1)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava disagrees with the Tana Kama in our Mishnah, who holds that Simanim tend to change after three days. In his opinion, not all people, places or times are the same. What are the two ways of interpreting his opinion?

(b)What did Rav Dimi from Neherda'a rule with regard to the man who drowned in Karmi and whom they brought to Bei Hedya only after three days (and Rava with regard to a similar episode of a man whose body they retrieved from the river Diglas)?

(c)How long after the man drowned did Rava permit his widow to remarry in Pum Sharshevini?

(d)What do we try to prove from these two episodes?

(e)But we finally establish those cases like the Rabanan, on the grounds that water is different. What does this mean? How do we reconcile this with what we learned earlier, that water causes the wound to swell?

1)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava disagrees with the Tana Kama in our Mishnah, who holds that Simanim tend to change after three days. In his opinion, not all people, places or times are the same. We are not sure however - whether he comes to be lenient (to permit testimony even after three days), or to be strict (to forbid it even within three days).

(b)Rav Dimi from Neherda'a - permitted the wife of the man who drowned in Karmi and whom they brought to Bei Hedya only after three days (and so did Rava with regard to a man whose body they retrieved from the river Diglas after three days).

(c)Rava permitted the drowned man widow to remarry in Pum Sharshevini - five days after his death.

(d)We try to prove from these two episodes - that Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava must be more lenient than the Tana Kama, because otherwise, like whom do Rav Dimi and Rava hold?!

(e)But we finally establish those cases like the Rabanan, on the grounds that water is different - because it causes the face to contract (thereby preventing it from swelling); whereas when we learned earlier that water causes a wound to swell, that was specifically when there is a wound (but when there is no none, it has exactly the opposite affect).

2)

(a)Our Mishnah now discusses Mayim she'Ein Lahem Sof. What does that mean?

(b)On what grounds does Rebbi Meir not permit a woman to marry on the basis of a witness who testifies that her husband fell into water and disappeared, even if it is a case of Mayim she'Ein Lahem Sof?

(c)What did Rebbi Meir actually testify about a man who fell into a large pit?

(d)What did Rebbi Yosi testify about a blind man who entered a cave to bathe? In which point does he argue with Rebbi Meir?

(e)In another episode, Rebbi Yosi testified about a man whom they lowered (using a rope - see Tosfos Yom Tov) into the sea via his leg, which they eventually pulled up minus the body. What did the Chachamim rule in that case?

2)

(a)Our Mishnah now discusses Mayim she'Ein Lahem Sof - (somebody who disappears in an endless stretch of water, with no dry land in sight).

(b)According to Rebbi Meir, a woman is not permitted to marry on the basis of a witness who testifies that her husband fell into water and disappeared, even if it a case of Mayim she'Ein Lahem Sof - because Rebbi Meir is of the opinion that a person can survive in water for a day or two.

(c)Rebbi Meir actually testified that a man who fell into a large pit - emerged after three days.

(d)Rebbi Yosi, on the other hand, testified - that a blind man once entered a cave to bathe, and someone went down after him to help him out. When neither of them emerged, the Chachamim waited the amount of time that a person could possibly survive in water (see 9c.), and permitted both wives to remarry.

(e)In another episode, Rebbi Yosi testified about a man whom they lowered (using a rope - see Tosfos Yom Tov) into the sea via his leg, which they eventually pulled up minus the body. The Chachamim ruled there - that, if it was the lower-leg that they pulled up, his wife would be forbidden to marry (because a man can survive without his lower-leg), whereas if it was the upper-leg, she would be permitted (because a man cannot survive without it).

3)

(a)How does Abaye define 'Mayim she'Yesh Lahem Sof'?

(b)What did Shmuel reply when Rav suggested placing a Shamta on Rav Shilo for permitting the wife of a man who had disappeared in the lake of Samki?

(c)Seeing as it was a very large lake, and fell under the category of Mayim she'Ein Lahem Sof, what did Rav Shilo reply when they asked him why he issued such a ruling?

(d)What caused Rav Shilo to make this mistake?

