1)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that as long as the Shechiv-Mera mentions Matanah either at the beginning, in the middle or at the end, his words are valid. How does Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yochanan explain ...

1. ... 'at the beginning'?

2. ... 'in the middle'?

3. ... 'at the end'?

(b)In which two ways does Rebbi Yochanan then qualify our Mishnah? When would the Tana not extend the Lashon Matanah to where the Shechiv-Mera used a Lashon Yerushah?

(c)What would the Din then be in that case? Why is that?

1)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that as long as the Shechiv-Mera mentions Matanah either at the beginning, in the middle or at the end, his words are valid. Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yochanan explains ...

1. ... 'at the beginning' as 'Tinasen Sadeh P'lonis li'Peloni ve'Yirshah'.

2. ... 'in the middle' as 'Yirshah ve'Tinasen lo be'Matanah vi'Yirshah'.

3. ... 'at the end' as ' Yirshah ve'Tinasen lo'.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan then qualifies our Mishnah by confining it to one recipient and one field. But if the Shechiv-Mera was giving even one field to two people (half to each) or two fields to even one person, then the Tana would not extend the Lashon Matanah to wherever the Shechiv-Mera used a Lashon Yerushah.

(c)The Din be in that case would be that wherever the Shechiv-Mera used a Lashon Matanah, the gift would be effective, and wherever he used the Lashon Yerushah, it would not (because it is 'Masneh al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah').

2)

(a)What does Rebbi Elazar say in the previous case?

(b)According to Ravin, in a case where the Shechiv-Mera said 'Tinasen Sadeh Plonis li'Peloni ve'Yirash Ploni Sadeh Plonis', Rebbi Yochanan says 'Kanah', and Rebbi Elazar, 'Lo Kanah'. How do we resolve this with the ruling of ...

1. ... Rebbi Elazar that we just cited (according to Rav Dimi)?

2. ... Rebbi Yochanan, according to Rav Dimi?

(c)In light of the wording following Rebbi Elazar's earlier ruling 'Aval bi'Shetei Sados u'Shenei Bnei Adam, Lo', how do we justify the Kashya that we just asked from Rav Dimi's version of Reish Lakish on to that of Ravin?

2)

(a)Rebbi Elazar holds that even there, the Lashon Matanah would extend to where he used a Lashon Yerushah, and the Matanah would take effect in both cases.

(b)According to Ravin, in a case where the Shechiv-Mera said 'Tinasen Sadeh P'lonis li'Peloni ve'Yirash Ploni Sadeh P'lonis', Rebbi Yochanan says 'Kanah', and Rebbi Elazar, 'Lo Kanah'. When Rav Dimi cited ...

1. ... Rebbi Elazar as saying 'Kanah', he was referring to a case of Adam Achas u'Shetei Sados or Sadeh Achas u'Shenei Bnei Adam exclusively (in which case Rav Dimi and Ravin are of one accord in this point).

2. ... Rebbi Yochanan as saying 'Lo Kanah' with regard to Shtei Sados u'Shenei Bnei Adam, we are forced to concede that Ravin and Rav Dimi disagree in this point (it is actually Ravin himself who arrives at this conclusion).

(c)In light of the wording following Rebbi Elazar's earlier ruling 'Aval bi'She'tei Sados u'Shenei Bnei Adam, Lo', we justify the Kashya that we just asked from Rav Dimi's version of Reish Lakish on to that of Ravin by ascribing that wording to our own inference, rather to Rebbi Elazar himself.

3)

(a)Reish Lakish agrees in part with the previous ruling. Why, according to him, would Shimon not acquire the field if the father said 'Tinasen Sadeh Plonis li'Reuven, ve'Sadeh Plonis le'Shimon ve'Yirashum'?

(b)What would the Shechiv-Mera then need to say for Shimon to acquire the second field?

