Study Nedarim folio 27B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
for had he known that he would die within a year he would have immediately finalized his decision and given her the bill of divorce. Since he gave it to her initially so that she not require levirate marriage, it is assumed that his intent was to deliver it even in this case. By contrast, in the ca
The Talmud continues to question Rava: In what way is it different from the following case: There was a certain man who said to the agents with whom he entrusted a bill of divorce: If I do not return from now until 30 days have passed, let this be a bill of divorce. He came on the 30th day but was p
The Talmud responds: Perhaps the case of circumstances beyond one’s control that are apparent to everyone and could have been anticipated ahead of time is different, and a ferry is considered an apparent type of circumstance beyond one’s control, which he should have considered and stipulated expli
The Talmud asks: And according to Rav Huna, who said that his documents for a favorable verdict are rendered void if he does not return by the set time, it is difficult to understand why the stipulation is valid. After all, it is a transaction with inconclusive consent [asmakhta], since he certain
The Talmud asks: And in a case where his rights are held by another party, is it not considered an asmakhta? But didn’t we learn in a Mishnah (Bava Batra 168a): In the case of one who repaid part of his debt, and deposited his loan document with a third party for purposes of security, and said: If I