Question: Do Yados work for Tzedakah?

Question: What is the case?

If he said "this coin is for Tzedakah, and this one, too", that is Tzedakah itself!

Answer: The case is, he said only "and this", without saying "too";

Does he mean "and this one is also for Tzedakah", or "and this one is for expenditures"?

In the Parashah of Korbanos it says "b'Ficha", to teach about Tzedakah. We ask whether the Hekesh teaches that Yados work also for Tzedakah, or if it teaches only about Bal Te'acher.

Question: Do Yados work for Hefker?

Question: Surely, this is like Tzedakah! (People make Hefker so the poor will take!)

Answer: We ask, if you will say that Yados work for Tzedakah because a Hekesh equates the matters in every respect, is Hefker just like Tzedakah?

Or, is Hefker different, for it is even for rich people?

Question (Ravina): Do Yados work for Beis ha'Kisei (a privy, to forbid Kri'as Shema there)?

Question: What is the case?

If he said "this enclosure will be a Beis ha'Kisei, and this one, too", surely also the latter is a Beis ha'Kisei!

Answer: The case is, he said only "and this one" without saying "too";

Does he mean that it also will be a Beis ha'Kisei, or that it will be it for other uses?

Question: Ravina's question assumes that designation for a Beis ha'Kisei takes effect. Elsewhere, Ravina asked whether designation for a Beis ha'Kisei or bathhouse takes effect!

Answer: He asked whether designation takes effect, and if it does, whether or not Yados work.

These questions are not resolved. (Some say that Yad works for Tzedakah, for the Gemara said 'if you will say...')

(Mishnah): R. Akiva was inclined to be stringent about one who said 'I am Menudeh to you.'

(Abaye): R. Akiva agrees that he is not lashed.

(Rav Papa): If he said "Nedina (I am distanced from benefit) from you", all agree that he is forbidden. (He said "Nedina that I will eat from you", and he is lashed if he transgresses.) If he said "Meshamtana from you", all agree that he is permitted. (This connotes excommunication, not a Neder.) They argue about "Menudeh";

R. Akiva holds that this is like Nedina. Chachamim hold that it is like Meshamtana.

Rav Papa argues with R. Chisda.

A case occurred in which a man said "Meshamtana from the property of R. Yirmiyah's son." Rav Chisda said "no one is concerned for R. Akiva's opinion."

R. Chisda holds that they argue about Meshamtana.

(R. Ila): If Levi was present when he was excommunicated, it can be permitted only in his presence (lest he suspect that others who do not abide by it are transgressing).

If he was not present, it can be permitted whether or not he is present.

(Rav Chanin): If David hears Reuven say Hash-m's Name in vain, he must excommunicate Reuven. If he does not, David should be excommunicated.

This is because poverty frequents places where Hash-m's Name is taken in vain, and poverty is like death;

Hash-m told Moshe "all the men (who sought to kill you, i.e. Dasan and Aviram) have died." (They were still alive, but Hash-m said that they died because they became poor.)

Whenever Chachamim saw something worthy of punishment, death or poverty resulted.

(R. Aba): A woman said Hash-m's Name in vain in front of Rav Huna. He excommunicated her, and instantly released her, in her presence.

We learn three things from this:

If one hears someone say Hash-m's Name in vain, he must excommunicate him.

If one was present when he was excommunicated, it can be permitted only in his presence.

One may be permitted immediately after he was excommunicated.

(Rav Gidal): A Chacham can excommunicate himself and permit himself.

Objection: This is obvious!

Answer: One might have thought that he cannot, for a prisoner cannot release himself.

Question: What is the case?

Answer: It is a case like Mar Zutra. If a Talmid needed to be excommunicated, Mar Zutra would excommunicate himself first. When he got home, he would permit himself, and then permit the Talmid. (Ran - the Rashba says that he can permit himself only in such a case, when he did not deserve to be excommunicated. Presumably, his text did not say above 'this is obvious!')