(e)Shmuel applied the Pasuk in Mishlei "Lo Ye'uneh la'Tzadik Kol Aven". Which Pasuk from Mishlei did Rav apply to Shmuel?

3)

(a)Abaye defines 'Mayim she'Yesh Lahem Sof' as - an expanse of water where one can see all four extremities (such as a cave).

(b)When Rav suggested placing a Shamta on Rav Shilo for permitting the wife of a man who had disappeared in the lake of Samki - Shmuel replied that one ought first to ask him why he did it.

(c)When they asked him why he issued such a ruling, Rav Shilo replied that he knew that, in view of the fact that it was a very large lake - it was indeed a case of Mayim she'Ein Lahem Sof, but that he had erred, because the water was in a lake and did not flow (in which case, the drowning man could not swim far, and they would have seen him emerging - like Mayim she'Yesh Lahem Sof).

(d)Rav Shilo made this mistake - because there were waves, which could nevertheless carry a person out of sight without being seen.

(e)Shmuel applied the Pasuk in Mishlei "Lo Ye'uneh la'Tzadik Kol Aven" (no sin will happen to the Tzadik). Rav applied the Pasuk to Shmuel - "Teshu'ah b'Rov Tiva'etz" (salvation comes through much consultation).

4)

(a)Rebbi told the story of two men who were spreading nets in the Jordan River (which was 'Mayim she'Ein Lahem Sof'). What happened to one of the men when he entered a Mechilah shel Dagim (a man-made cavity [for trapping fish] on the bank of the mouth of the river)?

(b)What did Rebbi exclaim at the outcome of the story?

(c)Why do we not contend with the possibility of a Mechilah shel Dagim even by 'Mayim she'Yesh Lahem Sof'?

4)

(a)Rebbi told the story of two men who were spreading nets in the Jordan River (which was 'Mayim she'Ein Lahem Sof'). When one of the men entered a Mechilah shel Dagim (a man-made cavity [for trapping fish] on the bank of the mouth of the river) - his friend could no longer see him, and, believing him to be dead, that is what he informed his family. The following morning at sunrise, the man found the entrance of the Mechilah, and returned home to find a big Hesped taking place over his death.

(b)Rebbi exclaimed how wise were Chazal, who declared that - 'Mayim she'Ein Lahem Sof' does not permit a wife to remarry.

(c)We do not contend with the possibility of a Mechilah shel Dagim even by 'Mayim she'Yesh Lahem Sof' - because it is uncommon to find one there.

5)

(a)On what grounds does Rav Ashi permit the wife of a Talmid-Chacham to remarry by 'Mayim she'Ein Lahem Sof'?

(b)His opinion however, is not accepted. What is in fact, the Halachah?

(c)Raban Gamliel once came across a wrecked boat in mid-ocean, which he recognized as the one that was used by Rebbi Akiva. When he reached dry land, there was Rebbi Akiva! What had happened to him? What do we learn from his actions?

(d)A similar incident occurred to Rebbi Akiva, when he found a wrecked boat in mid-ocean. Who had been the occupant of that boat?

5)

(a)Rav Ashi permits the wife of a Talmid-Chacham to remarry by 'Mayim she'Ein Lahem Sof' - on the grounds that, had he escaped, people would have known about it and word would have spread.

(b)His opinion however, is not accepted. The Halachah is - that by 'Mayim she'Ein Lahem Sof', a woman is not permitted to remarry, but that, if she did, she may remain with her second husband (as we shall see at the end of the Daf).

(c)Raban Gamliel once came across a wrecked boat in mid-ocean, which he recognized as the one that was used by Rebbi Akiva. When he reached dry land, there was Rebbi Akiva - who had held on to a board from the boat, and had been carried from wave to wave, bending his head to each wave as it arrived, and letting it pass over his head, until he reached dry land. Allegorically, we learn from him that one has sometimes to bend to the Resha'im and let them have their way, in order to survive.

(d)A similar incident occurred to Rebbi Akiva, when, in mid-ocean, he found a wrecked boat - whose occupant had been his Talmid, Rebbi Meir.

