Previous daf

1)

(a) Ameimar rules 'Osiyos Niknos bi'Mesirah.
What did Rav Ashi ask him about his ruling?

(b) What did Rav Ashi comment when Ameimar replied that it was a tradition?

(c) Does the seller then need to specifically state 'K'ni Lach ve'Chol Shibudeih'?

(a) Rabah bar Yitzchak Amar Rav describes 'two Sh'taros'. If someone asked two people to make a Kinyan on his field on behalf of a friend and to write him a Sh'tar, it is obvious that once the Kinyan has been made, the seller may no longer retract from the sale.
Is he then permitted to withdraw his instructions to write the Sh'tar?

(b) And what will be the Din if he said '*al-M'nas* she'Tichtevu Lo es ha'Sh'tar'?

(c) How do we reconcile this with what we learned in Chezkas ha'Batim 'Kinyan bi'Fenei Sh'nayim ve'Ein Tzarich Lomar Kisvu, di'S'tam Kinyan li'Chesivah Omed'?

(a) Is a seller permitted to write a Sh'tar on behalf of the buyer prior to the sale, without first consulting him?

(b) Why is the Sh'tar not Pasul because it is predated?

4)

(a) Based on the Mishnah in Get Pashut, Rav Chiya bar Avin Amar Rav Huna adds a third case of 'Sh'tar' to the previous two.
What will the Din be if the seller wrote such a Sh'tar, following which the purchaser acquired the field with Kesef, Sh'tar or Chazakah?

(b) On what grounds do we initially think that he acquires the Sh'tar?

(c) How does this pose a Kashya on Ameimar and Rav Ashi?

(d) How do we reconcile Ameimar and Rav Ashi with Rav?

(a) How do we support this answer with the Din of Matbe'a, which can be acquired together with Karka?

(b) And we know the Din of Matbe'a from a case of Rav Papa.
When Rav Papa sent Shmuel bar Acha to claim his debt from Bei Chuza'a, why did he need to be Makneh it to him with a Kinyan (otherwise known as a Harsha'ah)?

(c) How did he effect this Kinyan?

(d) What did Rav Papa do when Rav Shmuel bar Acha returned with the money? How much money was involved?

(a) Our Mishnah rules that if someone sells a cart, the mules are not automatically included in the sale.
How about the reverse case?

(b) What does the Tana say about someone who sells the yoke as well as the wagon and the vessels that go with it? Has he sold the oxen that usually draw it or not, and vice-versa?

(c) How does Rebbi Yehudah qualify the above ruling?

(d) The Chachamim do not go after the price at all. Why not? Why should the purchaser pay more than the article is worth?

(a) What is the problem with the Beraisa that Rav Tachlifa bar Ma'arva cited in front of Rebbi Avahu, 'Machar es ha'Karon, Machar es ha'Perados'?

(b) On what grounds did Rebbi Avahu instruct him to leave the Beraisa intact (and not to scrap it)? How did he differentiate between our Mishnah and the Beraisa?

(a) Why can the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah 'Machar es ha'Tzemed Lo Machar es ha'Bakar', not be speaking when ...

1. ... everyone calls a Tzemed a Tzemed and an ox an ox?
2. ... everyone sometimes refers to an ox as Tzemed?

(b) Then in which case do Rebbi Yehudah and the Tana Kama argue?

(c) What is then the basis of their Machlokes?

(d) Why do the Rabbanan decline to use the price as an indicator?

(a) What is the Din in a case where the seller charges the purchaser more than a sixth above the regular price?

(b) What is then the problem with our Mishnah?

(c) What do we mean when we suggest that perhaps the Rabbanan do not hold of Bitul Mekach? Does this mean that they do not hold of Ona'ah?

(a) Rebbi Yehudah, in a Mishnah in ha'Zahav holds that there is no Ona'ah on a Sefer-Torah, an animal or a jewel.
Why not?

(b) What did the Rabbanan say to him?

(c) The Rabbanan do it seems, hold at least of Ona'ah (if not of Bitul Mekach).
So how must we establish the Rabbanan in our Mishnah? What does 'Ein ha'Damim Re'ayah' mean?

(d) Why might we even take the words of the Rabbanan in our Mishnah literally, and the money remains where it is?

(a) In actual fact, we asked initially 'Le'havi Bitul Mekach'? and continued 've'Chi Teima Bitul Mekach le'Rabbanan Leis Lehu'.
Why is it impossible to explain this literally? Why must the Sugya really be referring to Ona'ah (as we explained) and not Bitul Mekach?

(b) If we are concerned with Ona'ah, why do we use a Lashon of Bitul Mekach?

Next daf