Previous daf

1)

(a) What did Rav Nachman rule in a case where Reuven and Shimon both claimed that the ship or the field over which they were arguing had belonged to their respective fathers?

(b) If Reuven and Shimon both produce separate Sh'taros stating that Levi had given each of them the same gift on the same day, Rav rules 'Yachloku'.
What does Shmuel say? Why does he decline to learn like Rav?

(c) What does 'Shuda' really mean?

(d) Why will it make no difference if one of the Sh'taros was written in the morning, and the other one, in the afternoon? When does the Sh'tar then take effect?

(a) What is the difference between the two cases? Why do Rav and Shmuel not rule there as well, 'Kol de'Alim G'var'?

(b) Why is that? How do we know that Levi did not perhaps hand one of the two recipients the Sh'tar a day or two before the other?

(a) What is the problem in the case in the Mishnah in Bava Kama where Reuven swapped a cow for Shimon's donkey, or if he sold him his Shifchah, and it is later discovered that the cow or the Shifchah had given birth?

(b) Why does the Tana refer to ...

1. ... specifically swapping in the case of the cow and the donkey?
2. ... selling in the case of the Shifchah?

(c) What does the Tana rule there?

(d) Seeing as there, like here, neither is Muchzak in the cow or the Shifchah (because, as we ascertain elsewhere, the Tana is speaking when they were in a public meadow at the time), and it is also possible to ascertain (through witnesses) exactly when they gave birth, why does the Tana not rule 'Kol de'Alim G'var' (a Kashya on Rav Nachman)?

(a) And why does Shmuel not rule here 'Shuda de'Dayna' (like he ruled in the case of two the Sh'taros)?

(b) How do we know that the Kashya from 'ha'Machlif Parah ba'Chamor' is a Kashya on Rav Nachman and not on Shmuel?

(a) Rebbi Chiya cites a Beraisa 'Gazlan shel Rabim Lo Sh'mei Gazlan'.
How do the Neherda'i apply this ruling to Rav Nachman's case ('Zeh Omer shel Avosai, ve'Zeh Omer shel Avosai')?

(b) Rav Ashi disagrees. According to him, there is no way that the Gazlan, who does not hve a 'Ta'anah' will be allowed to keep the ship or the field. How does he then intepret the Tana's statement ('Gazlan shel Rabim Lo Sh'mei Gazlan')?

(c) According to Rav Ashi, to which other case does Rebbi Chiya pertain?

6)

(a) What does Rebbi Aba say about a case where Reuven the Me'arer (who protests at Shimon's Chazakah of his field) subsequently loads a basketful of fruit (from that field) on to Shimon's back?

(b) How does Rabeinu Chananel explain 'I Dali Leih Ihu Gufei Tzana de'Peira Le'altar Havi Chazakah'?

(c) In which case, will the fact that Reuven helped Shimon to load the fruit not be instrumental in establishing the latter as the owner?

(d) And when will Reuven's claim of 'le'Peiros Horadtiv' not help him?

(a) What problem do we have with this?

(b) To answer this Kashya, we cite the case of Mashkanta de'Sura, where we have the same problem.
What is the problem there?

(c) And we resolve it by citing?

(d) Why do we need to come on to Mashkanta de'Sura to answer the first Kashya?

(e) Why is Mashkanta de'Sura not a case of Ribis, considering that the creditor has a good chance of eating far more fruit than the value of the loan?

(a) Why did Chazal not include Nochri in the Din of Chezkas Shalosh Shanim?

(b) What is Rav Yehudah Amar Rav referring to when he talks about 'Yisrael ha'Ba Machmas Akum'?

(c) What ruling does he issue in that connection?

(a) On what grounds do we query Rava's initial statement that if the Machzik claims that the Nochri informed him that he bought the field from the Me'arer, he is believed?

(b) Then what did Rava really say?

(c) Why is he believed in such case?

(d) In which way would the Halachah be more lenient still had the Machzik claimed that he purchased the field from a Yisrael (who had bought it from the original owner)?

Next daf