Previous daf

1)

(a) What is the problem with Shmuel's statement, permitting one Shutaf to testify on behalf of the other?

(b) To solve the problem, we establish Shmuel when the second Shutaf declared 'Din u'Devarim Ein Li al Sadeh Zu'.
What else might we equally well have answered?

(c) What does the Beraisa say about someone who withdraws from a field that is already his (using the above Lashon or one that is similar)?

(d) In which case would this Lashon be effective?

(a) Why can we not answer that 'Ein Li Din ... ' is not effective because he did not say 'Lo Yehei Li Din ... ' (in the future tense)?

(b) How do we know for sure that this is correct?

(c) Even after we answer that his declaration 'Din u'Devarim ... ' was accompanied with a Kinyan, a problem remains, as we learn from a statement by Ravin bar Shmuel quoting his father.
What did Shmuel say about someone who sells a field without Achrayus?

(d) What is the reason for this?

(a) So we establish the Beraisa when the Shutaf accepted Achrayus.
Why can this not be referring to general Achrayus for claimants even not directly connected with him (e.g. who claim that the field was originally their father's or theirs)?

(b) Then what kind of Achrayus are we referring to? Why is it then no longer a case of 'Ma'amidah bi'Fenei Ba'al-Chovo'?

(c) What does the Beraisa say about the Dayanim and the people of a town in which a Sefer-Torah was stolen?

(d) Why indeed, do we not allow those concerned to withdraw from their rights with a Kinyan?

(a) What problem does this Beraisa pose on our Mishnah (according to the way we interpreted it)?

(b) How do we reconcile the two Tana'im? Why is a Sefer-Torah different?

(c) We ask the same Kashya with regard to local Dayanim or residents deciding how to spend the Manah that someone donated towards the town's communal needs.
What alternative would a potential Dayan or witness have besides withdrawing from his rights?

(d) How do we reconcile this Beraisa with our Mishnah, too?

(a) We ask the same Kashya from yet another Beraisa regarding a case where someone donated a Manah to the poor people of the city. How do we initially answer the Kashya 'Aniyim Shakli, Dayni Mifseli' (If the poor receive the money, why should the Dayanim be invalidated)?

(b) And how do we answer the Kashya that cuts through the Sugya 'Let some of the people withdraw from their municipal rights with a Kinyan and judge or testify'?

(c) Alternatively, we interpret 'Aniyim' literally.
How do we then answer the Kashya that we asked earlier 'Aniyim Shakli, Dayni Mifseli'?

(d) We might establish this when the amount each Ani receives is not fixed.
How do we even establish it when it is (where we at first assumed that they could donate that amount and no longer be prejudiced)?

6)

(a) The problem with Shmuel, who rules that Shutfin are Shomrei Sachar for each other is why it is not a case of Shemirah be'Ba'alim.
What is Shemirah be'Ba'alim?

(b) How does Rav Papa solve the problem?

(c) What is Shmuel's Chidush?

(d) Why might we have thought otherwise?

(a) What does the Beraisa say about Reuven who sells Shimon a house or a field, and Levi claims that it is his?

(b) And what does the Tana say about the equivalent case, but where Reuven sold Shimon a cow or a cloak (Metaltelin)?

(c) What reason does the Tana give for the distinction between the two cases?

(d) What problem do we have with this?

(a) Rav Sheishes therefore establishes the Reisha by a case where Reuven stole a house or a field from Shimon and sold it to Levi, when along came Yehudah and claimed that the field belonged to him.
Why is Shimon not permitted to testify on behalf of Levi (that Yehudah is a Ganav)?

(b) Will it make any difference if Shimon was Meya'esh from the field (in which case there has been Ye'ush and Shinuy Reshus)?

(c) What do the Tana's words 'Mipnei she'Achrayuso Alav' now mean?

(d) Prejudice apart, having testified that the property belongs to Levi, how would Shimon later be able to claim that the field was his?

(a) We have already explained that Shimon might prefer his property to be in Levi's hands than in Yehudah's, because Yehudah is a tougher character to deal with than Levi.
What other reason might he have for preferring to deal with Levi? What would be the problem if the property landed with Yehudah?

(b) What could Shimon testify to place the property in the hands of Levi?

(c) Why will Yehudah not be able to reclaim the property from Shimon after the latter wins it from Levi?

Next daf