(R. Mana): It is not only a noose of danger (for execution), rather, even a noose for [one who owes] money, for every noose, there is a Chazakah that there is danger.

Question (R. Elazar): Is his gift like that of a Shechiv Mera (one who is sick and fears lest he die; Chachamim enacted that his words take effect without a Kinyan)?

Answer (Rav Nachman citing R. Yakov Armaniya): What R. Elazar asked was obvious to R. Yosi bar Chaninah;

(Mishnah): A woman who was executed, we may benefit from her hair. An animal that was executed, is Asur b'Hana'ah;

(R. Yosi bar Chanina): The case is, she said 'give my hair to my daughter.' (Her words take effect without a Kinyan, so it is as if it is not her hair.)

This is like Geneivah, who was going out to be executed. He said 'give to R. Avuna a Zuz from (what I owe him for - NO'AM YERUSHALMI) the wine in Kefar Panya', and they did not give to him. They were concerned for Rav's teaching;

Rav said that an heir (i.e. inherited property) is like Meshubadim (property that the borrower sold). Just like loan through witnesses (without a document) is not collected from Meshubadim, it is not collected from heirs.

Question: If they did not give to [R. Avuna] due to a debt, they should give to him due to a gift (just like a Shechiv Mera's gift takes effect without a Kinyan)!

Answer: They were concerned for R. Elazar's [Safek];

Question (R. Elazar): Is the gift [of one going out to be executed] like a Matanas Shechiv Mera?

Answer: They brought R. Ze'ira to R. Yitzchak Atushiya, and he taught to him [a Beraisa] 'like Gitin (if one going out to be executed said to write a Get, we write and give it), so is a gift.'

Question (R. Ba, to R. Ze'ira): Or, perhaps [the Beraisa teaches that] just like Gitin, if he did not give [to her] in [her husband's] lifetime he does not give [after death], also a gift, if he did not give in [the giver's] lifetime, it is not called a gift (he does not give it after death)!

R. Ze'ira: Rebbi (you, R. Ba) came with Chachmah and caused R. Avuna to lose money (that they would have given to him based on our understanding of the Beraisa).

Answer: You cannot say so, for a Mishnah teaches that [if one said] 'give 100 Zuz to Ploni', and [the giver] died, we give it after death.

When they heard (PNEI MOSHE) that R. Yochanan argues [with Rav], they gave [the money] to [R. Avuna];

(R. Avahu citing R. Yochanan): A loan through witnesses is collected from heirs, but only if they inherited land.

Limitation (R. Yosah): This is only if they were with [the borrower from when he admitted] until he died. However, if he went in and out, I say that he already gave [his debt] to [his creditor. It is a Safek, so we do not give.]

Inference: R. Chaninah's teaching shows that they did not give to [R. Avuna];

R. Chaninah used to tell the episode in which Levi [of] Prisah was going from place to place, and Geneivah's relatives (heirs) came to eat with him. He said 'you should give the money to R. Avuna', and they quarreled with him.

(Beraisa): Even a Choleh [is like one being taken out for execution].

(R. Yakov bar Idi citing R. Yonason): The Halachah follows R. Shimon Shezuri regarding a Mesukan.

Question: What is the difference between a Choleh and a Mesukan?

Answer: Choleh is normal (illness). Mesukan is when illness jumps upon him;

Normally, relatives enter immediately [to investigate his needs], and strangers after three days. If illness jumped upon him, both of them enter immediately.

A case occurred in which Rav Huna, R. Pinchas and R. Chizkiyah visited R. Yosi three days after [he fell ill]. He said to them 'you wanted to fulfill the Beraisa regarding me' (but you did not, for Chachamim are considered relatives to each other).

(Mishnah): If someone in a pit said 'whoever hears my voice, write a Get to my wife', they write and give.

If a Bari (healthy man) said 'write a Get to my wife', he is only teasing her (he did not say to give it).

A case occurred in which a Bari said 'write a Get to my wife', went up to the roof and fell to his death;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel: If he fell by himself (he intentionally jumped), it is a Get. If the wind blew him off, it is not a Get.

(Gemara -R. Chaninah): R. Yonason taught us [that the Reisha is] only if they saw the Boviyah (shadow) of a person. (If not, we are concerned lest it was a Shed (demon, i.e. a being with similarities to angels and to people).

(Mishnah): We may testify [about what was seen] through light of a lamp or moonlight, and we may permit a woman to remarry based on a Bas Kol (a voice saying that her husband died, even if they did not see a person);

(R. Yonason): This is only if they saw the shadow of a person.

(R. Acha bar Chaninah citing R. Chaninah): This refers to in the field, but in the city, it is even if they did not see a person's shadow.

Question: Our Mishnah teaches that if someone was cast in a pit... and R. Yonason said that this is only if they saw the shadow of a man! (This implies that we are concerned even in the city.)

Answer (R. Avun): Mazikin are common in pits (even in the city) just like they are common in fields.

Question: (R. Shimon ben Gamliel says that if he fell by himself, it is a Get. If the wind blew him off, it is not a Get.) If it is a Safek whether by himself, or due to the wind [what is the law]?

Answer: We learn from the following [Beraisa]. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if he fell immediately, it is a Get. If he fell afterwards, it is not a Get;

When he fell immediately, is it not a Safek?! (Surely it is!) This shows that if it is a Safek whether by himself, or due to the wind, it is a Get.

If one slaughtered [an animal] with intent to throw its blood to idolatry or burn its Chelev to idolatry, R. Yochanan says that the intent disqualified. Reish Lakish says, the intent does not disqualify.

Question (R. Yakov bar Idi, to Reish Lakish - Mishnah): (If a Yisrael slaughtered a Nochri's animal, the Shechitah is Kosher [even if the owner intends for idolatry, since he did not serve]. R. Eliezer disqualifies, for a Stam Nochri intends for idolatry.) R. Yosi says, there is a Kal v'Chomer. In a place where intent disqualifies, i.e. in Kodshim [it depends only on the intent of the Oved, and all the more so in Chulin, where intent does not disqualify];

Pigul and Nosar (i.e. intent Chutz li'Mkomo and Chutz li'Zmano) disqualifies [even when he intends in one Avodah to do another Avodah in the wrong place or time. Since R. Yosi learns Chulin from Kodshim, he should say that the same applies to Chulin!]

Answer (Reish Lakish): Pigul and Nosar [with intent to do a later Avodah with improper] intent does not disqualify, [only intent to do a forbidden action, e.g. to throw the blood or burn the Chelev Chutz li'Zmano or Chutz li'Mkomo,] but if he slaughtered [with intent] to throw the blood to idolatry or burn its Chelev to idolatry, intent does not disqualify. (We explained this like R. MEIR SIMCHAH.)

If he slaughtered, threw the blood or burned its Chelev to idolatry - a case occurred in Kisarin, and they did not say that that it is forbidden or permitted.

Opinion #1 (R. Chaninah citing Rav Chisda): This shows that they were not concerned [for R. Shimon ben Gamliel's opinion, that the end proves about the beginning]. If you will say that they were concerned, they should have forbade! (They did not rule to permit, out of respect for R. Shimon ben Gamliel.)

Opinion #2 (R. Yosi citing Rav Chisda): This shows that they were concerned [for his opinion]. If you will say that they were not concerned, should they not have ruled [to permit]?!