1)

(a)The Beraisa says 'Harei Zeh Gitech Al-Menas she'Tinas'i li'Ploni, Harei Zeh Lo Tinasei'. She is not permitted to marry Ploni because Chazal decreed in case people will jump to the conclusion that her husband gave her as a gift to Ploni.

(b)We object to Rav Nachman's initial explanation, that when the Tana concludes 've'Im Nises, Lo Teitzei', he means that if she married someone else, she may remain with him because this constitutes permitting a married woman to another man.

(c)Rav Nachman's second explanation of 've'Im Nises, Lo Teitzei' is that if she married Ploni, she may remain with him (since the prohibition is only based on a decree).

(d)Rava objects to Rav Nachman's explanation of the Reisha of the Beraisa (that 'Harei Zu Lo Tinasei' means that she may not marry specifically Ploni') due to its implication that she is permitted to marry someone else, which is impossible as long as she has not fulfilled her condition (as we just explained).

2)

(a)According to Rav Yehudah, if someone declares a Neder that he will not sleep today should he sleep tomorrow, he is forbidden to sleep today because we suspect that he will sleep tomorrow, thereby contravening his Neder.

(b)Rav Nachman permits him to sleep today (since we are confidant that he will manage to stay awake tomorrow).

(c)Rava suggests that Rav Nachman might establish our case in the same way as he does there by permitting the woman to marry someone else on the basis that, when her husband divorces her, she will be able to fulfill the Tenai of the divorce and marry Ploni.

(d)He immediately refutes this suggestion however, on the grounds that whereas it lies within a person's power to force himself to remain awake for a day (by pricking himself with sharp objects) it does not lie within a woman's power to force her husband to give her a divorce.

3)

(a)So Rava finally explains ...

1. ... the Reisha of the Beraisa 'Harei Zeh Gitech Al-Menas she'Tinas'i li'Ploni, Harei Zeh Lo Tinasei' to mean that she is not permitted to marry anybody at all, not 'Ploni' nor anybody else (for the reasons that we have already stated).

2. ... the Seifa 've'Im Nises, Lo Teitzei' to refer to Ploni, who is only forbidden due to a decree.

4)

(a)According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, if a man gives his wife a Get on condition that his wife flies to heaven, travels to the depths of the earth, or performs any other such impossible task, the Get is invalid. Rebbi Yehudah ben Teimah say that the Tenai is Batel and the Get valid.

(b)Rav Nachman Amar Rav rules like Rebbi Yehudah ben Teimah. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak supports this ruling from a Stam Mishnah in Bava Metzia 'Kol she'Efshar Lo Lekaymo b'Sofo v'Hisnah Alav mi'Techilaso, Tena'o Kayam' implying that 'Kol she'Iy Efshar Lo Lekaymo b'Sofo ... Tena'o Batel'.

(c)Abaye maintains that the same will apply in the case of a man who gives his wife a Get on condition that she eats Chazir. Rava disagrees on the grounds that it is physically possible for her to eat Basar Chazir (albeit for the price of Malkus) in which case it cannot be construed as impossible).

(d)According to Abaye, 'Klal Amar Rebbi Yehudah ben Teimah ... ' comes to include 'Al-Menas she'Tochli Basar Chazir'. Rava extrapolates from Rebbi Yehudah ben Teimah's statement 'ka'Zeh Get' to preclude the very same case.

5)

(a)The Beraisa rules that in the case of 'Harei Zeh Gitech ...

1. ... Al-Menas she'Tiba'ali li'Ploni Niskayem ha'Tenai, Harei Zeh Get'.

2. ... Al-Menas she'Lo Tiba'ali l'Aba u'le'Avicha Ein Chosheshin Shema Niv'alah la'Hem' (and she is permitted to remarry).

(b)If he had said 'Al-Menas she'Lo Tiba'ali li'Ploni' the Get would not be valid (in case she once has relations with him) just like the case of 'Al-Menas she'Lo Teilchi l'Veis Avich Le'olam'.

