Previous daf

1)

(a) 'Nodrin la'Haragin, la'Charamin u'le'Muchsin she'Hi Terumah, Af-al-Pi she'Eino Terumah'.
Who are ...

1. ... 'Haragin'?
2. ... 'Charamin'?
3. ... 'Muchsin'?

(b) What distinction do Beis Shemei make regarding this Halachah, between Nedarim and Shevu'os?

(c) What qualification do Beis Shamai make even with regard to Neder?

(d) What do Beis Shamai mean when they also forbid extending the Neder beyond what the Haragin ask of him?

3)

(a) Based on a principle issued by Shmuel, we have a problem with the Tana's insertion of Muchsin in our Mishnah.
What did Shmuel say?

(b) Shmuel establishes our Mishnah by a 'Moches she'Ein Lo Kitzvah'.
What is a 'Moches she'Ein Lo Kitzvah'? How does that solve the problem?

(c) How does Rebbi Yanai establish the Mishnah to answer the Kashya?

(a) What is the problem with the Din in our Mishnah, should it speak when he said to the Harag ...

1. ... 'Ye'asru Peiros Olam Alai Le'olam ... '?
2. ... 'Ye'asru Peiros Olam Alai ... '?

(b) So we establish the Mishnah when he says 'Ye'asru Peiros Olam Alai ha'Yom ... '.
What use is that, seeing as the Harag will then not take him seriously, so what will he have gained by saying it?

(c) Why is the fact that he said it silently not considered 'Devarim she'ba'Lev'?

(d) Had he not been forced however, the fact that he said 'ha'Yom silently would not have invalidated the Neder.
How does this differ from someone who meant to forbid on himself wheat-bread, and by mistake, he only said 'bread'? Why is it that the Neder there is automatically void because he said *wheat*-bread in his heart?

(a) Rav Huna cites a Beraisa 'Beis Shamai Omrim, Lo Yiftach Lo bi'Shevu'ah'. Besides the fact that Beis Shamai have prohibited even a Neder if one opens the proceedings (before having been asked by the Harag), what else is difficult with this statement?

(b) What do we mean when we answer that our Mishnah tells us how far Beis Shamai go, and the Beraisa, Beis Hillel?

(c) According to Rav Ashi, the Beraisa does not pertain to the Din of Haragin at all.
Then to what *does* it pertain? What are Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel then arguing about?

(a) What does the Tana of our Mishnah say about a case of ...

1. ... 'Harei Neti'os ha'Eilu Korban Im Einan Niktzazos' and 'Talis Zu Korban Im Einah Nisrefes'?
2. ... 'Talis Zu Korban ad she'Tisaref'?

(b) The fact that Pidyon is required in the Reisha suggests that the Tana is speaking about the value of the plants or of the cloak being used for the purchase of a Korban.
What else might 'Korban' mean?

(c) In that case, why would they require a Pidyon? Why should a Konem need to be redeemed at all?

(d) What does Rebbi Meir (in 'Ein Bein ha'Mudar') say?

7)

(a) What do we mean when we ask 've'Lisni Kedoshos'?

(b) What is wrong with the wording ' ... Kedoshos ve'Einan Kedoshos'?

(c) According to those who interpret 'Korban' to mean Konem, how do we indeed know that the Chidush of 'Kedoshos' is not that a Konem K'lali requires Pidyon, like Rebbi Meir (negating the Kashya)?

(d) How do we resolve the original Kashya 've'Lisni Kedoshos'?

(a) Seeing as the plants are bound to be detached at some stage, we have to amend the Mishnah to read 'Harei Neti'os ha'Eilu Korban, Im Einan Niktzatzos *ha'Yom*'.
What is then the problem with the Mishnah?

(b) What does it help to answer that there is a storm wind blowing?

(c) How do we then establish the case of 'Talis Zu Korban Im Einah Nisrefes'?

(a) What do we mean when we ask 'u'Le'olam'?

(b) bar Pada explains that 'Ein Lahen Pidyon' in the Seifa means only until they have been detached (or the garment until it has been burned).
What is then the meaning of 'Ein Lahen Pidyon'?

(c) And what will then be the difference between before they have been detached and after, according to bar Pada?

(d) According to Ula, once they have been detached, they do not even require Pidyon.
What is their basic Machlokes?

(a) According to the Rashba, Ula only argues with bar Pada with regard to after the plants have been detached (as is implied by his Lashon), though he concedes to his Din of 'Podan, Chozros ve'Kodshos'.
What does the Rashba extrapolate from here with regard to someone who invites his friend to acquire a field with Chazakah' until he goes to Yerushalayim (adding me'Achshav)'?

(b) What is the significance of 'Me'achshav' here?

(c) Would the Din be the same if ...

1. ... they had used a Kinyan Kesef to acquire the field rather than Chazakah?
2. ... it was not the original owner who acquired the field (or the plants in our Mishnah), but a third person?

(a) Rebbi Moshe Kartavi disagrees with the Rashba. According to him, bar Pada's ruling of 'Kedoshos ve'Chozros u'Kedoshos' is based directly on the fact that he holds 'Kedushah Lo Pak'ah Bichdi'.
Why must that be the case?

(b) Why does it therefore follow that Ula, who holds 'Kedushah Pak'ah Bichdi' disagrees with the concept of 'Kedoshos ve'Chozros u'Kedoshos'?

(c) Then why did Ula not specifically argue with bar Pada with regard to 'Kedoshos ve'Chozros u'Kedoshos'?

(d) Rebbi Moshe Kartabi proves his point from a Yerushalmi.
Assuming that we follow the opinion of bar Pada (as it would appear from that Yerushalmi), does he also argue with the Rashba regarding someone who invites his friend to acquire a field with Chazakah' until he goes to Yerushalayim (adding me'Achshav)'? Will we be able to learn that from Hekdesh?

(a) The Rashba for his part, had second thoughts about his proof regarding someone who invites his friend to acquire a field with Chazakah' until he goes to Yerushalayim (adding me'Achshav)' from Hekdesh.
On what grounds does he now feel inclined to say that, although in the Seifa of the Mishnah, Ula agrees that 'Kedoshos ve'Chozros u'Kedoshos', he will not apply the same S'vara in the above case?

(b) What will he say in the case of someone who says 'Karka Zeh la'Aniyim Ad she'E'eleh li'Yerushalayim'?

Next daf