1)

(a)Rav Nachman cites a Beraisa which considers Simnei Gadlus ...

1. ... in a nine year-old boy (see Tosfos DH 'ben Tesha'), and in a boy between the ages of nine and twelve - to be a wart

2. ... in a boy of thirteen - to be a genuine sign of Gadlus.

(b)According to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, it is a genuine sign of Gadlus - even in a boy between the ages of nine and twelve.

(c)The latter two rulings (according to the Tana Kama) appear to clash - by virtue of the inferences, since the first ruling implies that the thirteenth year is a genuine Si'man, whereas the second ruling implies that the thirteenth year is a wart.

(d)To resolve the discrepancy, Rav Nachman presents it as a Machlokes Tana'im. The first Tana he says, holds - Toch Z'man ke'le'Achar Z'man, the second Tana, Toch Z'man ke'li'Fenei Z'man.

2)

(a)We reject Rav Nachman's suggestion in various ways. The basis of their Machlokes, assuming they are both referring to ...

1. ... a girl is that, the Reisha is Rebbi (who considers a girl to be a Ketanah until the age of twelve), and the Seifa, Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar (who considers her a Ketanah until the age of thirteen).

2. ... a boy - is that the Reisha is Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar (who considers a boy to be a Katan until the age of twelve), and the Seifa, Rebbi (who considers him a Katan until the age of thirteen).

(b)In two alternative answers, we establish the author of both rulings as Rebbi (or as Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar) - and the Reisha refers to a girl, and the Seifa, to a boy (or vice-versa).

(c)According to all four explanations, both Tana'im will hold - Toch Zemano ke'Lifnei Zemano.

3)

(a)According to Rebbi K'ruspeda'i b'rei de'Rebbi Shabsa'i - Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah will concede that if a Si'man falls out before the boy turns bar-Mitzvah - it proves that it was a wart (and not a Si'man).

(b)We prove him right - from a Beraisa, which specifically establishes the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah by a Simon that remains intact until the boy turns thirteen.

(c)Rava rules like those who hold - Toch Zemano ke'Lifnei Zemano.

(d)In the second Lashon, cited by Rav Shmuel bar Zutra, Rava states that a Ketanah may perform Miy'un throughout her first twelve years (which also implies Toch Zemano ke'Lifnei Zemano [see also Tosfos DH 'Ketanah']). The problem with his second statement 'mi'Ka'an va'Eilach, Einah Mema'enes ve'Einah Choletzes' is that - Mah Nafshach, if she is considered a Gedolah (as 'Einah Mema'enes' implies) then why can she not perform Chalitzah?

4)

(a)We counter the suggestion that Rava goes le'Chumra both ways, because he is himself unsure (whether she has grown Simanei Gadlus or not), from another statement of his, where he says that - a Ketanah who attains the age of twelve does not require Bedikah, since she has a Chazakah that she is a Gedolah.

(b)And we answer this Kashya - by establishing that ruling in a case of S'tam, whereas the current ruling speaks where they examined her and did not find Simanim.

(c)And the reason why she cannot perform Miy'un is - because (due to the Chumrah of Eishes Ish) we suspect that the Simanim fell out (after she became a Gadol).

(d)This answer is fine according to Rav Papi who contends with the possibility that the Simanim may have fallen out, but not according to Rav Papa - who does not.

5)

(a)We object to the suggestion that Rav Papa only argues with regard to Chalitzah, but not with regard to Miy'un - because that would mean that they are arguing about Chalitzah, which Rav Papi therefore permits. But how can that be, seeing as he only says 'Chosh'shin', implying a Chumra (but not a Kula)?

(b)We therefore conclude that Rava is speaking where they did not examine her, and he forbids her to perform ...

1. ... Miy'un - because of the Chazakah that she is a Gedolah.

2. ... Chalitzah - because the Chazakah only helps regarding Miy'un (le'Chumra), but as far as Chalitzah is concerned, we suspect that she has not yet grown Simnei Gadlus in which case she requires Bedikah.

(c)And when he precludes a Ketanah from Bedikah on account of her Chazakah - he is referring to Miy'un exclusively, as we just explained.

6)

(a)A Ketanah performs Miy'un - if her mother and brothers married her off, since her father was no longer alive.

(b)Rav Dimi from Neherda'a rules like Rav Papi ('Chosh'shin Shema Nashru'). He qualifies his ruling however - by confining it to where her husband betrothed her Toch Z'man and performed Bi'ah Achar Z'man, where the marriage is now a Safek d'Oraysa (because the Bi'ah would transform the marriage into a d'Oraysa).

(c)But if there had been no Bi'ah from the time that she turned twelve - in which case the Safek would be completely mi'de'Rabbanan - she would be permitted to perform Miy'un (in spite of the possibility that the Simanim may have fallen out).

(d)They nevertheless forbid her to perform Miy'un if they found Simanei Gadlus - in case people will take their cue from there to perform Miy'un even where a Bi'ah was performed after she turned twelve.

7)

(a)Rav Huna learns from the Pesukim in Matos "Ish ki Yafli" ... "Lo Yachel Devaro" (regarding a Mufla ha'Samuch le'Ish who knows in whose name he is declaring the Neder) that - whoever is included in Hafla'ah (a Mufla ha'Samuch le'Ish) is also included in "Lo Yachel Devaro" and will receive Malkos (even though he is a Katan).

