Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Mishnah states 'ha'Omer, T'nu Get le'Ishti Sh'tar Shichrur le'Avdi', Lo Yitnu le'Achar Misah'. The Tana states 'T'nu Get le'Ishti', and not 'Tein ... ' - because if the Get was already in the hands of the Sheli'ach (as 'Tein' implies), then according to the Chachamim of Rebbi Meir, the slave would already be free.
(b) If he were to say 'T'nu Manah li'P'loni' - one would be obligated to hand over the money even after the donor's death.

(c) Rav Yitzchak bar Marsa quoting Rav qualifying the Seifa of the Mishnah ('T'nu Manah ... ') - restricts it to when the donor points to a pile of money lying in a corner and says 'T'nu Manah *Zu* li'Peloni'.

(d) The problem do we have with that, assuming that the donor is ...

1. ... healthy, is - seeing as no Kinyan was performed, how will saying that help?
2. ... a Sh'chiv-Mera is - based on the principle that the words of a Shechiv-Mera are valid as if the money has already been written and handed over to the recipient.

(a) Rav Z'videstablishes it by a healthy man, whose command must be fulfilled even though no Kinyan was made - in the case of a deposit where the owner, the depositee and the recipient are present (for so Rav Huna Amar Rav said 'Manah Li be'Yadcha, Teneihu Lo li'Peloni, be'Ma'amad Sh'loshtan, Kanah').

(b) The money needs to be piled up in a corner - because Rav Z'vid is of the opinion that Rav speaks exclusively about a deposit (which is still in his possession, but not to a loan, that has been spent).

(c) Rav Papa establishes the case by a Sh'chiv-Mera. Nevertheless, the money needs to be piled up, due to another statement of Rav, who makes a distinction between Manah S'tam and Manah Zu, inasmuch as if someone says 'T'nu Manah li'Peloni mi'Nechasai - Manah Zu, Nosnin; Manah S'tam, Ein Nosnin'.

(d) We do not obey his instructions in a case of Manah S'tam - because of the fear that the Shechiv-Mera is referring specifically to an unknown buried Manah.

3)

(a) We just learned how Rav Z'vid established the Seifa of our Mishnah ('T'nu Manah le'Ish P'loni ... ') with regard to a healthy man, in accordance with Rav Huna Amar Rav (regarding the Din of Ma'amad Shelashtan); whereas Rav Papa established it by a Shechiv-Mera (because of the suspected hidden Manah). The reason that ...

1. ... Rav Papa declines to learn like Rav Z'vid is - because he maintains that Rav said the Din of Ma'amad Sheloshtan even by a loan (where the money has been spent), too.
2. ... Rav Z'vid declines to learn like Rav Papa - because in his opinion, our Mishnah is not speaking about a Shechiv-Mera (for reasons that will now become clear).

(b) The Tana of our Mishnah said 'ha'Omer *T'nu* Get le'Ishti ... *u'Meis*, Lo Yitnu le'Achar Misah'. We can infer from the two words 'u'Meis' and 'T'nu' - that the donor was still alive, and that had he not said 'T'nu', we would not hand the Get to his wife.

(c) Rav Z'vid proves from here that our Mishnah cannot be referring to a Shechiv-Mera - because if it were, we would hand the Get to his wife even if he did not say 'T'nu', like the opinion of Rebbi Shimon Shezuri (as we shall now see).

(a) Initially, says the Mishnah in T'vul Yom, Chazal decreed that if a Yotze be'Kolar announced 'Write a Get for my wife'!, whoever heard him would write the Get and hand it to her. A 'Yotze be'Kolar' - is someone who has been sentenced to death and who is actually being taken to his execution (a 'Kolar' is the iron 'collar' and chain with which they would lead him to the place of execution.

(b) A person would make such an announcement - to prevent his wife from having to perform Yibum with his brother.

(c) Despite the fact that he did not actually leave instructions to that effect, we hand his wife the Get - because it is obvious that that is what he wanted us to do, only in his confusion, he forgot to say it in so many words.

(a) Still in the above Mishnah in T'vul Yom, the Chachamim added someone who is about to travel overseas or to traverse a desert, to the Din of 'ha'Yotze be'Kolar' - and Rebbi Shimon Shezuri added a Shechiv-Mera.

(b) As we have already seen, Rav Z'vidproves from this Mishnah that one gives a Get to the wife of a Shechiv Mera, even if he did not actually say 'T'nu', explaining our Mishnah accordingly. Rav Ashi's objection to Rav Z'vid'sproof is - that the author of our Mishnah may well be the Chachamim, and not Rebbi Shimon Shezuri.

(a) We have already cited Rav Huna Amar Rav's Din of Ma'amad Sheloshtan. Rava agrees with Rav Z'vid, who confines it to a Pikadon, where the money or the object is still there, on which the Sugya comments - 'I swear that Rav said his Din even with regard to a loan (even though the money has been spent and is not available).

(b) And Shmuel quoting Levi learns that way too.

(c) The problem with this ruling is - how it is possible to acquire something which is not in existence.

(d) In an attempt to resolve this problem, Ameimar explains - that it is as if, at the time of borrowing, the borrower stipulated that he obligates himself to repay the loan to the creditor or to anyone who comes on account of him.

(a) Rav Ashi objects to Ameimar's reason however, on the grounds that if that was so - anyone who was not yet born at the time of the loan should not be subject to (being the recipient) the Din of Ma'amad Sheloshtan.

(b) Rav Ashi's objection applies even according to Rebbi Meir, who holds 'Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba Le'olam' - because even he agrees that one cannot be 'Makmneh *'to* a Davar she'Lo Ba Le'olam'*.