the challenge "Let the kiddushin spread through all of her".
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy