Mishnah 1
1)
(a)If Reuven and Shimon declare a Neder Hana'h on each other, the Tana Kama forbids them to enter the Chatzer that they share. What does Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov say?
(b)What size Chatzer are they arguing over?
(c)What is the basis of their Machlokes? To which principle is it linked?
(d)What would they hold with regard to a smaller Chatzer?
(e)Like whom is the Halachah?
1)
(a)If Reuven and Shimon declare a Neder Hana'h on each other, the Tana Kama forbids them to enter the Chatzer that they share - Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov - permits it.
(b)They are arguing over a Chatzer - that measures twelve Amos long and four Amos wide (so that each one is entitled to four by four Amos, with the middle four jointly-owned.
(c)Their Machlokes is based on - whether we hold 'Yesh B'reirah' (Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov) or not (the Tana Kama [See also Tos. Yom-Tov, DH 'ha'Shutfim' B'AD 've'Kasav Od']).
(d)With regard to a smaller Chatzer - Rebbi Eliezer ban Ya'akov will agree that they are both forbidden to enter it.
(e)The Halachah is - like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov (See opening Tos. Yom-Tov).
2)
(a)The ruling prohibiting them both from setting up a mill in the Chatzer or rearing chickens there goes even according to Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. On what grounds does he concede this? Why is 'Yesh B'reirah' not applicable here?
(b)In a case where only Shimon is Mudar Hana'ah from Reuven, the Tana Kama issues the same ruling as in the first case. What does Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov say?
(c)What, according to him, can Shimon say to Reuven?
2)
(a)The ruling prohibiting them both from setting up a mill in the Chatzer or rearing chickens there goes even according to Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, who concedes that 'Yesh B'reirah' is not applicable here - because, since each one refrains from stopping the other one from doing so, he automatically benefits him (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(b)In a case where only Shimon is Mudar Hana'ah from Reuven, the Tana Kama issues the same ruling as in the initial case - and so does Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov (See Tos. Yom-Tov) ...
(c)... because Shimon can say to Reuven - 'I am entering my own space and not yours!'
3)
(a)The Tana concludes that we force Shimon to sell his part of the Chatzer. Why is that?
(b)To which of the above cases does this ruling pertain?
(c)Why is it confined to a case where Shimon was Madir the Neder on himself, but not where Reuven was Madir him?
(d)One of the reasons for this is because, if Reuven were to be Madir him, he would be an Oneis. What is the other reason?
3)
(a)The Tana concludes that we force Shimon to sell his part of the Chatzer - because we are afraid that, when he sees Reuven entering any part of the Chatzer, he will forget and follow suit.
(b)This ruling pertains specifically -to where only Shimon is Mudar Hana'ah, but not Reuven (See also Tos. Yom-Tov).
(c)Moreover, it is confined to a case where Shimon was Madir himself, but not where Reuven was Madir him ...
(d)... because he is an Oneis, and - because if one were to allow it, every Shutaf could force his partner to sell out to him by declaring an Isur Hana'ah on him.
Mishnah 2
4)
(a)What do the Tana Kama and Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov respectively, say about Levi, who is Mudar Hana'ah from either Reuven or Shimon, entering the Chatzer?
(b)According to which Tana is the Chidush?
4)
(a)With regard to Levi, who is Mudar Hana'ah from either Reuven or Shimon, entering the Chatzer - the Tana Kama and Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov follow their previous respective rulings.
(b)The Chidush is that - even though Levi does not own a portion in the Chatzer, Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov nevertheless permits Levi to enter the Chatzer due to 'Yesh B'reirah' (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
Mishnah 3
5)
(a)If Reuven is Mudar Hana'ah from Shimon, on what condition is he permitted to benefit from the bathhouse or the oil-press that the latter owns in the city and that he has rented out (See Tos. Yom-Tov)?
(b)What is a good example of what Shimon retains that will forbid Reuven to benefit from it?
5)
(a)If Reuven is Mudar Hana'ah from Shimon, he is permitted to benefit from the bathhouse or the oil-press that the latter has rented out in the city- provided Shimon has not retained any part of the bathhouse or the oil-press for his own use (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(b)A good example of this will be - the water-pit.
6)
(a)If Reuven says to Shimon 'Konam le'Beischa she'Ani Nichnas' or 'Konam Sadcha she'Ani Loke'ach' and Shimon dies, his Neder is negated. What if Shimon subsequently sells the house or the field to Levi?
(b)What would Reuven have to say to Shimon for the house or the field to remain forbidden under all the above circumstances?
(c)What is the reason for this distinction?
6)
(a)The Mishnah rules that if Reuven says to Shimon 'Konam le'Beischa she'Ani Nichnas' or 'Konam Sadcha she'Ani Loke'ach', and Shimon dies, his Neder is negated - and the same will apply if Shimon sells the house or the field to Levi.
(b)For the house or the field to remain forbidden under all the above circumstances, Reuven have to say to Shimon - 'Konam le'Bayis Zeh she'Ani Nichnas' or 'Konam Sadeh Zeh she'Ani Loke'ach'.
(c)The reason for this distinction is - because whereas 'Beischa' and 'Sadcha' imply 'as long as it is yours', 'Bayis Zeh' and 'Sadcha Zeh' imply as long as they exist.
Mishnah 4
7)
(a)What does Reuven mean when he says to Shimon ...
1. ... 'Hareini alecha Cherem!'
2. ... 'Harei At (See Tos. Yom-Tov) alai Cherem!'?
(b)What would he have to say for the Isur Hana'ah to be mutual?
(c)In the latter case, they are both permitted to benefit from what belongs to Olei Bavel. What is this referring to?
(d)Why is that?
(e)Then why are they forbidden to benefit from what belongs to all the residents of their town?
7)
(a)When Reuven says to Shimon ...
1. ... 'Hareini alecha Cherem!', he means that - deriving benefit is forbidden to Shimon like a Cherem (See Tos. Yom-Tov DH 'Hareini alecha', 'Cherem' & 'ha'Mudar Asur').
2. ... 'Harei At alai Cherem!', he means that - deriving benefit from Shimon is forbidden to him like a Cherem.
(b)For the Isur Hana'ah to be mutual, he would have to say - 'Hareini alecha ve'At alai Cherem!'(See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(c)In the latter case, they are both permitted to benefit from what belongs to Olei Bavel - with reference to the public wells that were dug along the route from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael, for the benefit of the Olei Regel ...
(d)... because those wells are for the public to use, and are Hefker ...
(e)... and the reason that they are forbidden to benefit from what belongs to all the residents of their town is - because all the town's residents are considered joint owners (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
Mishnah 5
8)
(a)Besides the above-mentioned water-pit and the Har ha'Bayis, what else does the Tana list as belonging to the Olei Bavel?
(b)In what category does he place the town-square and the bathhouse?
(c)Which other two items, besides the Shul, does he place in that category?
8)
(a)Besides the above-mentioned water-pit and the Har ha'Bayis, the Tana includes in is list of things that belong to the Olei Bavel - the Azaros of the Beis-ha'Mikdash (See Tos. Yom-Tov).
(b)On the other hand, he places the town-square and the bathhouse - in the category of what belongs to the residents of the town.
(c)Besides the Shul (See Tos.Yom-Tov)- he also places the Aron ha'Kodesh and the Sefarim in the latter category.
9)
(a)What is the Tana Kama referring to when he suggests that one write one's property to the Nasi?
(b)What does Rebbi Yehudah say about that?
(c)What Halachic difference is there, according to him between whether he writes his property to the Nasi or to someone else?
(d)How will such a Kinyan be performed?
(e)Why is the Kinyan not necessary in the case of the Nasi?
9)
(a)When the Tana Kama advises that one write one's property to the Nasi - he is simply suggesting a way to circumvent the prohibition of lending one's friend in the previous cases, by writing one's portion in the public-square ... to the Nasi, thereby permitting him to use it.
(b)Rebbi Yehudah says - that may just as well write one's portion to a Hedyot (an ordinary person)...
(c)... only then, unlike when writing it to the Nasi - it will require a Kinyan ...
(d)... which is performed - by asking a third person to acquire it on his behalf.
(e)The Kinyan is not necessary in the case of the Nasi - because, due to his dignified status, the owner is Makneh his portion even without it ('Gamar u'Makni').
10)
(a)What do the Chachamim of Rebbi Yehudah say?
(b)Then why, according to them, did Chazal say specifically the Nasi?
10)
(a)According to the Chachamim of Rebbi Yehudah - the Nasi requires a Kinyan no less than a Hedyot (See Tos. Yom-Tov DH 'va'Chachamim Omrim' & 'Echad Zeh ... ') ...
(b)... and Chazal only mentioned the Nasi - because that is the more common thing to do.
11)
(a)What does Rebbi Yehudah also say about the men of the Galil regarding the current issue?
(b)Why did their fathers do that?
11)
(a)Rebbi Yehudah also rules - that the men of the Galil do not need to write their property to the Nasi, since their fathers already did it on their behalf.
(b)They did that - due to the fact the men of Galil tended to be particularly quarrelsome, often ending up by being Noder Hana'ah on one another. So they all wrote out their portion in the town-square to the Nasi.
Mishnah 6
12)
(a)What does the Mishnah permit Shimon to do if Reuven, who is Mudar Hana'ah from him, has no food and he wants to sustain him?
(b)The Tana tells a story about a man in Beis Choron whose father was Mudar Hana'ah from him. How did he involve his friend in an effort to allow his father to participate in his (own) son's wedding?
(c)What did he say to him?
(d)What did the friend ...
1. ... initially state?
2. ... comment, when the son claimed that he did not give him his property for him to declare Hekdesh?
12)
(a)If Reuve, who is Mudar Hana'ah from Shimon, has no food and Shimon wants to sustain him - the Mishnah permit him to give Levi food as an unconditional gift, from which Reuven will be able to benefit (See Tos.Yom-Tov).
(b)The Tana tells a story about a man in Beis Choron whose father was Mudar Hana'ah from him. In an effort to allow his father to participate in his (own) son's wedding - he gave the Chatzer together with the entire wedding feast to his friend ...
(c)... stipulating that it would only be his on condition that his father would come and join in the festivities.
(d)The friend ...
1. ... initially stated - that if the Chatzer now belonged to him, he duly declared it Hekdesh.
2. ... commented, when the son claimed that he did not give him his property for him to declare Hekdesh - that clearly, the son only gave him his the gift in order to be (sinfully) reunited with his father - and that he would have to bear the brunt of the guilt.
13)
(a)The Chachamim agreed with the friend. What did they have in mind when they referred to the gift as 'Matanah she'Einah'?
(b)What exactly did they mean by it?
(c)What is therefore the conclusion?
13)
(a)The Chachamim agreed with the friend. When they referred to the gift as 'Matanah she'Einah' - they had in mind a 'Matanah al-M'nas Lehachzir (a temporary gift, which is at least valid for the specified time) ...
(b)... unlike the current one, which was not valid at all.
(c)They therefore concluded that any gift which the recipient is unable to declare Hekdesh is not valid.
