Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) YAD FOR TZEDAKAH

(a) Question: Is there a concept of Yad for Tzedaka?

1. Question: If he said "This coin is for Tzedakaha, and this one too" - that is standard Tzedakah!?
2. Answer: It is referring to where he only said "and this one" without saying "too"; do we take it to mean "and this one also for Tzedakah" or do we take it to mean that he intends to do something else with this coin, but didn't finish.
3. The question is as to whether its Hekesh to Korbanos also serves to transfer the rule of Yados, or only for Bal T'acher.

(a) Question: Is there a concept of Yad for Hefker?

1. Question: Isn't this the same as Tzedakah?
2. Answer: We mean, if you say that there is Yad for Tzedakah because a Hekesh transfers everything, do we say that Hefker is identical, or is Hefker different as it can even go to wealthy people.

(a) Question (Ravina): Is there a concept of Yad for bathrooms?

1. Question: If he said "This room should be a bathroom, and this one too" obviously it works!?
2. Answer: It is referring to where he only said "and this one" without saying "too"; do we say that it means that it should also be a bathroom, or that he will use it for something else.
3. Question: Here we see Ravina taking it as a given that there is such a thing as designating a bathroom, but we find him asking about it elsewhere?
4. Answer: His question about Yad is on the possibility that there is designation.

(b) All the above questions about Yados remain unresolved.

(a) (Abayey) Although R. Akiva was stringent in a case where he said Menudeh, he agrees that there is no Malkus.
(b) (R. Papa) All agree that the term Nedina is binding; all agree that Meshamtana is ineffective; the dispute is regarding the term Menudeh.

(c) R. Papa thereby argues with R. Chisda, who ruled in a case of Meshamtana that "one need not be concerned with R. Akiva's stringency."

(a) If an excommunication was placed on someone in his presence, it can only be annulled in his presence.

1. Otherwise, it can be annulled whether or not he is present.

(b) If a person hears someone say G-d's Name in vain, he must excommunicate him.

1. Otherwise, he himself is worthy of being excommunicated.
2. This is because taking G-d's Name in vain is associated with poverty, which is rated as death, and a Beraisa states that anyone who is excommunicated either becomes poor or dies.

(c) Rav Huna heard a woman take G-d's Name in vain. He excommunicated her, and instantly released her, in her presence.

1. We see that if a person hears someone say G-d's Name in vain, he must excommunicate him.
2. We also see that if an excommunication was placed on someone in his presence, it can only be annulled in his presence.
3. We also see that there is no minimum time between an excommunication and its release.

(d) (R. Gidal citing Rav) A Talmid Chacham can place himself in excommunication and release himself.

1. This is even though one might think that "a prisoner cannot release himself."
2. Likewise, Mar Zutra, when someone required excommunication, would do it to himself first; when he arrive home, after releasing himself, he would release the other person.