1)

(a)Rabah bar bar Chanah lost the Get that he was bringing from a husband to his wife, in the Beis ha'Medrash.

(b)Based on the fact that he gave a clear Si'man, he harbored doubts as to whether they returned it to him because of the Simanim, or because he also had Tevi'as Ayin (he recognized it generally, even without the identification marks).

(c)The difference between Si'manim and Tevi'as Ayin is that anyone is believed regarding the former, whereas the latter is confined to Talmidei-Chachamim.

2)

(a)We cited the Beraisa 'Matza Get Ishah be'Shuk bi'Z'man she'ha'Ba'al Modeh Yachzir la'Ishah'. If the husband claims that he has already paid the Tana rules 'Lo Yachzir Lo la'Zeh ve'Lo la'Zeh'.

(b)The problem with returning the Sh'tar in the Reisha is the possibility that the Get was written in Nisan but only handed to the woman in Tishri, and we are afraid that the husband will then eat the fruit (legally it transpires), but the wife will subsequently claim from the purchasers the fruit that he ate between Nisan and Tishri (claiming that he ate it after the divorce), causing an illegal loss to the purchasers.

(c)The Kashya is automatically answered according to those who forbid the husband to eat the Peiros of his wife's Nechsei Milug from the moment he makes up his mind to divorce her.

(d)According to those who permit him to, we solve the problem by insisting that a woman (whose Get was lost and found, and who comes to claim from the purchasers) must prove that she actually received the Get in Nisan before being permitted to claim from the purchasers.

3)

(a)The Mishnah earlier in the Masechta rules in a case where someone finds Sh'tarei Chov which contain Acharayus Nechasim 'Lo Yachzir' (even though the debtor admits that he has not yet paid) because we are afraid that the Sh'tar may have been written in Nisan, though the loan only took place in Tishri, and the creditor will (illegally) claim from Meshubadim that the purchaser bought between Nisan and Tishri.

(b)We do not permit him to return the Sh'tar there too (like we do here), and when the creditor claims from the purchaser, order him to bring proof as to when he received the Sh'tar, before being permitted to claim because the purchaser will have no reason to suspect Beis-Din of returning the lost Sh'tar for any ulterior motive other than that the Sh'tar is Kasher. Consequently, it will not enter his mind to make such a demand of the creditor.

(c)And the reason we are lenient in the case of the woman is because, there the purchaser will suspect that Beis-Din only returned the Sh'tar to enable the woman to remarry, but not because it is Kasher. Consequently, when she produces it, he will challenge her, and Beis-Din will order her to bring proof of when she received it.

4)

(a)We learned in a Beraisa that someone who finds Shichrurei Avadim in the street, should return them to the Eved as long as his master admits that he set him free, but not if he denies it. We might suspect that the master wrote the Sh'tar in Nisan, but only handed it to the Eved in Tishri. Meanwhile, the Eved purchased property between Nisan and Tishri, which the master subsequently sold, and which the Eved now claims, after producing his Sh'tar Shichrur which predates the sale.

(b)We could reply that, based on the principle 'Zachin le'Adam she'Lo be'Fanav', this Tana holds that it is a Z'chus for the Eved to go free because he is subsequently permitted to marry a Kasher bas Yisrael.

(c)We will also need to establish the Beraisa like Abaye who holds 'Eidav ba'Chasumav Zachin Lo'. Consequently, the property really did belong to the Eved at the time that his master sold it.

5)

(a)The problem will be if the Tana holds like those who consider it detrimental for an Eved to go free. This is because, assuming that his master is ...

1. ... a Kohen he will no longer be able to eat Terumah (which is cheap and comes in abundance).

2. ... a Yisrael, he becomes forbidden to live with a Shifchah Cana'anis, who is 'cheap' in his eyes (he can do with her as he pleases), is always available to him and has no inhibitions.

(b)The problem will then be that even according to Abaye, the Eved will not acquire the property retroactively, because of the principle 'Ein Chavin le'Adam she'Lo be'Fanav'.

(c)We solve the problem in exactly the same way as we solved that of returning a Get, by demanding that the Eved brings proof that he received the Get Shichrur in Nisan, before he will be able to claim the property (and here it is obvious that the purchaser will demand this from the Eved, since he will want to know why the Eved is claiming property, which he (the purchaser) bought from the master).

6)

(a)A 'Daiteki' ('Da Tehei le'Meikam ve'li'Heyos' [This stands to become established]) is the Sh'tar of a Matnas Shechiv-Mera (a Goseis [on his death-bed])?

(b)The basic difference between ...

1. ... a Matnas Shechiv-Mera and a Matnas Bari is the fact that the former is valid with words alone and does not require a Kinyan ('Divrei Shechiv-Mera ki'Chesuvin ve'chi'Mesurin Dami'), whereas the latter does.

2. ... the time that each one takes effect is that the former takes effect after the donor's death, the latter, during his lifetime.

(c)The Tana describes a Matnas Bari (the gift of a healthy person) as 'Kol she'Kasuv Bo me'Hayom u'le'Achar Misah'. The connotations of 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Misah' are the Guf (the actual property as from today, and the Peiros (the right to benefit from it) after the owner's death.

(d)The ramifications of the statement 'me'Hayom' are that the donor no longer has the right to sell it, give it or bequeath it to anybody else.

7)

(a)To describe a Matnas Bari (the gift of a healthy person) as 'Kol she'Kasuv bo me'Hayom u'le'Achar Misah' makes no sense because it implies that if he would not have added 'u'le'Achar Misah', the Matanah would not take effect, whereas it is obvious that if Reuven gives Shimon both the Guf and the Peiros from today, there is no reason for the gift not to take effect immediately.

(b)Abaye therefore explains that the Tana is coming to teach us that if one adds to a Matnas Bari the phrase 'me'Hayom u'le'Achar Misah', it means the Guf from today and the Peiros after death, as we explained. Otherwise, a Matnas Bari cannot take effect after death).

8)

(a)The statement in our Mishnah 'Matza Gitei Nashim ve'Dayteki ... Lo Yachzir, she'Ani Omer' implies that if the donor were to say 'T'nu', the Daiteki would be returned. The Beraisa says that the finder of 'Daiteka'os, Apoteka'os (a Sh'tar designating a specific field as repayment for an oral loan) and Matanos' may not return them even with the consent of both parties.

(b)Rebbi Aba bar Mamal resolves the obvious discrepancy by establishing the Mishnah by a Matnas Shechiv-Mera and the Beraisa by a Matnas Bari. The basic difference between ...

1. ... them in this context is that whereas the former may retract, the latter may not.

2. ... the wording of a Matnas Shechiv-Mera and of a Matnas Bari is that in the former, one needs to add that the Sh'tar was written whilst the donor was lying on his death-bed, whereas the latter does not.

(c)The scenario that therefore worries us if the Sh'tar is a Matnas Bari, but not if it is a Matnas Shechiv-Mera is that the donor may have written this Sh'tar for Reuven and not given it to him, but that he had given a second Sh'tar (irrespective of whether it was a Matnas Shechiv-Mera or Bari), to Shimon, and that he now wants the first Sh'tar (the one that was lost) to be give to Reuven.

(d)We...

1. ... return the Sh'tar if it is a Matnas Shechiv-Mera because, seeing as the first Sh'tar (which he wants returned to Reuven now) is predated, even assuming that he did give a later Sh'tar to Shimon, we have nothing to fear. Why is that? Because seeing as a Shechiv-Mera is permitted to retract, Shimon, whose Sh'tar is dated later than Reuven's, will be the one to (rightfully) receive the gift.

2. ... not return the Sh'tar if it is a Matnas Bari because, since a Bari is not permitted to retract, we are afraid that Reuven (who will be the last one to receive the Sh'tar) will produce his pre-dated Sh'tar and (illegally) claim the field.

9)

(a)In the previous case, assuming that the donor is genuine and that there is no Shimon, then to satisfy Beis-Din (who do not know this) he should write Reuven a fresh Sh'tar with today's date (in which case, even if there were a Shimon, he will not be threatened by Reuven's Sh'tar, seeing as his Sh'tar predates it).

10)

(a)The problem Rav Z'vid has with Rebbi Aba bar Mamal's interpretation of the Beraisa is that the Tana says 'Daiteka'os', so how can we interpret this as 'Matnos Bari'?

(b)Rav Z'vid therefore explains the Mishnah in the same way as Rebbi Aba bar Mamal did, only he establishes the Beraisa he where it is the son of the now deceased Shechiv-Mera who agrees to the return of the Sh'tar. We ought not to return it in case it was written on behalf of Reuven, but never given to him, and then, after his father's death, the son handed a Sh'tar presenting Shimon with the same field. And he now wishes to retract from his (valid) gift, by giving his father's (pre-dated) Sh'tar to Reuven.

(c)Assuming that the son did not give the field to Shimon, and his father's Sh'tar is therefore valid, to satisfy Beis-Din he will have to write a fresh Sh'tar for Reuven (which would not threaten Shimon, even if he did, as we explained earlier).

(d)Our Mishnah states 'she'Ani Omer ... ', implying that if he said 'T'nu', then we do return the Sh'tar. Bearing in mind that the Tana also incorporates Matanos in the Mishnah we confine the inference to a Matnas Shechiv-Mera where the Goseis himself said 'T'nu', but not to a Matnas Bari, or even to Matnas Shechiv-Mera, where it was the son who said 'T'nu'.