1)

(a)We just explained that Rebbi Yochanan holds 'Ein Bereirah'. He says that if brothers divided the inheritance that they inherited from their father they are obligated to redistribute the entire property when Yovel arrives, as if they had purchased their respective rights from one another.

(b)If he held 'Yesh Bereirah' the brothers would be able to retain whatever they initially received (because then they would be 'Yorshin' and not 'Lekuchos'.

(c)Had Rebbi Yochanan only said 'Ein Bereirah' in the case of ...

1. ... Get, but not by brothers we would have confined it to Get, where the Torah writes "Lah" 'Lishmah', but would not have applied it to brothers who inherit, since it is only a sale that goes back in the Yovel, but not an inheritance.

2. ... brothers, but not by Get (if we read 'Mishum dle'Chumra') we would have perhaps thought that Rebbi Yochanan has a Safek (whether 'Yesh Bereirah' or 'Ein Bereirah). Consequently, he rules 'Ein Bereirah' l'Chumra (in the case of brothers who inherit), but not l'Kula (in the case of Get).

(d)If we read 'ki'Techilah' (instead of 'Mishum dle'Chumra') in the last distinction, then we will say that had Rebbi Yochanan not repeated his ruling by the case of Get, we would have thought that maybe his ruling in the case of brothers inheriting is not due to 'Ein Bereirah', but because that is how Yehoshua bin Nun distributed the land originally, one portion to one person (but never to more than one). Elsewhere however, we would have thought that he holds 'Yesh Bereirah'.

2)

(a)Rav Hoshaya asked Rav Yehudah whether, in the case of the man (who had two wives had the same name and) who asked the Sofer to write a Get in the name of whichever wife came out of the door first the Get was valid (because 'Yesh Bereirah'), or not (because 'Ein Bereirah').

(b)Rav answered him from our Mishnah where, in the case when the husband asked the Sofer to write the Get for whichever wife he would ultimately decide, the Tana invalidates it, because he holds 'Ein Bereirah'.

3)

(a)In the case cited by the Tana in the Beraisa, of the man who informed his children that he was slaughtering the Korban Pesach on behalf of the first one to arrive in Yerushalayim the Tana concludes that, whoever arrives in Yerushalayim first, merits a portion for himself as well as for all his siblings.

(b)Rav Yehudah refutes Rav Hoshaya's proof from there (that we hold 'Yesh Bereirah') with Rebbi Yochanan who explains that the father's sole intention was to encourage his children to hurry to Yerushalayim, and not to exclude any of his children from the Korban Pesach.

(c)And he proves Rebbi Yochanan's interpretation from the very words of the Tana who adds that the one to arrive first in Yerushalayim, merits a portion in the Korban Pesach for all his siblings too. Now if the father really meant what he said, on what grounds would the other siblings be permitted to receive a portion of the Korban Pesach, seeing as they were not designated on it when it was Shechted?

(d)We further substantiate this with another Beraisa, where the Tana relates how in an actual case, the daughters arrived in Yerushalayim first and he concludes by praising the daughters and denigrating the sons. He did not say however, that the daughters earned themselves a portion in their father's Korban Pesach, and the sons did not.

4)

(a)The problem that Abaye has with the inconsistency of Rav Hoshaya's She'eilah (regarding whichever wife leaves the house first), Rav Yehudah's reply (from whichever wife he decides to divorce), and Rav Hoshaya's subsequent Kashya (from the case of the Korban Pesach) is that the She'eilah concerns a case of 'Toleh b'Da'as Acherim' (where the outcome is not in his control), the reply, a case of 'Toleh b'Da'as Atzmo' (where there is more reason to say 'Ein Bereirah', as we shall see), and the subsequent Kashya again from a case of 'Toleh b'Da'as Acherim'.

(b)There is less reason to say 'Yesh Bereirah' in a case of 'Toleh b'Da'as Atzmo' than in one of 'Toleh b'Da'as Acherim' because in the former case, the very fact that he made such a condition demonstrates that he is currently undecided which to choose. Consequently, it is not possible to say that when he decides, his decision will work retroactively (which constitutes Bereirah); whereas in the latter case, where he relied entirely on circumstances outside his jurisdiction, it may well be that he does intend it to.

(c)Rava rejects Abaye's Kashya on the grounds that the onus lies on Abaye to prove that such a distinction exists, failing which, we will say that those who hold 'Yesh Bereirah', do so in all circumstances, and the same holds for those who hold 'Ein Bereirah'.