6)

(a)If witnesses testified that a man fell into a lion's den, his wife is not permitted to marry; into a snake-pit, she is. Why the difference?

(b)On what grounds does the Tana Kama disagree with Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava, who even forbids the wife to marry in the latter case, because he contends with the possibility of his being a snake-charmer?

6)

(a)If witnesses testified that a man fell into a lion's den, his wife is not permitted to marry; into a snake-pit, she is - because, in the former case, there is plenty of room in the den, so, if the lions are not hungry, they will leave him alone. In the latter case however, where the pit is small, he will not be able to avoid treading on the snakes, who will inevitably turn on him.

(b)The Tana Kama disagrees with Rebbi Yehudah ben Bava, who even forbids the wife to marry in the latter case, because he contends with the possibility of his being a snake-charmer - because even if he is, they will not tolerate his treading on them.

121b----------------------------------------121b

7)

(a)What does the Tana Kama say about a case where witnesses inform a woman that her husband fell into ...

1. ... a heated furnace?

2. ... a caldron of boiling wine or oil?

(b)On what grounds does Rebbi Acha differentiate between oil and wine?

(c)How does the Tana Kama counter Rav Acha's argument?

7)

(a)According to the Tana Kama - a woman is permitted to marry on the basis of evidence that her husband fell into ...

1. ... a heated furnace, or into ...

2. ... a caldron of boiling wine or oil.

(b)Rebbi Acha agrees with the Tana Kama regarding oil, because, when it overflows and spills (because someone fell into it) it adds fuel to the flames - but not regarding wine, which, when it spills, simply extinguishes the fire, causing the wine to cool down, in which case, the person who fell into it, will not necessarily burn to death.

(c)The Tana Kama counters - that, although initially, the wine extinguishes the fire, fire-brands on which wine spilt tend to re-ignite and burn even stronger than before.

8)

(a)Rebbi Meir (in our Mishnah) proves from the case of the man who fell into a large pit and who reappeared after three days that, even in a case of 'Mayim she'Yesh Lahem Sof', the woman is forbidden to remarry. The Rabanan counter this with the principle 'Ein Mazkirin Ma'aseh Nisim'. What miracle did they refer to?

(b)What did Rebbi Yochanan say about someone who swears that he will not sleep for three days?

(c)The miracle to which they referred could not have been that the man survived without eating. From where do we know that it is possible to survive three days without eating?

(d)Rebbi Meir counters that there were whole buildings in that pit, on which the man was able to lean and sleep (so it was not really a miracle at all). How does he refute the Chachamim's argument that those buildings were made of marble, which is slippery (and on which one cannot lean)?

8)

(a)Rebbi Meir (in our Mishnah) proves from the man who fell into the large pit and who reappeared after three days that, even in a case of 'Mayim she'Yesh Lahem Sof', the woman is forbidden to marry. The Rabanan counter this with the principle 'Ein Mazkirin Ma'aseh Nisim' - referring to the fact that he remained awake for three days without falling asleep.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan rules that if someone swears that he will not sleep for three days - he receives Malkus (for making a false oath), and is permitted to sleep immediately.

(c)The miracle to which they referred could not have been that the man survived without eating - because it is possible to survive three days without eating, as we see from Esther, who ordered all Jews to fast for three days.

(d)Rebbi Meir counters that there were whole buildings in that pit, on which the man was able to lean and sleep (so it was not really a miracle at all). And he refutes the Chachamim's argument that those buildings were made of marble, which is slippery (and on which one cannot lean) - by insisting that, in spite of that, he must have made a great effort and managed to lean against them just a little whilst he slept. (Incidentally, it is clear from our Sugya that it is impossible to sleep whilst standing on one's feet (without leaning against something).

9)

(a)The Beraisa relates the story of Nechunyah Chofer Shichin's daughter. After how many hours was she saved from drowning?

(b)How was she saved? Who saved her?

(c)Why did Rebbi Chanina ben Dosa say 'Shalom' the first two hours? How did he know that Nechunyah Chofer Shichin's daughter would not drown in the third?

