1)

(a)Initially, to reconcile Abaye, who holds 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos, Havyan Yadayim', with the Beraisa 'Harei Zeh Alai, Asur Mipnei she'Hu Yad l'Korban', we explain that the Tana adds the word 'Alai' - because, without it, it would imply Hefker or Tzedakah.

(b)We reject this answer however, from the Lashon of the Beraisa itself - because in that case, why did the Tana conclude 'Mipnei she'Hu Yad l'Korban', implying that it is a Yad Mochi'ach when he says 'Alai', and a Yad she'Eino Mochi'ach, when he does not (like Rava).

(c)We therefore conclude that, according to Abaye, the Tana adds 'Alai' - so that only the Noder should be Asur; had he said 'Harei Hu', then both the Noder and whoever is standing there will be forbidden as if the animal was Hekdesh (see Tosfos).

(d)The basis of this stringency is - the principle 'Safek Nedarim Lehachmir'.

2)

(a)The distinction that the Tana of the Beraisa draws between 'Harei Zu Chatas, Harei Zu Asham' and 'Harei Zu Chatasi, Harei Zu Ashami', assuming that the Noder is Chayav a Chatas or an Asham - is that the former is not valid (because it is not clear whether he means it to cover the sin that he already performed, or whether he is now donating a Chatas or Asham Nedavah - in which case, it is a Yad she'Eino Mochiach); whereas the latter Neder is valid, because it is a Yad Mochi'ach.

(b)If he is not Chayav a Chatas or an Asham - then the Neder is not valid either way.

(c)Abaye establishes the Beraisa, which invalidates the Neder because he did not say 'Chatasi' or 'Ashami', despite the fact that he is Chayav a Korban (because 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos, Lo Havyan Yadayim') - according to Rebbi Yehudah, whom we already know, holds 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos, Lo Havyan Yadayim'.

(d)Although Abaye did indeed learn on the previous Amud that Rebbi Yehudah's Din is confined to Get - this Beraisa caused him to change his mind.

3)

(a)Although Abaye changed his mind - there is no indication that Rava changed his mind too. Rava learns, like he learned earlier, that even the Rabanan will agree with Rebbi Yehudah that, in areas other than that of Get, 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos, Lo Havyan Yadayim'.

4)

(a)Rav Papa's She'eilah whether there is a Yad by Kidushin or not - pertains even to a Yad Mochi'ach.

(b)Kidushin might be different than Nedarim in this regard - because the latter has a stringency, inasmuch as they take effect with words alone. Consequently, we cannot learn Kidushin from them via a 'Mah Matzinu', seeing as it also require an act, and is therefore more lenient.

5)

(a)The case cannot be when a man gives two Perutos to one of two women and says to her 'Harei At Mekudeshes Li ... v'At Nami' - because then it is obvious that he has appointed her a Sheliach on behalf of her friend (and, as we will learn in Kidushin, a woman can become a Shali'ach on behalf of her friend, even there where she becomes her Tzarah [rival]).

(b)The case is therefore - where a man gives two Perutos to one of two women and says to her 'Harei At Mekudeshes Li ... v'At' (without adding the word 'Nami').

(c)What makes this a Yad is the fact - that 'v'At' might mean 'And you too', but it might also mean possibly mean 'v'At Chaza'i' ('And you are fit to be my wife').

(d)Rav Papa asks whether Yesh Yad l'Kidushin, despite the fact that regarding Gitin, everyone agrees that Yesh Yad l'Get (which is evident from the Sugya on the previous Daf, where the Tana'im and Amora'im argue about Yad she'Eino Mochi'ach, but clearly agree by a Yad Mochi'ach) - because the case of Yad by Kidushin speaks when no act took place (regarding the second woman, whose Kidushin we are querying), whereas in the case of Get, the husband did give his wife the Get.

6)

(a)If, in the previous case - it does not really imply 'v'At Chaza'i', because unlike Nedarim, Kidushin does not require Hafla'ah (only that it should be certain that he wants to betroth her - which it is, making it a case of 'Yad Mochi'ach').

(b)If the man gave a Perutah to each woman, and then, after saying to the first one 'Harei At ... ', he said to the second woman, 'v'At' - it would not even if considered a Yad at all, but direct Kidushin.

(c)When Rav Papa asks Abaye how Shmuel can appear to say there 'Yadayim she'Ein Mochichos Havyan Yadayim', but not how he can permit Yadayim by Kidushin in the first place - he is simply querying the opinion of Shmuel, whom we know holds 'Yesh Yad l'Kidushin', though this does necessarily reflect his own opinion.

7)

(a)Rav Papa asks Abaye whether there is a Yad by Pe'ah, even assuming that 'Ein Yad l'Kidushin' - because whereas there is nothing connecting Kidushin to Nedarim (other than a 'Mah Matzinu'), we have an explicit Hekesh connecting Pe'ah to Nedarim (as we shall soon see).

(b)The case of Yad l'Pe'ah is - if the owner declares one row Pe'ah, and then adds 've'ha'Dein' (and this one), but without the word 'Nami'.

(c)If the first row did not contain a Shi'ur Pe'ah - it would be obvious that he meant to declare both rows Pe'ah, because 've'ha'Dein' would then simply be the completion of his statement (and would not have anything to do with Yad).

8)

(a)We can extrapolate from the She'eilah - that it is possible to declare one's entire field Pe'ah (i.e. even after one has given the necessary Shi'ur, one is permitted to give more).

(b)The source for this is the Pasuk in Kedoshim "Pe'as Sadcha" (when the Torah could have written "Pe'ah she'be'Sadcha").

9)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Re'eh "Ki Darosh Yidreshenu me'Imach" - that Pe'ah is included in 'bal Te'acher'.

(b)The She'eilah is now - whether the Hekesh extends to other areas of Halachah besides 'bal'Te'acher' or not.

(c)The principle 'Ein Hekesh l'Mechtzah' may well not be applicable here - because Pe'ah is not written explicitly, but is derived from a Derashah.