3)

(a)Reish Lakish agrees in part with the previous ruling. According to him, Shimon would not acquire the field if the father said 'Tinasen Sadeh Plonis li'Reuven, ve'Sadeh Plonis le'Shimon ve'Yirashum' because we would then ascribe the Lashon Matanah to Reuven, and the Lashon Yerushah, to Shimon.

(b)And Shimon would only acquire the second field if the Shechiv-Mera had said 'Ploni u'Peloni Yirshu Sadeh P'lonis u'Pelonis she'Nasatim Lahem Matanah, ve'Yirashum', in which case we would say that just as one 'Yerushah' pertains to each son, so too, does the Lashon Matanah.

4)

(a)Given that none of the disputants that we are about to quote hold like Reish Lakish, which of the above opinions conforms with that of ...

1. ... Rav Hamnuna, who says 'Lo Shanu Ela Adam Echad ve'Sadeh Achas, Aval ... Lo'?

2. ... Rav Nachman, who says 'Afilu Adam Echad u'Shetei Sados ... Aval Shtei Sados u'Shenei Bnei Adam, Lo'?

3. ... Rav Sheshes, who says 'Afilu Shtei Sados u'Shenei Bnei Adam'?

(b)Rav Sheshes supports his opinion with a Beraisa, which discusses a case where a father says 'Tenu Shekel le'Banai le'Shabbos', assuming that they require a Sela (two Shekalim). The Tana might be talking about a Shechiv-Mera on his death-bed. Who else might he be referring to?

(c)What does the Tana rule there" How much do we actually give his children each week out of his estate?

(d)Under which circumstances would we follow his instructions, in spite of the fact that his sons really need more? Why is that?

4)

(a)Given that none of the disputants that we are about to quote hold like Reish Lakish, the above opinion to conform with that of ...

1. ... Rav Hamnuna, who says 'Lo Shanu Ela Adam Echad ve'Sadeh Achas, Aval ... Lo' is that of Rav Dimi, citing Rebbi Yochanan.

2. ... Rav Nachman, who says 'Afilu Adam Echad u'Shetei Sados ... Aval Shtei Sados u'Shenei Bnei Adam, Lo' is Rav Dimi, citing Rebbi Elazar.

3. ... Rav Sheshes, who says 'Afilu Shtei Sados u'Shenei Bnei Adam' is that of Ravin citing Rebbi Yochanan.

(b)Rav Sheshes supports his opinion with a Beraisa, which discusses a case where a father says 'Tenu Shekel le'Banai le'Shabbos', assuming that they require a Sela (two Shekalim). The Tana might be talking about a Shechiv-Mera on his death-bed or he might be referring to a man who is going overseas, and is asking Beis-Din to feed his children from his estate whilst he is away.

(c)The Tana rules there that each week we give them out of their father's estate the Sela that they require.

(d)Had he said 'Al Titnu Lahem Ela Shekel' (an indication that he means exactly what he says) we would follow his instructions (and give them only a Shekel), in spite of the fact that his sons really need more.

5)

(a)In Kesuvos, we establish the author of this Beraisa as Rebbi Meir. What does Rebbi Meir say?

(b)Despite that, we conclude there that, irrespective of which Lashon the father used, we give his sons their needs. Why is that?

(c)What does the Tana of the Beraisa then rule in a case where the father added 'Im Meisu, Yirshu Ploni u'Peloni Tachteihem'?

(d)What does Rav Sheshes now extrapolate from there?

5)

(a)In Kesuvos, we establish the author of this Beraisa as Rebbi Meir, who says 'Mitzvah Le'kayem Divrei ha'Meis' (It is a Mitzvah to carry out the wishes of the deceased).

(b)Despite that, we conclude there that, irrespective of which Lashon the father used, we give his sons their needs because we assume that in this case, the father really wants to satisfy his children's needs, and he only said 'Al Titen Lahem Ela Shekel', to encourage them not to be too easy-going.

