1)

(a)Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah rules that if someone who declared his belongings Hekdesh, divorces his wife, he is obligated to be Madir her Hana'ah - because we suspect collusion, in that, once she has claimed her Kesubah from Hekdesh, he will take her back, having regained access to his Hekdesh property.

(b)His ex-wife will be permitted to claim her Kesubah from Hekdesh however, on the basis of - her Shibud having preceded that of Hekdesh.

(c)Rebbi Yehoshua - considers being Madir his wife unnecessary.

(d)Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel rules that if Reuven divorces his wife, on whose Kesubah Shimon is a guarantor - he must be Madir her Hana'ah (for fear that he and his wife will enter into collusion at the expense of the guarantor (like Rebbi Eliezer rules with regard to Hekdesh).

2)

(a)We establish the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua in our Mishnah by - whether people make collusion against Hekdesh (Rebbi Eliezer) or not (Rebbi Yehoshua).

(b)Rav Huna ruled that a Sh'chiv-M'ra (a Goseis) who, after declaring all his belongings Hekdesh, claims that one Manah out of this belongs to so-and-so - is believed, because people do not collude against Hekdesh.

(c)This forces us to consider discarding our initial interpretation of the Machlokes Tana'im in our Mishnah - according to which Rav Huna's statement will actually be a Machlokes Tana'im.

(d)We reject this suggestion however - by drawing a distinction between a Barim by which the Tana'im argue, and a Sh'chiv-M'ra, where they will agree with Rav Huna.

3)

(a)Others establish the Machlokes Tana'im by whether a Neder she'Hudar be'Rabim (in front of ten people) can be annulled (in which case forcing him to declare it will not achieve anything) or not (in which case it will). Consequently ...

1. ... Rebbi Eliezer will hold that - it cannot be annulled, whereas ...

2. ... Rebbi Yehoshua will hold that - it can.

(b)Both opinions hold however, that a healthy person - is suspected of colluding against Hekdesh.

4)

(a)A third theory suggests that a Neder she'Hudar be'Rabim is subject to Hatarah, in which case we will establish the Machlokes - by Neder she'Hutar al-Da'as Rabim (ten people instruct him to declare the Neder); which Rebbi Eliezer again holds cannot be annulled, whereas Rebbi Yehoshua holds that it can.

(b)Ameimar draws a distinction between Neder she'Hudar be'Rabim - which can be annulled, and Neder she'Hudar al Da'as Rabim, which cannot, refuting this theory, because he would not make a statement that is already subject to a Machlokes Tana'im.

(c)We ask further from Rebbi Yehoshua that - according to both versions of the current theory, he ought to have said (not 'Eino Tzarich', but) - 'Eino Mo'il' (to make such a Neder would be futile, and not merely because it is unnecessary).

(d)So we finally establish the Machlokes by - whether it is permitted to rescind Nidrei Hekdesh (in which case the Makdish and his wife would not need to collude [Rebbi Yehoshua]), or not (in which case he would [Rebbi Eliezer]).

5)

(a)We support this explanation with a Beraisa, where Rebbi Elazar be'Rebbi Shimon equates Rebbi Eliezer with Beis Shamai, and Rebbi Yehoshua - with Beis Hillel.

(b)Beis Shamai hold - Hekdesh Ta'us (Hekdesh that is declared erroneously) is Hekdesh (and it cannot be annulled), whereas Beis Hillel holds - Eino Hekdesh (and it can).

(c)Moshe bar Atzri was the guarantor for his daughter-in-law's Kesubah. We know that his son Rav Huna - was both a Talmid-Chacham and very poor.

6)

(a)Abaye wanted to advise Rav Huna - to divorce his wife, and then after she claimed her Kesubah from her father, to remarry her.

(b)Rava objected to that, on the grounds that the moment he divorced his wife, Beis-Din would make him declare a Neder forbidding him to derive any Hana'ah from her (as we learned in our Mishnah), so what was the point?

(c)Abaye intended to circumvent Rava's objection - by getting them to divorce outside of Beis-Din.

(d)But when he discovered that Rav Huna was a Kohen (who would have been forbidden to remarry her anyway), he exclaimed 'Basar Anya Azil Anyusa' - meaning that poverty (in this case the fact that he was a Kohen and could not remarry his wife) follows the poor man (who has no resources).

7)

(a)In a case where Reuven on his death-bed said to Shimon 'I bequeath my property to you, and after you, to so-and-so', assuming that Shimon sold some of the property and ate some of it, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel rules in a Beraisa - that 'P'loni' receives only what Shimon leaves over.

(b)On which Abaye commented that somebody who advises Shimon to sell the property - is a Rasha Arum (a cunning Rasha).

