Previous daf

1)

(a) Rava (or Rabah) asks whether the Hekem of a husband or a father is subject to She'eilah or not. This She'eilah concerns a Neder which he upheld on the same day as his wife or daughter declared the Neder - and he now wishes to revoke the Hekem and then to be Meifer the Neder, still on the same day.

(b) There is no logical reason to say 'Yesh She'eilah be'Hefer' - in fact, it is illogical, because we only the concept of She'eilah by a Neder, not by its annulment.

(c) Nevertheless, based on the assumption that we have resolved the previous She'eilah in the positive, Rava asks whether it is not possible to do so - on the basis of the Hekesh "Iyshah Yekimenah, ve'Iyshah Yeferenah", comparing Hafarah to Kiyum (and a Hekesh is not subject to logic).

(d) We resolve both She'eilos from Rebbi Yochanan - who says 'Nish'alin al ha'Hekem ve'Ein Nish'alin al ha'Hefer'.

(a) Rabah asks what the Din will be if someone says to his wife 'Kiyem Lechi, Kiyem Lechi', and went on to annul the first Neder. His She'eilah is - whether the second Kiyum, which was unable to come into effect immediately, will come into effect the moment the first one becomes absolved, or does a Kiyum which cannot take effect immediate effect, simply dissolve.

(b) We resolve the She'eilah from a statement by Rava, who says - 'Im Nish'al al ha'Rishonah, Sheni'ah Chalah Alav'.

(c) Rabah asks further what the Din will be if the husband says 'Kiyem Lechi u'Mufar Lechi ve'Lo Tachol Hakamah Ela-im-Kein Chalah Hafarah'. He must hold that, in any event, the Hakamah does not take effect - because 'mi'Mah Nafshach, if the Hafarah takes effect, then logic dictates that the Hakamah cannot; and if the Hafarah does not take effect, then the Hakamah will not take effect either, due to his stipulation.

(d) Nevertheless, we later accept the possibility that in the case of 'Kayam Lechi Sha'ah, u'Mufar Lechi Sha'ah', the Kiyum does take effect - because, since he gave a time limit for each one to take effect, it is possible that the Hakamah comes into effect first, and the Hafarah afterwards.

(a) The Hafarah ...

1. ... might not take effect - because, having said first 'Kayam Lechi', he only wants the Hafarah to take effect after the Hakamah (which, as we just explained, it cannot).
2. ... might take effect - because he is not concerned about the Hakamah taking effect first (or even at all, as we shall see), and he only mentioned it first, because one cannot say two things simultaneously.

(b) According to the first side of the She'eilah, he did not specify that he wants them to fall in that order (like he specified that the Hakamah should come into effect without the Hafarah) - because, having spoken them in the order that he did, it was unnecessary to do so.

(c) The Noder really wanted - both the Hakamah and the Hafarah to take effect simultaneously, adding that should the Hakamah stand in the way of the Hafarah, then the Hakamah should not take effect unless the Hafarah had taken effect first.

(d) He did not stipulate the other way round ('ve'Lo Tachol Hafarah Ela-im-Kein Chalah Hakamah') - because he was mainly concerned that the Hafarah should take effect, and not the Hakamah.

4)

(a) We learned in a Mishnah in Temurah 'Harei Zu Temuras Olah, Temuras Shelamim, Harei Zu Temuras Olah, Divrei Rebbi Meir'. Rebbi Yossi disagrees. In a case of 'Harei Zu Temuras Olah, ve'Achar-Kach Temuras Shelamim, Harei Zu Temuras Olah', he agrees that the animal is a Temuras Olah only (because it is impossible for the animal to become a Temuras Shelamim once it is a Temuras Olah).

(b) In a case of 'Lo Tachol Zu Ela-im-Kein Tachol Zu' - they both hold that the animal is sent in to a field until it becomes blemished, when it is sold and half of the proceeds are used to purchase a Temuras Olah, and half, a Temuras Shelamim.

(c) They argue in a case where the Noder says 'Temuras Olah, Temuras Shelamim'. Rebbi Meir holds that, since he did not say Temuras Olah u'Shelamim, it is as if he said 'Tachol Zu ve'Achar-Kach Tachol Zu'. According to Rebbi Yossi, one asks the Noder what he meant; if he says that he meant to declare the animal both a Temuras Olah and a Temuras Shelamim, then we follow the same procedure as we described in the previous answer. If not, he agrees with Rebbi Meir that it is a Temuras Olah only.

(a) We now resolve Rabah's She'eilah according to Rebbi Yossi - from whom we see that, someone who expresses two things at the same time, wants both of them to take effect simultaneously. And so it will be in the case of someone who says 'Kayam Lechi, Mufar Lechi' (and the Hafarah will be effective)?

(b) We do not negate both statements in view of the principle 'Kol she'Eino be'Zeh Achar Zeh, Afilu be'Bas Achas Eino' - because, since he added 've'Lo Tachol Hakamah Ela-im-Kein Chalah Hafarah', it is clear that he wanted the Hafarah only to take effect, should the Hakamah prevent it from doing so.

(c) We can resolve the She'eilah according to Rebbi Meir too, however - using the same S'vara (that even though in the case of Temuras Olah, Temuras Shelamim, the Noder wanted them to take effect consecutively, in our case, where he added 've'Lo Tachol Hakamah ... ', it is clear that he was more concerned about the Hafarah ... , as we just explained.

(d) We cannot however, arrive at this conclusion on the basis of the fact that 'Kayam Lechi, Mufar Lechi' does not contain a superfluous Lashon (implying that they should come into effect simultaneously), like 'Temuras Olah, Temuras Shelamim does (implying that they should take effect consecutively) - because our case even *without* a superfluous Lashon (where the Kiyum and the Hafarah cannot take effect simultaneously anyway) is equivalent to the case in Temurah (where the animal can become a Temuras Olah and a Temuras Shelamim, as we explained) *with* one.

(a) Rabah then asks what the Din will be if a husband or father says 'Kayam u'Mufar Lechi' simultaneously. The alternative wording of the She'eilah is - 'Kayam Lechi u'Mufar Lechi be'Vas Achas'.

(b) The She'eilah is - whether, since both of them cannot possibly take effect simultaneously, the Hakamah will come into effect, but not the Hafarah.

(c) We resolve the She'eilah from a statement of Rabah himself - who says in Kidushin that, if a man betroths one of two sisters, without specifying which one, neither of them is betrothed, because two things which cannot come into effect consecutively cannot come into effect simultaneouly either.

(d) And his She'eilah concerning someone who says to his wife or daughter 'Kayam Lechi ha'Yom' - is whether this implies 'u'Mufar le'Machar, or whether, since he did not say so specifically, we cannot make such an inference ourselves.