Previous daf

1)

(a) 'Hareini Alayich Cherem' (cited later in the Mishnah in 'ha'Shutfin') is similar to she'Ani Ochal Lach', which, we just learned, implies a two- way Neder. In that case, the Tana concludes 'ha'Mudar Asur' (and not 'Sh'neihem Asurim') - because it speaks when the Noder said 've'At Alai Lo'.

(b) By the same token, the Tana continues 'At Alai Cherem, ha'Noder Asur' (and not 'Sh'neihem Asurim') - because it speaks when the Noder said 'va'Ana Alach Lo'.

(c) In any event, we can infer from both of these cases that S'tama, the Neder would act both ways - in which case, why would the Tana need to continue 'Hareini Alayich ve'At Alai Asur', seeing as either of the two statements would have the same effect.

(d) Consequently, we amend Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina's original statement to read - 'Mudar Ani Lach, Sh'neihem Asurin (because 'Lecha' implies both 'Nechasai Lecha' and 'Ani mi'she'Lach'); 'Mudrani Heimech (or Mimcha), Hu Asur, va'Chaveiro Mutar' (because 'Mimcha' implies 'Ani mi'Nechasecha' and no more).

(a) This explanation is difficult however, in view of Shmuel's interpretation of our Mishnah, which assumes that the Tana is speaking about a one-way Neder only because the Noder added 'she'Ani To'em Lach', but had he said 'Mudrani Mimcha' on its own, it would be a two-way Neder, clashing with what we just concluded according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina.

(b) So we retract from our original understanding of Shmuel (and in fact, even 'Mudrani Mimcha' is only a one-way Neder). And the difference between 'Mudrani Mimcha she'Ani Ochal Lach' and 'Mudrani Mimcha' on its own is - that in the former, the Noder is only Asur to *eat* from the Mudar, whereas in the latter, he is forbidden to *derive any benefit* from him.

(c) Seeing as an Isur Hana'ah is not inherent in the words 'Mudrani Mimcha' any more than an Isur Achilah is, Shmuel must hold that 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos, Havyan Yadayim'.

(d) We reject this on the basis of Shmuel's Lashon 'be'Chulan ad she'Yomar she'Ani Ochal Lach'. According to this explanation, what he should have said was - 've'Im Lo Amar she'Ani Ochal Lach ... Asur Afilu be'Hana'ah'.

(a) So we start from the other end: What Shmuel means to say is - that it is only if the Noder said 'she'Ani Ochal Lach' that it is a Yad le'Neder. Had he only said 'Mudrani Mimcha' without adding she'Ani Ochal Lach' - he would not be Asur at all, because, seeing as it is unclear what he is coming to forbid, it is a question of 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos', and Shmuel holds 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos, Lo Havyan Yadayim'.

(b) The two possible implications of 'Mudrani Mimcha' are - 1. An Isur Hana'ah; 2. An Isur to even speak with the Mudar.

(c) This differs from our original interpretation of Shmuel - inasmuch as we originally thought that, according to Shmuel, this is not a Yad at all (according to anybody), whereas we now concede that it is, only it is a Yad she'Eino Mochi'ach (which is subject to a Machlokes Tana'im, as we shall soon see).

(d) We can no longer ask on Shmuel from the Beraisa - because the Tana of the Beraisa may well hold 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos, Havyan Yadayim', whereas Shmuel holds like those Tana'im who holds ' ... Lo Havyan Yadayim', as we shall soon see.

(a) Others explain Shmuel differently. According to them, Shmuel conforms with the Beraisa, too. In their opinion ...

1. ... 'Mudrani Mimcha' - implies an Isur to speak with the Mudar.
2. ... 'Mufreshani Mimcha' - implies an Isur to do business with him.
3. ... 'Meruchkani Mimcha' - implies an Isur to stand within his four Amos (and these are the cases to which the Beraisos are referring).

(b) What does *not* become forbidden until the Noder says 'she'Ani Ochal Lach' - is eating his food, in which regard these Leshonos are 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos' and Shmuel holds 'Lo Havyan Yadayim'.

(c) In any event, Shmuel will now hold like Rebbi Yehudah, in whose opinion 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos, Lo Havyan Yadayim'.

5)

(a) According to the Tana Kama of the Mishnah in Gitin, all the husband needs to write in a Get is 'Harei At Muteres le'Chol Adam'. According to Rebbi Yehudah - he needs to add 've'Dein de'Yehavi Lichi Mina'i Sefer Tiruchin ve'Igeres Shevukin'.

(b) What makes this a case of 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos' - is the lack of any mention of the Get, implying that he is perhaps divorcing her verbally (The Ran later, seems to agree with the Rosh, who learns that it is the absence of 'Mina'i' that makes it 'Ein Mochichos', implying that he is divorcing somebody else's wife. The Ran himself will explain this later. See 10a.).

