Previous daf

1)

(a) What does Rebbi Nasan in a Beraisa say about someone who, after declaring a Konem on a basket of fruit and upon discovering that it contained white figs, claims that had he known that it did, he would never have declared a Neder on the basket?

(b) Does the Neder require Hatarah vis-a-vis the white figs?

(c) What did Rebbi Akiva then come and teach?

(d) How do we establish this Beraisa in order to accommodate Rava's opinion?

(a) In another Beraisa, the Tana states 'Nadar me'Chamishah B'nei Adam ke'Echad, Hutar le'Echad Meihem, Hutru Kulam'.
Who is the author, according to ...

1. ... Rabah?
2. ... Rava?

(b) How does the Tana speak? What is the case?

(c) The Tana continues 'Chutz me'Echad Meihen, Hu Mutar, ve'Hein Asurin'. Who is the author, according to ...

1. ... Rabah?
2. ... Rava?

(d) How does the Tana speak?

(a) Like which Tana do we finally rule with regard to 'Neder she'Hutar Miktzaso ... '?

(b) It is unclear however, whether we rule like Rabah or like Rava in their above-mentioned dispute. We might rule like Rabah because he was Rava's Rebbe (and we do not, as a rule, follow the opinion of a Talmid against his Rebbe).
Why, on the other hand, might we rule like Rava?

(c) So how do we in fact conclude?

(a) What does the Ramban say about someone who knew that his father was among the eaters, declared the Neder and then went to a Chacham to have the Neder nullified regarding his father? Will 'Neder she'Hutar Miktzaso, Hutar Kulo' apply there too?

(b) What is the reason of those who say that it does?

(a) Regarding 'Neder she'Hutar Miktzaso ... ', Tosfos does not differentiate between a Neder that has been revoked through a Pesach and one that was revoked through Charatah.
What does the Ramban say?

(b) What is the difference (regarding 'Neder she'Hutar Miktzaso ... ') whether the Noder says 'la'Zeh, ve'la'Zeh' or 'la'Zeh, la'Zeh'?

(c) Does the principle of 'Neder she'Hutar Miktzaso ... ' extend to ...

1. ... a Cherem or a Niduy?
2. ... the Hafaras Nedarim of a husband or a father?

(a) What example does the Mishnah give for Nidrei Onsin?

(b) Why does the Tana need to add the case of 'O she'Chalah B'no'?

(c) Why are 'Nidrei Onsin' void?

(a) A certain litigant placed his documents in Beis-Din, and declared them void should he not return within thirty days.
On what grounds was the case postponed for thirty days time? Why did they not judge him immediately?

(b) Why was it necessary for him to place his documents in Beis-Din in the interim?

(c) An O'nes occurred and the defendant was delayed beyond the thirty-day limit.
What did Rabah retort when Rav Huna declared his documents void?

(a) What is the source of 'O'nes Rachmana Patrei'?

(b) From where do we know that it is not confined to cases of life and death (similar to those in the Pasuk)?

(c) What does the Tana rule in the Mishnah in Gitin with regard to a man who gives his wife a Get which should be valid on the condition that he fails to return within a year, and he is unable to return because he has died?

(d) According to Rabah, why does the Tana not apply the principle 'O'nes Rachmana Patrei'?

9)

(a) In the case where a certain husband gave his wife a Get which was to be valid on condition that he did not return within thirty days, what happened at the end of the thirty-day period?

(b) On the assumption that O'nes (negating conditions) applies to Gittin too, why did Shmuel rule in that case that the Get was valid?

(c) How could we have dispensed with the current Kashyos? What does the Gemara say in K'suvos about O'nes be'Gitin?

(a) What do we mean when we ask on Rav Huna (who declared the documents that the litigant handed over to Beis-Din void) 'Michdi Asmachta Hi'?

(b) How do we resolve this Kashya?

(a) The Mishnah in Bava Basra presents a case where someone repaid part of his loan and deposited his document with a third person with instructions to hand it to the debtor' should he not return within thirty days. In the end, he did not return, and Rebbi Yehudah ruled 'Lo Yiten'.
Why is that?

(b) What did Rebbi Yossi say? Like whom does Rabah bar Avuhah Amar Rav rule?

(c) We reconcile Rav Huna (who, in our Sugya, does not consider the case where the litigant handed his documents to Beis-Din, Asmachta) with this ruling - by pointing out that in our Sugya, he said 'Livatlan Hani Zachvasa'i'.
How does the Rambam explain this?

(d) Rashi disagrees. According to him, Asmachta applies even when the litigant is Mochel.
How does Rashi then explain the above answer?

(a) We conclude (with regard to Rav Huna's case) 've'Hilchesa Asmachta Kanya, ve'Hu de'Lo Anis, ve'Hu De'Kanu Minei be'Beis-Din Chashuv'.
What sort of A'nus are we referring to?

(b) How do we know that 'Beis-Din Chashuv' does not mean a Beis-Din Samuch (like the Rambam maintains)?

(c) How does Rabeinu Tam reconcile the need for a Beis-Din Chashuv as well as a Kinyan, with the fact that every Kinyan is considered as if he had said 'Me'achshav', and 'Me'achshav' removes the aspect of 'Asmachta'?

(d) Rav Hai Gaon disagrees with Rabeinu Tam. In his opinion, 'Me'achshav' helps to remove the aspect of 'Asmachta' in any event, even in our case, but not a Kinyan.
Why is a Beis-Din Chashuv necessary in our case, according to him? Why will the Kinyan alone not suffice?

(a) According to the above explanation (the Rif, explaining Rav Hai Gaon, elaborates), when someone has deposited his documents in a Beis-Din Chashuv, a Kinyan will help to remove the aspect of 'Asmachta' and so will the Lashon of 'Me'achshav'.
On what grounds do we disagree with the Rif and Rav Hai Gaon?

(b) We therefore conclude that a Kinyan would work in our case, in conjunction with 'Me'achshav'.
Why will it not suffice if he ...

1. ... said 'Livatlan Zachvasa'i' (Mechilah)?
2. ... also said 'Me'achshav' (removing the 'Asmachta')?

(c) Then what is the final Chidush?

Next daf