Previous daf

1)

(a) We think that if the author of the Beraisa ('ha'Omer le'Ishah Harei At Mekudeshes Li le'Achar she'Esgayer ... ') is Rebbi Akiva, then in the last case there ('le'Achar she'Yachlotz Yevamech'), the Kidushin should be valid - because Rebbi Akiva holds 'Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba Le'olam', in which case it is not a case of Chayvei La'avin.

(b) The Tana Kama in the Mishnah in Nedarim states that if a woman says to her husband 'Konem she'Ani Osah le'Picha, Ein Tzarich Lehafer' - because she does not have the authority to deprive him of his rights, and her Neder is therefore not effective.

(c) Rebbi Akiva says that he should nullify the Neder, in case she produces in excess of her obligation, and on that excess, her Neder does take effect.

(d) We initially think that Rebbi Akiva must hold 'Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba le'Olam', but then quote Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua - who establishes Rebbi Akiva when she designates her hands for whatever she produces, and her hands are already in the world.

(a) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak disagrees with Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua; in his opinion - Rav Huna, Rav, Rebbi Yanai, Rebbi Chiya, Rebbi, Rebbi Meir, Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov and Rebbi Akiva all hold 'Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba Le'olam'.

(b) Rav Huna says that someone who sells the fruit of a date-palm in winter, before it has grown - can retract from the sale only until such time as the fruit has grown (up to a certain stage of growth - see later 5c.), but the moment it reaches that stage, he may no longer retract (because the initial transaction becomes valid retroactively.

(c) According to Rav Nachman, he can retract even in Nisan, after the fruit has grown. He concedes to Rav Huna however - that the seller cannot reclaim what the purchaser has already eaten.

(d) Rav Huna got this ruling from Rav, who rules that if someone sells a field before having purchased it himself - the transaction is valid.

(a) Rebbi Yanai learned this ruling from Rebbi Chiya, who gave his consent to what Rebbi Yanai once did. Rebbi Yanai once took Ma'aser from the fruit in his house, to exempt a basket of fruit that he knew his share-cropper would bring him, but who was late that Friday in bringing it.

(b) Rebbi Chiya learns from the Pasuk in "Lema'an Tilmad le'Yir'ah es Hashem" (written in connection with Terumos and Ma'asros) - that one is permitted to Ma'aser even something that he does yet have (and which is considered a 'Davar she'Lo Ba Le'olam' - see Tosfos DH 'Maysi') "Kol ha'Yamim" - is a hint to Shabbos and Yom-Tov.

(c) The Pasuk cannot be coming to permit the separation of Terumos and Ma'asros on Shabbos - because the prohibition of separating Terumos and Ma'asros on Shabbos and Yom-Tov is only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan (as the Mishnah in Beitzah teaches us), and we hardly require a Pasuk to permit Isurim de'Rabbanan (which, when connected with Shabbos and Yom-Tov, often fall under the general heading of 'Tiltul').

4)

(a) Rebbi Yanai believed that he had done the wrong thing - because during the night, he dreamt of the Pasuk "Kanah Ratzutz", which he thought referred to a Pasuk in Melachim 2, which has negative connotations.

(b) Rebbi Chiya however, connected it to a Pasuk in Yeshayah, which has positive connotations.

(a) Rebbi too, holds 'Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba Le'olam'. He explains the Pasuk "Lo Sasgir Eved el Adonav" - to mean that someone who purchases an Eved in order to set him free is obligated to do so (even though when he made the condition, he did not yet own him, and it is a Davar she'Lo Ba Le'olam, as Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak explains).

(b) And so do Rebbi Meir, Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov and Rebbi Akiva.

1. The Tana Kama, in the Beraisa that we quoted on the previous Daf, states 'ha'Omer le'Ishah Harei At Mekudeshes Li le'Achar she'Esgayer, le'Achar she'Tisgayri ... Einah Mekudeshes' - Rebbi Meir says 'Mekudeshes'.
2. Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov says in a Beraisa about someone who designates Terumah from detached fruit to cover fruit that is still attached or vice-versa - that his Terumah is valid as soon as it has grown a third and has been detached.

(c) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Asas es ha'Tevu'ah li'Sh'losh ha'Shanim" - that fruit that has grown one third is considered ready, regarding Terumos and Ma'asros (as if the Torah had written not, "li'Sh'losh ha'Shanim", but "li'Sh'lish ha'Shanim" - meaning a third of what it grows in other years).

(a) They asked Rav Sheishes whether one witness is believed to permit a woman to perform Yibum. It is obvious that, if the (main - see Tosfos DH 'Eid') reason of our Tana, who believes him with regard to allowing her to get married, is because a person does not lie in any matter which is destined to become exposed anyway, then the same will apply when it comes to allowing her to perform Yibum. Alternatively - we believe the woman solely on the basis of the fact that, knowing what lies in store for her, should her husband still be alive, she will make extensive enquiries before remarrying.

(b) This reason might not apply when it comes to allowing her to perform Yibum however - before we are afraid that, perhaps she loves the Yavam (and that love will override all other considerations).

(c) Rav Sheishes replied with our Mishnah 'Amru Lah Meis B'nech ve'Achar-Kach Meis Ba'alech ve'Nisyabmah, ve'Achar-Kach Amru Lah ... '. Assuming that the Mishnah is sspeaking about two witnesses who overrule the testimony of the one witness who came first - he infers that, had the second pair of witnesses not testified, the first witness would have been believed to permit the woman to perform Yibum (resolving the She'eilah that he was asked).

(d) The Tana cannot be talking about a case when *two* witnesses came first (and not one) - because then, why would we rely on the second pair of witnesses rather than the second pair; and besides, why would the Tana then call the children Mamzeirim, when in fact, they would only be Safek Mamzeirim.