Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa says 'Harei Zeh Gitech al-M'nas she'Tinas'i li'P'loni, Harei Zeh Lo Tinasei'. She is not permitted to marry P'loni - because Chazal decreed in case people will jump to the conclusion that her husband gave her as a gift to P'loni.

(b) According to Rav Nachman's initial explanation, when the Tana concludes 've'Im Niseis, Lo Teitzei', he means that if she married someone else, she may remain with him, to which we object - because this constitutes permitting a married woman to another man.

(c) Rav Nachman's second explanation of 've'Im Niseis, Lo Teitzei' is - that if she married P'loni, she may remain with him (since the prohibition is only based on a decree).

(d) Rava objects to Rav Nachman's explanation of the Reisha of the Beraisa (that 'Harei Zu Lo Tinasei' means that she may not marry specifically P'loni') - based on the implication that she is permitted to marry someone else, which is impossible as long as she has not fulfilled her condition (as we just explained).

(a) According to Rav Yehudah, if someone declares a Neder that he will not sleep today should he sleep tomorrow, he is forbidden to sleep today - because we suspect that he will sleep tomorrow, in which case he will have contravened his Neder.

(b) Rav Nachman says - that he is permitted to sleep today, because we are confidant that he will manage to stay awake tomorrow.

(c) Rava suggests that Rav Nachman might establish our case in the same way as he does there - by permitting the woman to marry someone else on the basis that, when her husband divorces her, she will be able to fulfill the T'nai of the divorce and marry P'loni.

(d) He immediately refutes this suggestion however, on the grounds - that whereas it lies within a person's power to force himself to remain awake for a day (by pricking himself with sharp objects) it does not lie within a woman's power to force her husband to give her a divorce.

1. ... the Reisha of the Beraisa 'Harei Zeh Gitech al-M'nas she'Tinas'i li'P'loni, Harei Zeh Lo Tinasei' - to mean that she is not permitted to marry anybody at all, not 'P'loni' nor anybody else (for the reasons that we have already stated).
2. ... the Seifa 've'Im Niseis, Lo Teitzei' - to refer to P'loni, who is only forbidden due to a decree.

(a) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, if a man gives his wife a Get on condition that his wife flies to heaven, travels to the depths of the earth, or performs any other such impossible task, the Get is invalid. Rebbi Yehudah ben Teimah say - that the T'nai is Bateil and the Get valid.

(b) Rav Nachman Amar Rav rules like Rebbi Yehudah ben Teimah. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak supports this ruling from a S'tam Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a 'Kol she'Efshar Lo Lekaymo be'Sofo ve'Hisnah Alav mi'Techilaso, Tena'o Kayam' - implying 'Kol she'I Efshar Lo Lekaymo be'Sofo ... Tena'o Bateil'.

(c) Abaye maintains that the same will apply in the case of a man who gives his wife a Get on condition that she eats Chazir. Rava disagrees - on the grounds that it is physically possible for her to eat Basar Chazir (albeit for the price of Malkos) in which case it cannot be construed as impossible).

(d) According to Abaye, 'K'lal Amar Rebbi Yehudah ben Teimah ... ' comes to include 'al-M'nas she'Tochli Basar Chazir'. Rava extrapolates from Rebbi Yehudah ben Teimah's statement 'ka'Zeh Get' - to preclude the very same case.

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa says that in the case of 'Harei Zeh Gitech ...

1. ... al-M'nas she'Tiba'ali li'P'loni - Niskayem ha'T'nai, Harei Zeh Get'.
2. ... al-M'nas she'Lo Tiba'ali le'Aba u'le'Avicha - Ein Chosheshin Shema Niv'alah Lahem' (and she is permitted to remarry).

(b) If he had said 'al-M'nas she'Lo Tiba'ali li'P'loni' - the Get would not be valid (in case she once has relations with him) just like the case of 'al-M'nas she'Lo Teilchi le'Veis Avich Le'olam'.

(c) The fact that the Tana omits the case of 'al-M'nas she'Tiba'ali le'Aba u'le'Avicha' is no proof that Abaye is right and Rava wrong, Even Rava will agree there that such a T'nai is Bateil - because whereas it might even be possible to bribe P'loni into having relations with her, there is no way that we can contend with her father or father-in-law condescending to perform an act for which they will receive Chayav Kareis.