5)

(a)Rebbi Meir permits drinking wine that one purchased from Kusim (on Erev Shabbos if he was unable to separate the Ma'asros before Shabbos arrived). He rules that, assuming that he purchased one hundred Lugin, he is obligated to verbally separate ...

1. ... two Lugin as Terumah.

2. ... ten (actually a bit less, see Tosfos DH, 'Asarah') as Ma'aser Rishon.

3. ... and ten (a bit less still) as Ma'aser Sheni.

(b)In spite of what we have learned that Amei ha'Aretz are not suspect on Terumah, it is nevertheless necessary to separate Terumah from produce purchased from Kusim, because Kusim are suspect on Terumah, too (in fact they are suspect on whatever they sold to a Yisrael, because they were not particular about the Lav of 'Lifnei Iver Lo Siten Michshol').

(c)This entire Halachah will not apply nowadays because Chazal subsequently discovered that the Kusim were idolaters and they declared them Nochrim in all respects.

6)

(a)Rebbi Meir permits drinking the wine immediately even before having actually separated the Ma'asros from it, because he holds 'Yesh Bereirah' (in which case the Ma'asros that he will separate later will take effect retroactively.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah, Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Shimon forbid drinking the wine before Ma'asros have actually been taken.

(c)According to Rav Mesharshiya, Rebbi Yehudah's reason is because of 'Ein Bereirah'.

7)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah states in a Mishnah later that if someone says to his wife 'Zeh Gitech Me'achshav Im Meisi me'Choli Zeh', she has the status of a married woman during the interim period, even if he does die from the illness. The ramifications of Rebbi Yehudah's ruling ...

1. ... assuming the husband is a Kohen is that she is permitted to eat Terumah.

2. ... even if he is not that she is Chayav Misah, should she commit adultery during that period.

(b)We can extrapolate from the fact that Rebbi Yehudah nevertheless validates the Get should he die from the illness, that Rebbi Yehudah holds 'Yesh Bereirah' by 'Toleh b'Da'as Acherim' because otherwise, due to the principle 'Ein Get l'Achar Misah', the Get ought not to be valid.

(c)If not for Bereirah, the Get would be invalid because of 'Ein Get l'Achar Misah' because we are dealing with a situation that will be determined by circumstances beyond his control. This differs from other conditions that need to be fulfilled after the Get takes place, and when they are, the Get is valid retroactively, even without Bereirah because there, we have a situation where he definitely wants the Get to take place, but under certain conditions that are within his control to fulfill (conditions which could not have been fulfilled earlier).

8)

(a)In another Beraisa, the Tana Kama rules that where a man says to a woman 'Hareini Bo'alech Al Menas she'Yirtzeh Aba' she is betrothed, even if the woman's father did not consent to the betrothal because of the principle 'Ein Adam Oseh Be'ilaso Be'ilas Znus'.

(b)Rebbi Shimon (who concurs with the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa of 'ha'Lokei'ach Yayin mi'Bein ha'Kusim') disagrees. Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah quotes him as saying that she is not betrothed unless her father agrees to the Kidushin.

(c)We extrapolate from here that Rebbi Shimon holds 'Yesh Bereirah' because it is clear that even he will concede that she is betrothed retroactively, in the event that her father agrees.

9)

(a)Rav Mesharshiya now extrapolates from this Beraisa that Rebbi Shimon holds 'Yesh Bereirah' by Toleh b'Da'as Acherim, and from that of 'ha'Lokei'ach Yayin' that he holds 'Ein Bereirah' by Toleh b'Da'as Atzmo' (a Kashya on Rava, who maintains that the Tana'im make no distinction between the two, as we learned above).

(b)Rava replies that both Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon hold 'Yesh Bereirah', and the reason they forbid the person who purchased wine from a Kusi to drink it before having actually separated it is (not because they hold 'Ein Bereirah' but) because they suspect that the flask containing the wine might break, before he has a chance to separate the Ma'asros that he already declared. And since he did not actually separate them, it will transpire that he drank Tevel.

(c)The Tana'im who argue with Rebbi Meir specifically gave this reason in another Beraisa to which Rebbi Meir replied 'leshe'Yibaka!' 'We will worry when it breaks!' because it is unusual for the flask to break in such a short space of time, so we do not contend with it.