Previous daf

1)

(a) Avimi asked whether, if the owner of a house forbids his friend to have Hana'ah from it, it will remain forbidden even after it is no longer his. Assuming that he cannot, is that because he did not say so? Would he be able to benefit from it if he said so specifically?

(b) Why should this case be any worse than someone who forbids his friend's property on himself (seeing as in both cases, the property is not his own)?

(c) Rava proves from a Mishnah in Bava Kama 'ha'Omer li'Veno, Konem she'I Atah Neheneh Li ... be'Chayav u've'Moso, Lo Yirshenah', that his Neder is indeed effective.
But does this not clash with the Sugya above (42b.) where we differentiated between where the Noder specified 'be'Chayav u've'Moso' and where he did not?

(d) Like whom do we rule?

(a) How do we know that 'Lo Yirshenu' in the Mishnah in Bava Kama means that he is forbidden to benefit from the property, and must not be taken literally?

(b) We have no problem with the Tana there, who says 'Lovin, u'Ba'alei Chov Ba'in ve'Nifra'in Mimenu'.
Why not?

(c) And how will we then explain 'Nosnan le'Vanav O le'Echav'? Surely this is a classical case of Tovas Hana'ah, which is considered Hana'ah?

(d) What is he obligated to add, when he tells them this?

(a) What will the Mishnah later say regarding the 'Chilufin' and the 'Gidulin' of the fruit, in a case where someone says 'Konem Peiros ha'Eilu Alai, Konem Hein al Pi, Konem Hein le'Fi'?

(b) What is then Rami bar Chama's She'eilah 'Konem Peiros ha'Eilu Al P'loni Mahu be'Chilufeihen'?

(c) Assuming that the Chalipin are permitted, will that mean that the Mudar is permitted to exchange or sell the fruit Lechatchilah?

(d) Is the She'eilah confined to Konamos, or will it apply to all Isurei Hana'ah?

(a) What is the difference between Avodah-Zarah and Shevi'is and all other Isurei Hana'ah as regards Chalipin?

(b) In light of that, how will we explain the previous She'eilah? Why should the Chalipin be forbidden?

(c) What is the basis of the She'eilah? What might be the two possible bases for the Mishnah 'Konem Peiros ha'Eilu Alai, Konem Hein al Pi, Konem Hein le'Fi, Asur be'Chilufeihen ve'Giduleihen'?

(d) Why then, did Rami bar Chama confine his She'eilah specifically with regard to the Mudar? Why did he not ask it with regard to the Noder himself (in which case the She'eilah would be whether the 'Chalipin will be Asur even if someone else made the exchange [e.g. if Re'uven forbade Shimon's fruit on himself, and Shimon exchanged the fruit])?

(a) Although the above She'eilah concerns where the Noder forbade the fruit on the Mudar, its source already lies in our Mishnah 'Konem Peiros ha'Eilu Alai, Konem Hein al Pi, Konem Hein le'Fi Asur ... u've'Giduleihen' (which concerns only the Noder himself).
How is it contained in the word 'Eilu'?

(b) The Tana could have asked the same She'eilah with to regard to the Noder himself when he did not say 'Eilu' (which is the same She'eilah as the Mudar using it, when the Noder said 'Eilu'.
So why did he not do so?

6)

(a) The Mishnah in Kidushin states that if someone forbids his wife Hana'ah with a Konem, 'Lovah u'Ba'alei Chov Ba'in ve'Nifra'in'.
When did he make the Neder?

(b) Could the author of this Mishnah be Chanan, who said in Kesuvos about someone who sustains his friend's wife in his absence 'Hini'ach Ma'osav al Keren ha'Tz'vi' (and he cannot reclaim his expenses)?

(a) How do we attempt to resolve Rami bar Chama's She'eilah, from the Mishnah in Kidushin?

(b) According to some, the proof is from the fact that the wife is permitted to borrow on the basis of the creditors subsequent claiming from her husband (because there is no prohibition on the part of the creditors).
How do *we* prefer to explain the proof?

(c) Initially, it seems, we could have brought the same proof from the Seifa of our Mishnah, which states (in the case of a father who was Madir his son Hana'ah from his property) 'Loveh u'Ba'alei Chov Ba'in ve'Nifra'in'. Why did we then find it necessary to bring it from the Mishnah in Kidushin?

(d) Rava refutes the proof because, he says 'Dilma Lechatchilah Hu de'Lo, ve'I Avid, Avid'.
What does he mean by that? Seeing as we are permitting the creditors to reclaim their debt Lechatchilah, how can Rava refer to this as 'de'I'?

(a) The Mishnah in Kidushin states 'ha'Mekadesh be'Orlah, Einah Mekudeshes'. What does the Tana go on to say if he sold the Orlah and betrothed a woman with the proceeds?

(b) We attempt to prove from there that one is permitted to benefit from Chalipei Isurei Hana'ah even Lechatchilah.
What would the Din otherwise be?

(c) How do we refute this proof too?

(d) The Rambam rules le'Chumra in the case of the Mudar or the Noder himself who did not say 'Peiros Eilu' (like we usually do by Safek Isur).
Why might there nevertheless be good reason to rule leniently here?

Next daf