(d)In which regard did Rebbi Aba quote the Pasuk in Tehilim "u'Sevivav Nis'arah Me'od", and Rebbi Chanina the Pasuk "Kel Na'aratz ... v'Nora al Kol Sevivav"? What sad event were they referring to?

9)

(a)The Beraisa relates the story of Nechunyah Chofer Shichin daughter, who was saved from drowning - during the third hour.

(b)She was saved - by none other than the ram of the Akeidah led by Avraham Avinu.

(c)Rebbi Chanina ben Dosa said 'Shalom' the first two hours - because it is possible to survive two hours in a large pit. He knew that she would not drown in the third hour, because it was unlikely that the big Mitzvah of providing the Olei Golah with water that Nechunyah Chofer Shichin performed regularly, would not stand him in good stead and protect his daughter, when he needed it.

(d)Rebbi Aba quoted the Pasuk "u'Sevivav Nis'arah Me'od", and Rebbi Chanina, the Pasuk "Kel Na'aratz ... v'Nora al Kol Sevivav" - with regard to the calamity in which, despite Rebbi Chanina ben Dosa's optimism in the previous case (in connection with Nechunyah Chofer Shichin's daughter), his son died from thirst.

10)

(a)The Tana Kama of our Mishnah accepts Edus Ishah from someone who testifies that he heard it from women that someone had died. What additional leniency do we learn from his words?

(b)Rebbi Yehudah is more lenient still. He even permits testimony that one hears from children. What does one actually hear the children saying?

(c)How do we know that they must have in fact, gone to the burial?

(d)And how do we know that they were not referring to their pet locust who had just died?

10)

(a)The Tana Kama of our Mishnah accepts Edus Ishah from someone who testifies that he heard from women that someone had died - even if they only mention it casually, not in the form of a testimony.

(b)Rebbi Yehudah is still more lenient. He even permits testimony that one hears from children - discussing going to so-and-so's eulogy and burial.

(c)He knows that they must have actually gone - from the fact that we change the wording from the future to the past. In other words - they were discussing, not the eulogy and burial to which they were on their way, but the one from which they were returning.

(d)We also know that they were not referring to their pet locust who had just died - because they also named the Rabanan who were there and the Chachamim who eulogized the deceased.

11)

(a)What distinction does the Tana draw between a woman or a child who testify and a Nochri (who is also believed by Edus Ishah)?

(b)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel restricts the Chumra pertaining to a Nochri to where his intention is to actually permit the woman to marry, but not if he merely intended to testify. How do we know what his intentions are?

(c)Rebbi Yochanan disagrees. According to him, that is the opinion of Rebbi Oshaya b'Rebbi (or b'Rivi). What do the eighty-five elders say? In which case then, does the Tana of our Mishnah permit the testimony of a Nochri?

(d)What examples of 'Masi'ach l'Fi Tumo' do we cite?

(e)What did Rav Yosef rule there?

11)

(a)The distinction that the Tana draws between a woman or a child who testify and a Nochri (who is also believed by Edus Ishah) is - that the former is believed even if he/she testified officially, whereas the latter is only believed if he makes a casual statement ('Masi'ach l'Fi Tumo'), but not if he testifies officially.

(b)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel restricts the Chumra pertaining to a Nochri to where his intention is to actually permit the woman to marry - (in which case, he will specifically add to his testimony, a request to that effect), but not if he just intended to testify - (in which case he merely testifies that the man died).

(c)Rebbi Yochanan disagrees. According to him, that is the opinion of Rebbi Oshaya b'Rebbi (or b'Rivi), but, according to the eighty-five elders - as long as his intention is to testify, he is not believed, and our Mishnah speaks when he makes the statement 'Masi'ach l'Fi Tumo', as we explained there.

(d)Two examples of 'Masi'ach l'Fi Tumo' that we cite are - 1. where the Nochri shouted out 'Who is here from the family of Chiva'i? Who is here from the family of Chiva'i? Chiva'i has died!' ... 2. where he announced 'Woe to the mighty warrior of Pumbedisa ...