(c) What causes Shmuel to establish our Mishnah as one case, says Rava (to teach us 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos Lo Havyan Yadayim') is - the insertion of the word 'she'Ochal *'Lach*'.

(d) We might otherwise explain 'Mudrani Mimcha, she'Ani Ochal' - to mean that the Noder will not talk to the Mudar should he eat today or until another fixed time.

(a) The basis of the previous Kashya is - that it is unlikely for Shmuel to explain the Mishnah that way *because* he holds like Rebbi Yehudah, who is after all, a minority opinion. That is why we look for a source in the Mishnah itself that would prompt Shmuel to explain it this way.

(b) Now that Shmuel has found a source in the Mishnah itself to establish the author as Rebbi Yehudah - he accepts the opinion of a S'tam Mishnah as Halachah, even against the majority opinion of the Chachamim.

(c) We reconcile Shmuel's opinion here with his own opinion in Gitin, where he requires space to be left on a Get to write 'Harei At Muteres le'Chol Adam' but not 've'Dein de'Yehavi Lichi Mina'i' - because, even though he rules like Rebbi Yehudah in other regards, he does not rule like him regarding Gerushin. Gerushin is different, he maintains, because nobody would divorce someone else's wife. Consequently, even though he did not write 'Mina'i' in the Get, it is not considered 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos'.

(d) We might also answer this Kashya by explaining that Gerushin is no different than any other area of Halachah, and that Shmuel does require 've'Dein ... ' as is implied in our Sugya (because even though it is obvious that he is divorcing his wife, it is not clear from the Lashon itself, and it therefore remains a case of 'Yadayim she'Einan Mochichos'). Only he mentions it there by Kidushin, taking it for granted that it needs to be inserted by Gerushin too?

(a) Abaye holds 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos Havyan Yadayim'. Rava holds - 'Lo Havyan Yadayim' (like Shmuel).

(b) Rebbi Tarfon says - that if someone declares that, if his friend is a Nazir, he undertakes to be a Nazir, too - is not a Nazir (even if his friend turns out to be a Nazir), because (based on the Pasuk in Naso "Ish Ki Yafli"), Nezirus requires clarity (it must be clear without any Safek at the time when it is announced that he is a Nazir).

(c) Rava, quoting Rebbi Idi, learns from "Nazir Lahazir' that 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos Lo Havyan Yadayim' - because the Hekesh of Yados to Nezirus teaches us that, Yados, like Nezirus, require clarity.

(d) The difference between the two types of 'Hafla'ah' is - that the Nezirus must be clearly Chal at the time when the Nazir makes the pronouncement (even though there is no Safek as to what he meant), whereas as far as the Yad is concerned, it his intention that must be clear. The 'Hafla'ah' by the Yad cannot possible refer to the same as that of the Neder - because whatever is not valid in the case of a Neder, is obviously not valid in the case of a Yad, seeing as it is learned from Neder.

(a) All this is the opinion of Rebbi Tarfon. According to the Rabbanan, the Neder itself does not need to be clear when is pronounced.

(b) According to them - Rava learns that 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos Lo Havyan Yadayim' directly from "Ish ki Yafli", which pertains to Yados and not to the actual Neder.

(c) According to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yehudah, Rava explained that a Get is different, because a person would not divorce someone else's wife. According to the Rashba - that transfers Get into a case of Yadayim Mochichos. The Ran though, holds that seeing as the Lashon is unclear, it remains a case of Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos, only his clear intentions override the fact that it is.

1. ... Abaye even like Rebbi Yehudah - who might confine his ruling ('Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos Lo Havyan Yadayim') to Gitin, because there, the Torah requires 'K'risus' (the complete severence of relations), but who says that he is equally stringent elsewhere?
2. ... Rava even like the Rabbanan - who might confine their ruling ('Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos Havyan Yadayim') to Gitin, because there, it is uncommon for a person to divorce someone else's wife (as we explained above). Elsewhere, they might well agree with Shmuel (that 'Lo Havyan Yadayim').

(a) Our Sugya seems to take on that Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan argue over whether one needs to write the word 'Mina'i' or not (because the Rabbanan apply the S'vara that a person does not divorce soomeone else's wife); whereas the Sugya in Gitin assumes that they argue over whether or not, one needs to write the whole Nusach 've'Dein de'Yehavi Lichi Mina'i ... ' (because otherise it conveys the impression that he is divorcing his wife with mere words) - in fact, they argue over both issues.

(b) There are some who rule that one needs to write 've'Dein' in a Get, but not 'Mina'i' - because they rule like Rava who holds 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos Lo Havyan Yadayim' (like Rebbi Yehudah). Nevertheless, 'Mina'i' is not necessary, because of Rava's S'vara that a person would not divorce someone else's wife (which, as we explained, overrides Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos).

(c) The Ran rules that one needs to write both 've'Dein' and 'Mina'i' - like Rava, who holds like Rebbi Yehudah, who holds in turn that 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos, Lo Havyan Yadayim'.