(c)Nonetheless, Abaye initially planned to advise Rav Huna b'rei de'Reb Moshe to divorce his wife - because a. the latter was the son of the Areiv, and b. he was a Talmid-Chacham.

8)

(a)We solve the problem with the current case, that an Areiv of a Kesubah is not Meshubad (obligated) to pay anyway - by establishing the case by an Areiv Kablan (where the creditor [his daughter in this case] has the authority to go straight to the Areiv), who is Meshubad.

(b)According to some opinions however, even an Areiv Kablan is only Meshubad - if the debtor had the means to pay at the time of the loan.

(c)The problem that creates with the current case is that - Rav Huna did not have the means to pay, so how will we explain Abaye's original plan?

(d)Besides the fact that a father and son are different (as we explained), it is also possible that - Rav Huna had property when he married Moshe bar Atzri's daughter, and that it was subsequently destroyed by floods, in which case everyone will agree that the Kablan is Meshubad.

9)

(a)We have learned that an Areiv of a Kesubah is not Meshubad. On the other hand - a Kablan of a loan is.

(b)This leaves us with two kinds of Areiv over which there is s dispute, an Areiv of a loan - and a Kablan of a Kesubah.

(c)The dispute in the latter case is where the husband has no property with which to pay. Where he has, both opinions agree that - he is Meshubad.

10)

(a)And we rule that every Areiv is Meshubad, even if the debtor owned no property at the time of the loan, except for - Areiv of a Kesubah ...

(b)... which is different - inasmuch as he is not covering a loan, and is merely performing a Mitzvah.

11)

(a)There was a case where someone divorced his wife after selling his property. Bearing in mind that our Mishnah discusses similar cases concerning an Areiv and Hekdesh, Rav Yosef b'rei de'Rava asked Rav Papa - whether the same Din (of Madir Hana'ah, for fear of collusion) applies by a purchaser too.

(b)Rav Papa replied that - the Tana does not need to list all the possible cases like a Ruchla (a peddler, displaying all his wares), and it is obvious that the ruling there applies here as well.

(c)According to the Neherda'i however - if the Tana did not mention it (Yidor Hana'ah), then it is not included.

(d)The reason for this, Rav Mesharshaya explained is - because unlike Hekdesh (where we are concerned about a loss to Hekdesh) and Areiv, who is performing a Mitzvah, the purchaser in our case, knowing that the seller had a divorced wife to pay, purchased the property at his own risk.

12)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that if someone declares his property Hekdesh - then his previously divorced wife or creditor may not claim the property from Hekdesh, but from him, after he has redeemed it from Hekdesh for a Dinar or so (which he might need to borrow from the creditor, adding it to his loan).

(b)The Tana establishes the case (see Tosfos DH 'ha'Podeh') - even where the debt was a hundred Manah, and the property that he was Makdish was worth only ninety.

(c)Even though Hekdesh does not take effect on property that is Meshubad to somebody else, the Tana requires the property to be redeemed, because, as Rebbi Avahu explained - one needs to redeem Hekdesh that did not even take effect, to avoid people saying that Hekdesh goes out to Chulin without Pidyon.

13)

(a)Our Mishnah does not go like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says that - the ruling there is confined to where the amount of the debt is not more than the Hekdesh. Where it is, the creditor never had in mind to claim from that property in the first place, since it is not enough to cover the debt anyway. Consequently, the property is Hekdesh, and the owner is not permitted to redeem it for less than its value.

(b)Alternatively, 've'Eino Podeh' means that - it does not even require Pidyon (see Shitah Mekubetzes).

(c)Rav Huna bar Yehudah Amar Rav Sheishes explains that, according to the Rabbanan, a creditor will accept property that is worth less than the loan - as long as it is not less than fifty per cent of its real value.

14)

(a)When Beis-Din claim from Chayvei Erchin, they leave the Ma'arich money with which to purchase food for thirty days, and clothes - for twelve months.

(b)They leave him money for - a bed with the minimum linen requirements, shoes and Tefilin.

(c)And they allow him ...

1. ... the basics for himself - but not for his wife and children.

2. ... the tools of his trade - two of each kind of tool that he needs ...

(d)... two saws and two adzes (a kind of plane) for example, for a carpenter.

15)

(a)According to Rebbi Elazar, they leave ...

1. ... a farmer - with a pair of oxen and ...

2. ... an ass-driver - with his donkey.

(b)The Gizbar of Hekdesh tells a Noder who has three adzes and one saw, who now wants to sell one of the adzes in order to purchase a second saw that - if he managed until not with one saw, he will continue to manage with one ...

(c)... and Hekdesh takes the third adz from him.

(d)The Tefilin of someone who declares his property Hekdesh - aHekdesh, and he has no option other than to redeem them.