(d)

1. ... 'K'lal Amar according to Rava ... ' now comes to include - the case of Aba ve'Avicha' of the Beraisa.
2. ... 'ka'Zeh Get' according to Abaye comes to preclude 'she'Tiba'ali li'P'loni'.

6)

(a) Abaye reconciles his opinion (that 'al-M'nas she'Tochli Basar Chazir' the T'nai is Batel, and the Get valid) with the Beraisa, which specifically states 'Niskaymah ha'T'nai Harei Zeh Get ... ' - by establishing the author of the Beraisa as the Rabanan of Rebbi Yehudah ben Teimah (who validate all conditions that are impossible to fulfill), whereas his opinion is based on that of Rebbi Yehudah ben Teimah.

(b) The Tana also includes a case of 'al-M'nas she Tochli bi'Terumah - (assuming that she is a Kohenes), and (assuming that she is a Nezirah) 'al-M'nas she'Tishti Yayin.

(a) The other reason for the T'nai to be Batel in the previous case (according to everyone) - is that of 'Masneh al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah'.

(b) The classical case of 'Masneh al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah' is - where a man betroths a woman 'al-M'nas she'Ein Lach Alai She'er, K'sus ve'Onah' (food, clothes or conjugal rights), where the Kidushin is valid and he remains obligated to provide all three.

(c) Ravina reject Rav Ada B'rei de'Rav Ika's suggestion that in this case, it is not the Masneh (the husband) who is fulfilling the condition that contravenes Torah law, but the other party (the wife) - by pointing out that, when all's said and done, since it his *his* condition that she is fulfilling, what difference does it make as to who contravenes the Torah law? When he stipulated, he was 'Masneh al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah'!

(d) Ravina finally explains why the Tana does not make an issue of 'Masneh al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah' - because, since she remains with the option of not eating and not being divorced, it does not constitute 'Masneh al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah'.

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah rules that, in the case of 'Harei At Muteres le'Chol Adam Ela li'P'loni', the husband must take back the Get and return it to his wife. Chizkiyah establishes the Mishnah - like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, who said the same in the Beraisa regarding the case of 'Kinsi Sh'tar Chov' in the previous Perek.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rav Kahana disagrees. He establishes Mishnah even like the Chachamim there - because they only validate the Sh'tar (without the need to return it) *there*, where the Get is completely ineffective in its current state; but here, where the Sh'tar (unlike the earlier case, was handed over in the form of a Get and was) effective in forbidding her to marry a Kohen, and which she has therefore already acquired, even *they* will agree that he must first take if back before returning it to her.

(c) He referred to Rav Kahana as 'Dilchon' (one of yours, one of the B'nei Bavel to whom he was speaking) - because Rav Kahana originally came from Bavel to learn by Rebbi Yochanan.

(a) With regard to a Get in which the man actually *wrote* 'Harei At Muteres le'Chol Adam', the Tana of our Mishnah disqualifies the Get completely. When Rav Safra says 'Kasvo be'Socho T'nan' (despite the fact that the Tana has specifically validated the oral declaration to the same effect), he means - that under no circumstances will declaring this orally invalidate the Get, even if he said it before the Toref (the main part of the Get) was written.

(b) Rava disagrees. According to him - such a declaration will indeed invalidate the Get, if it is said before the Toref has been written.

(c) Rava's reasoning is that - the major part of the Get was written under this condition.

(d) Rava would instruct the Sofrim - that, when they wrote a Get, they should stop the husband from making any conditions until after the Toref was written.

(a) Rebbi invalidates a Get that contains any conditions - the Rabbanan say that whatever invalidates the Get orally will also invalidate it in writing, and whatever will not invalidate the former, will not invalidate the latter.

(b) According to them ...

1. ... 'Chutz' (which is a Shiyur) - will invalidate the Get both orally and when it is written in the Get.
2. ... 'al-M'nas' (which is a T'nai) - will not invalidate it.