(c)In a case where the father added 'Im Meisu, Yirshu Acherim Tachteihem', the Tana of the Beraisa rules that irrespective of which Lashon he used, we only give his children a Shekel.

(d)Rav Sheshes now extrapolates from there that even in a case of two fields and two people, as long as by one of them a person uses a Lashon Matanah, both recipients acquire the two fields.

6)

(a)Like whom does Rav Sheshes himself establish the Beraisa, to refute his own proof from there? Who does 'Acherim' then refer to?

(b)What is then the case?

(c)Why does Rav Sheshes learn like this?

(d)How will we establish the Beraisa, according to the Rabanan of Rebbi Yishmael Beno Shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah in Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah (whose opinion we will cite on the following Daf)?

6)

(a)Rav Sheshes himself establishes the Beraisa when the 'Acherim' is also the next of kin, and the author as Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah (who permits a father to give his property to do that, even using a Lashon Yerushah).

(b)The case will then be when he left instructions to feed two of his sons at the above-mentioned rate, and bequeathed whatever remains to one of his other sons.

(c)He does that in order to remove the Kashya from Rav Hamnuna and Rav Nachman (even though he himself clearly considers this answer a Dochek).

(d)According to the Rabanan of Rebbi Yishmael Beno Shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah in Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah (whose opinion we will cite on the following Daf), we will establish the case when 'Acherim' is the next closest relative after his sons, such as his daughter or his brothers.

129b----------------------------------------129b

7)

(a)Rav Ashi queries our Sugya from another Beraisa. What does the Tana rule in the case 'Nechasai lach ve'Acharecha Yirash Ploni, ve'Acharei Acharecha, Yirash Ploni' in the event that ...

1. ... things follow that course?

2. ... the second candidate (the first Ploni) dies before the first recipient?

(b)What does Rav Ashi prove from here?

(c)We are after all, talking about the same field. On what grounds does Rav Ashi compare it to two fields?

7)

(a)Rav Ashi queries our Sugya from another Beraisa, which rules in the case 'Nechasai Lach ve'Acharecha Yirash Peloni, ve'Acharei Acharecha, Yirash Ploni', in the event that ...

1. ... things follow that course that we follow his instructions to the letter.

2. ... the second candidate (the first Ploni) dies before the first recipient that the first recipient's heirs inherit the property after him.

(b)Rav Ashi proves from here that the Lashon Matanah ('Nechasai Lach') is effective even with regard to two fields and two recipients.

(c)Even though we are talking about the same field, Rav Ashi Rav Ashi compares it to two fields because the two recipients only acquire it one after the other, and not simultaneously.

8)

(a)How do we attempt to answer Rav Ashi's Kashya?

(b)We have a problem with this answer however, based on a statement by Rav Acha Brei d'Rav Avya. What did Rav Acha Brei d'Rav Avya say regarding Rebbi Yochanan? How does that refute our attempted answer?

(c)What is the reason for this?

(d)So what is our conclusion?

8)

(a)We attempt to answer Rav Ashi's Kashya like Rav Sheshes answered his own, by establishing it by the next of kin, and according to Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah.

(b)We have a problem with this answer however, based on a statement by Rav Acha Brei de'Rav Ivya, who said that according to Rebbi Yochanan 'Nechasai Lach ve'Acharecha li'Peloni, ve'Rishon Ra'uy le'Yorsho, Ein le'Sheini be'Makom Rishon'. Likewise in the Reisha of the Beraisa, having established the author as Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, Acharecha ought not to inherit either.

(c)The reason for this is because according to Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, unless the father specifically uses a Lashon Matanah, an heir inherits as a Yoresh, and not as a beneficiary, in which case no condition is possible, and his children will inherit him, and not 'Acharecha'.

(d)We therefore conclude with a Kashya on all the above opinions except for Ravin citing Rebbi Yochanan and Rav Sheshes, as well as Reish Lakish, as we shall now see.

9)

(a)Why can the Beraisa not be a Kashya on Reish Lakish?

(b)Then how do we reconcile the Beraisa, which validates a Lashon Yerushah after a Lashon Matanah even in a case of two fields and two people (even not in the way prescribed by Reish Lakish) with Reish Lakish?

(c)Why can we not answer the Kashya on the other Amora'im in the same way? How do we know that the Lashon Matanah does not effect the Lashon Yerushah by two fields and two people, even where they are said 'Toch Kedei Dibur' (according to them)?

9)

(a)We know that the Beraisa cannot be a Kashya on Reish Lakish because then Rava would not have ruled like him in this case, as he did in Yevamos (against Rebbi Yochanan, together with two other cases).

(b)We reconcile the Beraisa, which validates a Lashon Yerushah after a Lashon Matanah even in a case of two fields and two people (even not in the way prescribed by Reish Lakish) like Reish Lakish by establishing it by 'Toch Kedei Dibur', where Reish Lakish would concede its effectiveness.

(c)We cannot answer the Kashya on the other Amora'im in the same way because had they been lenient with regard to two fields and two people (even 'Toch Kedei Dibur'), then that is the case that they ought to have presented, rather than one field and two people or one person and two fields (which we would have understood ourselves from a 'Kal va'Chomer', even 'Achar Kedei Dibur').

10)

(a)What ruling do we issue with regard to 'Toch Kedei Dibur'? In which two cases is it not considered ke'Dibur?

(b)What are the ramifications of this ruling with regard to ...

1. ... Avodas Kochavim?

2. ... Kidushin?

(c)What will the Din now be where someone says two things 'Toch Kedei Dibur, assuming that ...

1. ... both of them are conceivable (such as 'Harei Zu Temuras Olah, Temuras Shelamim')?

2. ... one of them can take effect, and the one cannot (such as Matanah and Yerushah, in our case)?

3. ... the two statements contradict each other (such as ''Midah be'Chavel', 'Hein Chaser, Hein Yeser' that we learned in Perek Beis Kur)?

(d)What is the common basis for all these Halachos? How do we view two statements that are made 'Toch Kedei Dibur'?

10)

(a)We rule that 'Toch Kedei Dibur ke'Dibur Dami', with the sole exceptions of Avodas Kochavim and Kidushin.

(b)The ramifications of this ruling with regard to ...

1. ... Avodas Kochavim are that if someone designates or sets aside an object for idolatrous purposes, it remains Asur be'Hana'ah (due to Chumra de'Avodas Kochavim), even if he retracts from his designation 'Toch Kedei Dibur' .

2. ... Kidushin are that if someone betroths a woman with money, which he switches over to a gift 'Toch Kedei Dibur', the Kidushin remains intact (and she is considered Safek Mekudeshes, since it is only a Chumra d'Rabanan).

(c)When someone says two things 'Toch Kedei Dibur, assuming that ...

1. ... both of them are conceivable (such as 'Harei Zu Temuras Olah, Temuras Shelamim') then both of them take effect (and he sells the animal in question, using half the proceeds to buy an Olah, and half, to buy a Shelamim.

2. ... one of them can take effect, and the one cannot (such as Matanah and Yerushah, in our case) then we ignore the one that cannot take effect, and apply the one that can.

3. ... the two statements contradict each other (such as ''Midah be'Chavel', 'Hein Chaser, Hein Yeser' that we learned in Perek Beis Kur) then the Din varies, depending upon circumstances, as we discussed there.

(d)All these Halachos are based on the fact that we consider whatever is said 'Toch Kedei Dibur' as if the speaker meant both statements to take effect (rather than saying that he changed his mind).

11)

(a)Under what circumstances is 'Toch Kedei Dibur' not considered 'Kedei Dibur' in all cases?

11)

(a)'Toch Kedei Dibur' is not considered 'Kedei Dibur' in all cases in the event that he specifically said that he was retracting.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF