Previous daf

1)

(a) What does another Beraisa say about the division of Eretz Yisrael in time to come? How will it differ basically from the original division?

(b) How do we initially interpret the Beraisa 've'Lo Nischalkah Ela be'Kesef'?

(c) According to Rebbi Yehudah, how many Sa'ah in Galil was equivalent in value to one Sa'ah in Yehudah?

(d) We know that the Land was divided by lots from the Pasuk in Pinchas "Ach be'Goral Yechalek es ha'Aretz".
What does the Tana learn from the Pasuk there "al-Pi ha'Goral Techalek Nachalaso"?

(a) Who wore the Urim ve'Tumim?

(b) What was the procedure with regard to the lots? How many boxes were there?

(c) How did the Urim ve'Tumim work in conjunction with the lots?

(d) What distinction between the distribution of Yehoshua and that of Mashi'ach (besides the one mentioned earlier) does this Beraisa describe?

(a) What did the above dual system of distribution achieve?

(b) Why could they not use one box, with each lot containing both the name of the tribe and the section of land which that tribe was destined to receive?

(c) Why does the Sugya mention Zevulun and Naftali and not Reuven and Shimon (or Yehudah and Yisachar)?

(d) The Tana describes yet a third distinction between the two distributions (besides the question of which tribes participated, which will be discussed shortly).
What does he learn from the Pasuk in Yechezkel "ve'Eileh Machlekosam *Ne'um Hashem*"?

(a) How do we also resolve our original She'eilah (whether Eretz Yisrael was distributed 'li'Shevatim' or 'le'Karfaf de'Gavri') from this lengthy Beraisa?

(b) The Tana earlier, mentioned thirteen portions into which the land will be apportioned in the time of Mashi'ach.
Would it be correct to say that the thirteenth portion will go to Levi?

(c) Then who will receive the thirteenth portion.

(d) Initially, we cite a Pasuk in Yechezkel "ve'ha'Oved me'Ir *Ya'avduhu* mi'Kol Shivtei Yisrael". Rav Papa asked Abaye how we know that this Pasuk is referring to a portion of land, and not to the obligation to serve him like Talmidim, a Rav.
What did Abaye reply?

(a) We initially interpreted the Beraisa 've'Lo Nischalkah Ela be'Kesef' to mean that those who received superior-quality land would compensate those who received land of inferior quality.
On what grounds do we refute this explanation?

(b) Then what *does* the Tana mean?

(c) What second disadvantage did living further northwards have, besides being further away from Yerushalayim?

(d) Rebbi Yehudah's earlier statement that one Sa'ah in Yehudah was equivalent to five Sa'ah in Galil, might have been based on the distance from Yerushalayim (to explain the Tana Kama of his Beraisa).
What else might he have meant?

(a) The Tana Kama of the previous Beraisa is Rebbi Eliezer.
What does Rebbi Yehoshua say?

(b) What is the Tana'im's source for this compensation?

(a) What does the Tana of another Beraisa learn from the Pasuk "*Ach* be'Goral Yechalek es ha'Aretz"?

(b) Why can this not be coming to preclude Yehoshua and Kalev from taking a portion altogether?

(c) Then what is the Pasuk coming to teach us?

(d) Who received Timnas Serach in Har Ephrayim?

8)

(a) In Sefer Yehoshua, Yehoshua's inheritance is called "Timnas Serach'', whereas in Shoftim, it is referred to as "Timnas Cheres".
What does Rebbi Elazar mean when ...

1. ... in the first Lashon, he explains 'bi'Techilah Peirosehah ke'Cheres, ve'li'be'Sof Peirosehah Masrichin'?
2. ... in the second Lashon, he explains 'bi'Techilah Peirosehah Masrichin, ve'li'be'Sof Peirosehah ke'Cheres'?

(b) Which area did they give to Kalev?

(c) How does Abaye reconcile this with the fact that Chevron was an Ir Miklat?

(a) What do we Darshen from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "*Lo* Mishpat ha'Bechorah" with regard to the property that a son inherits from his mother?

(b) How will the Din differ from an ordinary Yerushah, if a father dies leaving Nechasim Me'utin?

(c) What would be the Din in the equivalent case, but where it was their mother whom they inherited?

(a) Our Mishnah begins with the words 'Echad ha'Ben ve'Echad ha'Bas be'Nachalah'. Why can this not mean that ...

1. ... a daughter inherits together with her brother?
2. ... daughter who inherits, receives even Ra'uy just like her brother, like Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak suggests?

(b) On what grounds do we reject the Kashya 've'Od, Mai Ela' (after making the first of the two previous points [with reference to the continuation of the Mishnah 'Ela she'ha'Ben Notel Pi Shenayim be'Nechsei ha'Av ve'Lo be'Nechsei ha'Eim'])?

(c) What additional Kashya do we ask after making the second of the two above points?

(d) We are happy to make the second of the two above points based on the Mishnah in connection with the B'nos Tz'lofchad.
How could we have proved our point from another Mishnah?

(a) And on what grounds do we reject Rav Papa's suggestion 'Echad ha'Ben ve'Echad ha'Bas Notlin Cheilek bi'Vechorah'?

(b) Neither can the Tana be teaching us that just as a father may bequeath all his property to one of his sons, so too, may he bequeath it to one of his daughters (should he have no sons) as Rav Ashi suggests, because this is the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah.
What does Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah say later in the Perek?

(c) Perhaps the Tana is presenting a S'tam Mishnah like Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah?

(d) So how does Mar bar Rav Ashi finally establish our Mishnah, to answer the second Kashya ('ve'Od, Mai Ela') as well?

Next daf