(c)The fact that the Tana omits the case of 'Al-Menas she'Tiba'ali l'Aba u'le'Avicha' is no proof that Abaye is right since even Rava will agree there that such a Tenai is Batel, because whereas it might even be possible to bribe Ploni into having relations with her, there is no way that we can contend with her father or father-in-law condescending to perform an act for which they will receive Chayav Kares.

(d)

1. ... 'Klal Amar ... ' according to Rava, now comes to include the case of Aba v'Avicha' of the Beraisa.

2. ... 'ka'Zeh Get' according to Abaye comes to preclude 'she'Tiba'ali li'Ploni'.

6)

(a)Abaye (who holds that 'Al-Menas she'Tochli Basar Chazir' the Tenai is Batel and the Get valid) reconciles his opinion with the Beraisa, which specifically states 'Niskaymah ha'Tenai Harei Zeh Get ... ' by establishing the author of the Beraisa as the Rabanan of Rebbi Yehudah ben Teimah (who validate all conditions that are impossible to fulfill), whereas his opinion is based on that of Rebbi Yehudah ben Teimah.

(b)The Tana also includes a case of 'Al-Menas she Tochli bi'Terumah (assuming that she is a Kohenes), and 'Al-Menas she'Tishti Yayin (assuming that she is a Nezirah).

7)

(a)The other reason for the Tenai to be Batel in the previous case (according to everyone) is that of 'Masneh Al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah'.

(b)The classical case of 'Masneh Al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah' is where a man betroths a woman 'Al-Menas she'Ein Lach Alai She'er, K'sus v'Onah' (food, clothes or conjugal rights), where the Kidushin is valid and he remains obligated to provide all three.

(c)Ravina rejects Rav Ada Brei d'Rav Ika's suggestion that in this case, it is not the Masneh (the husband) who is fulfilling the condition that contravenes Torah law, but the other party (the wife) by pointing out that, when all's said and done, since it his his condition that she is fulfilling, what difference does it make as to who contravenes the Torah law? The fact remains that when he stipulated, he was 'Masneh Al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah'!

(d)Ravina finally explains that the Tana does not make an issue of 'Masneh Al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah' because, since she remains with the option of not eating and not being divorced, it does not constitute 'Masneh Al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah'.

8)

(a)Chizkiyah establishes our Mishnah which rules that, in the case of 'Harei At Muteres l'Chol Adam Ela li'Ploni', the husband must take back the Get and return it to his wife like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, who said the same in the previous Perek, in the Beraisa regarding the case of 'Kinsi Shtar Chov'.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rav Kahana disagrees. He establishes our Mishnah even like the Chachamim there because they only validate the Shtar (without the need to return it) there, where the Get is completely ineffective in its current state; but here, where the Shtar (which was handed over in the form of a Get and was) effective in forbidding her to marry a Kohen, and which she has therefore already acquired, even they will agree that he must first take if back before returning it to her.

(c)He referred to Rav Kahana as 'Dilchon' (one of yours, one of the Bnei Bavel to whom he was speaking) because Rav Kahana originally came from Bavel to learn by Rebbi Yochanan.

9)

(a)With regard to a Get in which the man actually wrote 'Harei At Muteres l'Chol Adam', our Mishnah disqualifies the Get completely. When Rav Safra says 'Kasvo b'Socho T'nan' (despite the fact that the Tana has specifically validated the oral declaration to the same effect), he means that under no circumstances will declaring this orally invalidate the Get, even if he said it before the Toreif (the main part of the Get) was written.

(b)Rava disagrees. According to him such a declaration will indeed invalidate the Get, if it is said before the Toreif has been written.

(c)Rava's reasoning is that the major part of the Get was written under this condition.

(d)Rava would instruct the Sofrim that, when they wrote a Get, they should stop the husband from making any conditions until after the Toreif has been written.

10)

(a)Rebbi invalidates a Get that contains any conditions the Rabanan say that whatever invalidates the Get orally will also invalidate it in writing, but whatever will not invalidate the former, will not invalidate the latter.

(b)According to them ...

1. ... 'Chutz' (which is a Shiyur) will invalidate the Get both orally and when it is written in the Get.

2. ... 'Al-Menas' (which is a Tenai) will not invalidate it.