Previous daf

1)

(a) On what basis does the second Tana presume that the first Pasuk ("ve'Lo Sisov Nachalah mi'Mateh ... ") is speaking about Hasavas ha'Ben, and not Hasavas ha'Ba'al?

(b) Siman Amar Rabah bar Rav Shiloh and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak respectively, suggest that the first Tana establishes the second Pasuk by Hasavas ha'Ba'al because the Torah uses the word "Ish" or "Yidbeku (alone)". How would we learn it from there?

(c) On what grounds do we reject these proposals?

(d) Rava learns that the second Pasuk speaks about Hasavas ha'Ba'al from the Lashon "Yidbeku Matos", which implies a husband more than a son.
How does Rav Ashi learn it from the Lashon "mi'Mateh le'Mateh Acher"?

(a) What does Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan, citing Rebbi (or Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah) extrapolate from the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim "u'Seguv Holid es Ya'ir, Vayehi Lo Esrim ve'Shalosh Arim be'Eretz Gil'ad"?

(b) Who would have inherited Seguv's father-in-law's property had his wife died after her father?

(c) If not for the Pasuk, why would we have thought that, even when she died before her father, her husband should not only inherit her, but should even take precedence over her son?

(a) Rebbi Avahu cites a second proof for this from the Pasuk in Yehoshua "ve'Elazar ben Aharon Meis ... ".
Why do we need this Pasuk? How might we otherwise establish the previous Pasuk?

(b) Rabeinu Chananel derives this latter D'rashah from "be'Giv'as Pinchas *B'no*" (which appears superfluous, seeing as we already know that Pinchas was Elazar's son).
How might we also learn it from the phrase "Asher Nitan Lo be'Har Ephrayim"?

(c) And how does Rebbi Avahu know that Pinchas' valley was not a Sadeh Charamim (as Rav Papa suggested earlier)?

4)

(a) We Darshen 'B'nei Achyos', ve'Lo B'nos Achyos.
Why can this D'rashah not be taken literally?

(b) So how does Rav Sheishes explain it?

(a) What did Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak Darshen from "ve'Yarash Osah"? How did he learn it from there?

(b) Is the current D'rashah confined to the Yerushah of uncles, to which this Pasuk refers?

(c) On what grounds do we say that?

(a) If a man dies, leaving a nephew and a niece (the respective children of two uncles), but no father, children, brothers or sisters, who inherits his property?

(b) And who will inherit in the same case if he also left ...

1. ... grandsons?
2. ... granddaughters?

(c) We have already learned that if a man dies, the order of inheritance is 1. sons; 2. daughters; 3. father; 4. brothers; 5; sisters; 6. paternal uncles; 7. paternal aunts.
Who will inherit in a case where he has only a maternal aunt, but his deceased uncle left ...

1. ... a son?
2. ... a daughter?

(a) What objection did Abaye raise, when based on the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "ve'Hayah be'Yom Hanchilo es Banav", Rabah bar Chanina cited a Beraisa in front of Rav Nachman that read 'be'Yom Atah Mapil Nachalos ve'I Atah Mapil Nachalos ba'Laylah'?

(b) So how did he suggest that the Beraisa ought to read?

(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Yirmiyah "Beis David Diynu la'Boker Mishpat"?

(b) What does another Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Pinchas (in connection with the Dinim of Yerushah) "ve'Haysah li'Venei Yisrael le'Chukas *Mishpat*"?

(c) Why might we have thought otherwise?

(d) How do we reconcile the above Pasuk with the Pasuk in Yisro "ve'Shaftu es ha'Am be'Chol Eis", from which we extrapolate that Beis-Din are permitted to judge even at night-time?

(a) What did Rav Yehudah say about three people who went to visit a Shechiv-Mera (a person on his death-bed), who then wants to distribute his property to whoever it may be? What choice do they have?

(b) The fact that, should they choose to be Dayanim, there will be no witnesses to testify, doesn't matter.
Why not?

(c) In which case will there having witnessed the proceedings not suffice (without hearing it from other witnesses)?

(a) If they came following the Shechiv-Mera's invitation to testify to his actions, it will have the same Din as if they had come in the night.
What does Rav Chisda say about this latter case? Why the difference?

(b) This follows the opinion of Rebbi (in the Mishnah in Makos). Rebbi Yossi says there that if a relative or someone who is disqualified from testifying, witnesses a crime for example, then he disqualifies all other witnesses from testifying.
What does Rebbi say?

(c) What is the source for the principle 'Ein Eid Na'aseh Dayan'?

(a) And what will be the Din if it is not three people, but two, who entered the presence of the Shechiv- Mera?

(b) What did Rabah bar Chanina answer, when Abaye put to him the above (that perhaps one ought to change the wording of the Beraisa to 'Din Nachalos')?

(c) Are witnesses eligible to testify in money-matters if they have not been invited to do so by the two parties ('Atem Eidai')?

(d) How do we extrapolate from Rav Huna (through Rav Chisda's statement) that 'Atem Eidei' is not necessary by a Shechiv-Mera?

Next daf