(e)... and Rav Yosef permitted both the former's wife and the latter's (though some attribute this ruling to Rava) to remarry.

12)

(a)Following the testimony of a witness who testified that Chasa had drowned in 'Mayim she'Ein Lahem Sof', what did Rav Nachman say that prompted Chasa's wife to go and remarry?

(b)What does Rav Ashi learn from the fact that nobody protested at what she did?

(c)According to others, Rav Nachman actually permitted Chasa's wife to remarry. Why was that?

(d)What is the final ruling in this matter?

12)

(a)Following the testimony of a witness who testified that Chasa had drowned in 'Mayim she'Ein Lahem Sof', Rav Nachman swore that the fish must have devoured him - prompting Chasa's wife to go and remarry.

(b)Rav Ashi learns from the fact that nobody protested at what she did - that b'Di'eved, once the woman has married, even in a case of 'Mayim she'Ein Lahem Sof', she is permitted to remain with her husband.

(c)According to others, Rav Nachman actually permitted Chasa's wife to remarry - because Chasa was an important man, and Rav Nachman maintains that an important man's wife is permitted to remarry, even by Mayim she'Ein Lahem Sof.

(d)The final ruling in this matter is - like the first Lashon (and there is no difference between important men and anybody else).

13)

(a)What did a Nochri tell a certain Jew in an effort to force him to cut some fodder and feed it to his animal on Shabbos?

(b)When the wife of the man whom the Nochri had named came before Abaye, to ask for permission to remarry, he was uncertain what to answer. How long did he delay the answer?

(c)Eventually, Rav Yosef, who was as sharp as a knife, learned this Halachah from a Beraisa, which discusses a Nochri who claims that the fruit he is selling is Orlah, from Azeikah or Neta Revai. What does 'from Azeikah' mean?

(d)Why do we not believe the Nochri? What is he trying to gain by claiming that the fruit is ...

1. ... Orlah?

2. ... Neta Revai?

3. ... from Azeikah?

13)

(a)In an effort to force a certain Jew to cut some fodder on Shabbos and to feed it to his animal - a Nochri told him that, unless he obeyed him, he would kill him, just like he killed so-and-so, for refusing to boil him some water on Shabbos.

(b)When the wife of the man whom the Nochri had named came before Abaye to ask for permission to remarry, he was uncertain what to answer - which he postponed for three Yamim-Tovim.

(c)Eventually, Rav Yosef, who was as sharp as a knife, learned this Halachah from a Beraisa. The Tana says that a Nochri who says that the fruit he is selling is Orlah, from Azeikah - a town in Eretz Yisrael, or Neta Revai.

(d)We do not believe the Nochri in any of these cases, because all these claims are merely sales promotion. He claims that the fruit is ...

1. ... Orlah - because the fruit of a young tree is superior to that of an old one, and the same applies to his claim that it is ...

2. ... Neta Revai.

3. ... from Azeikah - a town in Eretz Yisrael which produces better-quality fruit.

14)

(a)The problem with believing the Nochri that the fruit is Orlah or Neta Revai is obvious. But what would the problem be if we believed him that it is from Azeikah?

(b)Why can 'shel Azeikah' not be referring to Shemitah produce that has been guarded?

(c)What does Rav Yosef now prove from this Beraisa?

14)

(a)The problem with believing the Nochri that the fruit is Orlah or Neta Revai is obvious. If we were to believe him that it is from Azeikah - then it would be subject to Ma'asros (which in fact it is not, seeing as he is selling it in Chutz la'Aretz.

(b)'shel Azeikah' cannot be referring to Shemitah produce that had been guarded - because the criterion for Shemitah produce being forbidden (which is the source of the Chidush here) is whether it is before or after the date of Biy'ur, and not whether it is guarded or not (See Tosfos DH 'shel Azeikah', and Rashi Behar 25:5).

(c)Rav Yosef now proves from this Beraisa - that we never believe a Nochri whose testimony is to his own personal advantage.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF