## Tosafot on Kiddushin Daf 6a

###### Tosafot on Kiddushin 6a:3:1
[Tosafot on Kiddushin 6a:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Kiddushin/r/6a:3:1)

עצורתי מהו - פי' בקונטרס לשון עצרת שתהא נאספת עמי בבית ורבותי מפרשים לשון כי אשה עצורה לנו ולא נהירא דההוא עצורה ממנו קאמר דהא אחימלך אמר לו לדוד אם נשמרו הנערים אך מאשה ודוד אהדר ליה אשה עצורה לנו והננו טהורים עכ"ל ור"י מיישב לישנא דקרא כפירוש רבותיו דה"פ כי אשה שהיתה אצלנו מתמול שלשום היה זה אבל עכשיו אנחנו טהורים וניחא דכל אלו הלשונות השתא לישנא דקרא:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
"My 'atzurah'—what is the law?" Rashi's explanation: "The terminology of 'atzeret' is that 'You should be gathered with me in the house.' But my teachers explained it according to 'For we are atzurah from a woman' (1 Shmuel 21:6), but this is not clear. For he meant 'Separate from us' when he said that, for Ahimelekh said to David: Have the young men been guarding themselves from a woman? And David answered him: A woman is atzurah from us, and behold we are pure." [In other words: Rashi's problem is that "atzurah" in his teacher's verse means "separate" and therefore can't be used for a kiddushin formula, which is about bringing a woman closer to a man.] But Rabbenu Yitzhak responds to the biblical language according to [Rashi's teachers] and this is its explanation: There was a woman that was with us recently, but now we are pure. [In other words, the term atzurah, while it means "separate", implies that they previously were with a woman (also the verse says "recently" = מתמול שלשם), so it can be used for kiddushin.] And now it is fine because all the terms [in the sugya] are biblical language.


###### Tosafot on Kiddushin 6a:6:1
[Tosafot on Kiddushin 6a:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Kiddushin/r/6a:6:1)

משום שנא' והיא שפחה נחרפת לאיש - וסבר דקרא מיירי בחציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין המאורסת לע"ע וכמ"ד בהשולח (גיטין דף מג.) דקידושין תופסין בה:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
"Because it is said, 'For she is a female slave neherefet to a man'". [The Talmud here, in this first rereading of the baraita, must] think that the verse is dealing with [a female slave that is] half slave and half free who is betrothed to a Hebrew slave, and it is according to the one who says in [the chapter] Ha-Sholeiah (Gitin 43a) that kiddushin works for her. [In other words, the verse needs to be talking about a case where kiddushin is possible in order for it to be the source of a valid kiddushin formula.]


###### Tosafot on Kiddushin 6a:6:2
[Tosafot on Kiddushin 6a:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Kiddushin/r/6a:6:2)

שכן ביהודה קורין לארוסה חרופה - ודוקא ביהודה אבל בעלמא לא דקסבר דבשפחה כנענית הכתוב מדבר שאין קידושין תופסין בה:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
"For in Yehudah they call a betrothed woman 'harufah'". And [in this second reinterpretation of the baraita] it applies only in Yehudah but not in other places, for the [Talmud must think here] that the verse is speaking about a Canaanite slavegirl [and not one that is half free] for whom kiddushin does not work [because, if the verse was about actual kiddushin, then there is no reason it wouldn't apply everywhere since biblical language is not dialect-dependent].


###### Tosafot on Kiddushin 6a:14:1
[Tosafot on Kiddushin 6a:14:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Kiddushin/r/6a:14:1)

לא יהא לו עסק עמהן - פי' בקונטרס לא יהא דיין בדבר שמא יתיר איסור ערוה וזהו עיוות שאינו יכול לתקן והר"ר עזריאל פי' שלא ידבר עם הנשים על עסקי קידושין לקדשם שפעמים שתהא מקודשת באמירתם או בנתינתם ולא יבין וקשה תינח בקידושין בגירושין מה בכך אם יסבור שאינה [מגורשת] ושמא איכא למיחש לכהן מיהו לישנא דעמהן לא משמע הכי דאין אדם יכול ליתן גט אלא לאשתו ועוד דלקמן בפרקין (קידושין דף יג.) משמע שיש חשש איסור אשת איש דאמר וקשין לעולם מדור המבול ומיהו יש לומר דאיכא למיחש אם פשטה ידה וקבלה קידושין מאחר:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
"He should not have dealings with them." Rashi's explanation: He shouldn't be a judge in this matter, lest he permit a forbidden sexual sin, and this is a bent thing that cannot be repaired (see Kohelet 1:15)." But Rabbenu Azriel's explanation: That he [the prospective husband] shouldn't talk with women about subjects of kiddushin to betroth them, for sometimes she will be betrothed through their speech or their giving and will not understand. Problem [on Rabbenu Azriel]: This is fine for kiddushin, but for divorce [which the Talmud also included in this], why do we care if she thinks that she isn't divorced!? [Her consent is not required for divorce, only for betrothal!]. Solution: There is a problem [if she wants to get married] to a kohen [who can't marry a divorcée]. New problem: The language of "with them (pl.)" doesn't worth for this, for a man can only give a get to his wife [so it should be singular]! Another problem: It says later in our chapter (Kiddushin 13a) that the concern [of having people who don't pay attention to this Rav Yehudah-Shmuel traditional] is [having sex with] a married woman [and not a kohen marrying a divorcée] when it says "[Those people] are worse for the world than the generation of the Flood [and see the prooftext there that mentions adultery specifically]"! Solution: It is possible that we are concerned if she stretched out her hand and received a betrothal from another [and this could lead to adultery and the multiple men she is betrothed to could account for the plural language].


###### Tosafot on Kiddushin 6a:14:2
[Tosafot on Kiddushin 6a:14:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Kiddushin/r/6a:14:2)

אפי' לא שמיע ליה - פירוש אדם שנתמנה אגיטין וקידושין צריכין אנו להודיעו הא דרב יהודה אמר שמואל שלא יכשל בה דשכיחא או דילמא ליכא למיחש להכי דלא שכיחא כולי האי וכן משמע מתוך פירוש הקונטרס:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
"Even if he did not learn it." Explanation [of Rav Yemar's question]: A man that is appointed over gittin and kiddushin, do we need to inform him of this Rav Yehudah-Shmuel tradition (sic!, the Talmud says Rav Huna-Shmuel) such that he shouldn't fail in this common matter, or perhaps we are not worried about this since it is not so common? This is implied in Rashi's explanation.