Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) A PARTIALLY PERMITTED VOW

(a) He said, 'Had I known that Bnos Shu'ach were inside, I would not have vowed' - the (other figs in the) basket are forbidden, the Bnos Shu'ach are permitted;
(b) Later, R. Akiva taught that a vow that is partially permitted is entirely permitted.

1. Suggestion: He said, 'Had I known that Bnos Shu'ach were inside, I would not said, black and white figs are forbidden, Bnos Shu'ach are permitted'; this is R. Akiva's opinion, and Chachamim argue.

(c) Answer: No - he said, 'Had I known that Bnos Shu'ach were inside, I would have said, all the (other figs in the) basket are forbidden, the Bnos Shu'ach are permitted'.
(d) Question: Who is the Tana of the following Beraisa?

1. (Beraisa): Reuven took 1 vow not to benefit from 5 people. If one of them became permitted, all 5 are permitted;
2. If he said, (had I known, I would have said) all are forbidden except for Ploni, Ploni is permitted, the others are forbidden.

(e) Answer: According to Rabah, the 1st clause is as R. Akiva, and all agree to the last clause;

1. According to Rava, the last clause is as Chachamim, and all agree to the 1st clause.

(a) (Mishnah): Vows of Ones - Shimon made Reuven vow that he will eat by him; Reuven (was unable to because he) or his son fell ill, or he could not cross the river - these are vows of Ones.
(b) (Gemara): Reuven was holding documents in his favor in Beis Din. He said, 'If I do not return within 30 days, these proofs should be void'; an Ones prevented him from returning in time;
(c) (Rav Huna): His proofs are void.
(d) Question (Rabah): But the Torah exempts one when there is an Ones - "You will not do anything to the girl (that was raped)"!

1. Suggestion: Perhaps this only applies to capital punishment.
2. Rejection (Mishnah): Vows of Ones - Shimon made Reuven vow that he will eat by him; Reuven or his son fell ill, or he could not cross the river - these are vows of Ones.

(e) Counter-question #1: According to Rabah, why is this different than the following?

1. (Mishnah): "This Get should make you divorced now, if I do not come within 12 months". He died within this time - the Get worked.

i. According to Rabah, since Ones prevented him from returning, we should say that the Get is invalid!

(f) Answer: Perhaps that case is different - had he known that he would die, he would have divorced her immediately (unconditionally).

(g) Counter-question #2: According to Rabah, why is Rav Huna's case different than the following?

1. A man told witnesses, if I do not come within 30 days, this Get should be valid. On the last day, he was unable to get the ferry to cross the river. He screamed, 'See, I am coming'!
2. (Shmuel): This does not count as coming.
3. According to Rabah, the Get should not work because of the Ones!

(h) Answer: Perhaps the law is different by a common Ones.

(a) Question: Why did Rav Huna rule that the man's proofs are void - this was Asmachta (an exaggeration) which is not binding!
(b) Answer: This case was different for he was holding his proofs.
(c) Question: Is it really true that holding them prevents it from being Asmachta?!

1. (Mishnah): Reuven paid part of his debt. The document was given to a 3rd party; Reuven said 'If I do not pay the rest within 30 days return the document to the lender (and he can collect the full loan)'; he did not pay up in time.
2. R. Yosi says the document is given to the lender; R. Yehudah says it is not.

i. (Rav Nachman): The law is not as R. Yosi, who says that Asmachta is binding.

(d) Answer: This case is different - since he said that the proofs should be void, this is as an admission that they are invalid.
(e) The law is, Asmachta is binding, when there is no Ones, and when the stipulation was made in a respected Beis Din.

(a) (Mishnah): One may falsely vow to murderers, robbers and tax-collectors, to convince them that (what they want to take) is Terumah, or belongs to the king;