(b)Rav Huna bar Yehudah cites a Beraisa in support of Rav Huna. After citing the Hekesh of a Katan (a Mufla ha'Samuch le'Ish) to a Gadol regarding Shevu'ah, Isar and the La'av of bal Yachel, the Tana refers to the Pasuk (in connection with Nedarim) "Zeh ha'Davar" - which comes to preclude a Mufla ha'Samuch le'Ish from a Korban Me'ilah (for using a Korban that he declared Hekdesh).

(c)Rav Huna bar Yehudah proves Rav Huna's ruling from - the Lashon 'u'le'Bal Yachel', which implies that he is fully Chayav for transgressing the La'av of "Lo Yachel".

(d)In an attempt to refute Rav Huna bar Yehudah's proof, we amend the words 'le'Zadon Shevu'ah, u'le'Isar u'le'Bal Yachel' to read - 'u'le'Isar Bal Yachel' (implying that he transgresses an Isur, but does not receive Malkos for doing so).

8)

(a)We object to our current interpretation of le'Isur bal Yachel in that Mah Nafshach - if Mufla ha'Samuch le'Ish is d'Oraysa, then seeing as he is included in bal Yachel, he is also automatically subject to Malkos; whereas if he is not, then there is no Isur either (because the Rabbanan would not place an Isur on a Katan).

(b)We conclude that a Mufla ha'Samuch le'Ish is mi'de'Rabbanan, and that the Tana is not referring to the Mufla eating what he declared Hekdesh - but to those who are obligated to stop him from eating it and who failed to do so.

(c)We reject this answer too however - because this would resolve the She'eilah whether Katan Ochel Neveilos, Beis-Din Metzuvin alav Lehafrisho or not (whereas it is clear that those who discuss it do not have a source from a Beraisa [see Tosfos DH 'Ein Beis-Din']).

9)

(a)So we answer that we are not talking about the Mufla eating what he was Makdish, but about somebody else eating it. This goes nicely with the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish (who hold that Shimon who eats the Hekdesh that Reuven was Makdish receives Malkos), but not according to Rav Kahana - who holds that he does not.

(b)And we resolve this problem - by establishing the Isur of bal Yachel (referred to in the Beraisa) as being mi'de'Rabbanan, and the Pasuk is merely an Asmachta (in which even Rav Kahana will concede that it is applicable).

(c)And we establish that Rav Kahana ('Ein Lokin') holds - Mufla ha'Samuch le'Ish is mi'de'Rabbanan; whereas Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish ('Lokin') - hold that it is min ha'Torah.

10)

(a)Rebbi Yirmiyah queries our current explanation from a Beraisa - where the Tana permits a husband to annul the Nedarim of his wife who is a Yesomah (a Ketanah who was married off by her mother and brothers).

(b)The problem with this, according to Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish is - how it is possible for a husband whose marriage is only mi'de'Rabbanan, to annul Nedarim which are effective min ha'Torah.

(c)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel answers Mah Nafshach - if the Nedarim of a Mufla ... are effective mi'de'Rabbanan, there is no problem, as we just explained; and if it is d'Oraysa, we will nevertheless apply the principle Katan Ochel Neveilos, Ein Beis-Din Metzuvin Lehafrisho (which is Halachah) see Seifer 'Eizehu Mekoman'.

(d)Rabah bar Liva'i circumvents the concern that the girl may continue to eat it after she turns twelve - by obligating her husband to annul the Neder on an ongoing basis, and the annulment will take effect mi'd'Oraysa, if he performs it after she has turned twelve, and they have been intimate.

11)

(a)We question Rabah bar Liva'i's answer however - with the principle Ein ha'Ba'al Meifer be'Kodmin (that the husband does not have the authority to annul Nedarim that his wife declared before they were married.

(b)So we finally establish the case like Rav Pinchas citing Rava who maintains that - when a woman declares a Neder, she does so on condition that her husband will consent to it (in which case his annulment is indeed mi'd'Oraysa).

(c)Abaye then queries Rav Kahana from another Beraisa, where Rebbi Yehudah invalidates the Terumah separated by a Katan who has not yet developed Simanei Gadlus. Rebbi Yossi draws a distinction between a Katan who has reached the age of Nedarim - whose Terumah is valid, and one who has not - whose Terumah is invalid.

(d)The connection between Nedarim and Terumah is - that Terumah, like Nedarim, comes into effect by means of a verbal declaration.

(e)Based on the assumption that Rebbi Yossi considers Terumah nowadays to be d'Oraysa, the problem with Rav Kahana is - how a husband whose marriage is only mi'de'Rabbanan can negate Terumah which takes effect mi'd'Oraysa.

12)

(a)We answer that we actually erred with regard to Rebbi Yossi's opinion - who really holds that Terumah nowadays is mi'de'Rabbanan.

(b)We query this however, from a Seider Olam, which learns from the double expression in the Pasuk in Nitzavim " ... asher Yarshu Avosecha vi'Yerishtah" that - it was necessary to inherit Eretz Yisrael the second time (with Ezra) because the first inheritance (with Yehoshua) was negated with the Churban Bayis Rishon]), but not the third time (with Mashi'ach [because the second inheritance did not become negated with Churban Bayis Sheini]).

(c)To explain the Kashya, we cite Rebbi Yochanan - who cites Rebbi Yossi as the author of Seider Olam.

(d)We substantiate our interpretation of Rebbi Yossi (in spite of the Seider Olam) however - by stating that although he is the author of Seider Olam, it does not necessarily mean that he is the author of (or that he agrees with) every ruling that is issued there.