1)

(a)Rava (or Rabah) asks whether the Hakamah (upholding) of a husband or a father is subject to She'eilah or not. This She'eilah concerns a Neder which he upheld on the same day as his wife or daughter declared the Neder - and he now wishes to revoke the Hakamah and then to be Mefer the Neder, still on the same day.

(b)In fact - it is illogical to say 'Yesh She'eilah b'Hefer', because the Torah only states the concept of She'eilah by a Neder, not by its annulment.

(c)Nevertheless, Rava then ask whether, if there is She'eilah by Hakamah, there is She'eilah by Hefer too - on the basis of the Hekesh "Ishah Yekimenah, v'Ishah Yeferenah", comparing Hafarah to Kiyum (and a Hekesh is not subject to logic).

(d)We resolve both She'eilos from Rebbi Yochanan - who says 'Nish'alin al ha'Hakamah v'Ein Nish'alin al ha'Hefer'.

2)

(a)Rabah asks what the Din will be if someone says to his wife 'Kiyem Lechi, Kiyem Lechi', and went on to annul the first Neder. His She'eilah is - whether the second Kiyum, which was unable to come into effect immediately, will come into effect the moment the first one becomes absolved, or perhaps a Kiyum which cannot take effect immediately, will not take effect later either.

(b)And we resolve the She'eilah from a statement by Rava, who says - 'Im Nish'al al ha'Rishonah, Sheni'ah Chalah Alav'.

(c)Rabah asks further what the Din will be if the husband says 'Kiyem Lechi u'Mufar Lechi v'Lo Tachol Hakamah Ela-im-Ken Chalah Hafarah'. He must hold that, in any event, the Hakamah does not take effect - because 'mi'Mah Nafshach, if the Hafarah takes effect, then logic dictates that the Hakamah cannot; and if the Hafarah does not take effect, then the Hakamah will not take effect either, due to his stipulation.

(d)Nevertheless, we later accept the possibility that in the case of 'Kayam Lechi Sha'ah, u'Mufar Lechi Sha'ah', the Kiyum does take effect - because, since he gave a time limit for each one to take effect, it is possible that the Hakamah comes into effect first, and the Hafarah afterwards.

3)

(a)In Rabah's case, the Hafarah ...

1. ... might not take effect - because, having said first 'Kayam Lechi', he only wants the Hafarah to take effect after the Hakamah (which, as we just explained, it cannot).

2. ... might take effect - because he is not concerned about the Hakamah taking effect first (or even at all, as we shall see), and he only mentioned it first, because one cannot say two things simultaneously.

(b)According to the first side of the She'eilah, he did not specify that he wants them to take effect in that order (like he specified, that the Hakamah should come into effect without the Hafarah) - because, having spoken them in the order that he did, this was unnecessary.

(c)The Noder really wanted - both the Hakamah and the Hafarah to take effect simultaneously, adding that should the Hakamah stand in the way of the Hafarah, then the Hakamah should not take effect unless the Hafarah took effect first.

(d)He did not stipulate the other way round ('v'Lo Tachol Hafarah Ela-im-Ken Chalah Hakamah') - because he was mainly concerned that the Hafarah should take effect, and not the Hakamah.

4)

(a)We learned in a Mishnah in Temurah 'Harei Zu Temuras Olah, Temuras Shelamim, Harei Zu Temuras Olah, Divrei Rebbi Meir'. Rebbi Yosi disagrees (as we shall soon see). In a case of 'Harei Zu Temuras Olah, v'AcharKach Temuras Shelamim', he concedes that the animal is a Temuras Olah only (because it is impossible for the animal to become a Temuras Shelamim once it is a Temuras Olah).

(b)In a case of 'Lo Tachol Zu Ela-im-Ken Tachol Zu' - they both agree that the animal is sent in to a field until it becomes blemished, when it is sold and half of the proceeds are used to purchase a Temuras Olah, and half, a Temuras Shelamim.

(c)They argue however, in a case where the Noder says 'Temuras Olah, Temuras Shelamim'. Rebbi Meir holds that, since he did not say Temuras Olah u'Shelamim, it is as if he said 'Tachol Zu v'Achar-Kach Tachol Zu'. Rebbi Yosi agrees with Rebbi Meir, assuming that he meant them to take effect in that order. But if he meant the two to take effect simultaneously, then they do ...

(d)... because it is impossible to mention them both at the same time (and the reason that he mentioned the second 'Temuras' is because he was afraid that otherwise 'Temurah' would only pertain to Olah but not to Shelamim).

5)

(a)We now resolve Rabah's She'eilah according to Rebbi Yosi - from whom we see that, someone who expresses two things at the same time, wants both of them to take effect simultaneously. And so it will be in the case of someone who says 'Kayam Lechi, Mufar Lechi' (in which case the Hafarah will be effective).

(b)Despite the principle 'Kol she'Eino b'Zeh Achar Zeh, Afilu b'Bas Achas Eino', we do not negate both statements - because, since he added 'v'Lo Tachol Hakamah Ela-im-Ken Chalah Hafarah', it is clear that he wanted the Hafarah (exclusively) to take effect, should the Hakamah prevent it from doing so.

(c)Using the same Sevara, we can resolve the She'eilah according to Rebbi Meir too, inasmuch as - even though in the case of Temuras Olah, Temuras Shelamim, the Noder wanted them to take effect consecutively, in our case, where he added 'v'Lo Tachol Hakamah ... ', even Rebbi Meir will concede that he was more concerned about the Hafarah ... , as we just explained.

(d)We cannot say the same thing, based on the fact that 'Kayam Lechi, Mufar Lechi' does not contain a superfluous Lashon (implying that they should come into effect simultaneously), like 'Temuras Olah, Temuras Shelamim does (implying that they should take effect consecutively) - because our case even without a superfluous Lashon (where the Kiyum and the Hafarah cannot take effect simultaneously anyway) is equivalent to the case in Temurah (where the animal can become a Temuras Olah and a Temuras Shelamim, as we explained) with one in which case Rebbi Meir would hold there too, he wants the Hakamah and the Hafarah to take effect consecutively.

6)

(a)Rabah then asks what the Din will be if a husband or father says 'Kayam u'Mufar Lechi' simultaneously. The alternative wording of the She'eilah is - 'Kayam Lechi u'Mufar Lechi b'Vas Achas'.

(b)The She'eilah is - whether, since both of them cannot possibly take effect simultaneously, the Hakamah will come into effect, but not the Hafarah.

(c)We resolve the She'eilah from a statement of Rabah himself - who says in Kidushin that, if a man betroths one of two sisters, without specifying which one, neither of them is betrothed, because two things which cannot come into effect consecutively cannot come into effect simultaneously either.

(d)And his She'eilah concerning someone who says to his wife or daughter 'Kayam Lechi ha'Yom' - is whether this implies 'u'Mufar l'Machar, or whether, since he did not say so specifically, we cannot make such an inference ourselves.