Previous daf

1)

(a) Abaye queries both Rabah and Rav Nachman on two scores.
What basic Kashya did he ask on both of them?

(b) Based on Rabah's own statement later (in connection with the case of the old grandmother), why should even Karka be considered Ra'uy, even though it is Meshubad?

(c) What does Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah say about Yesomim who claimed Karka that was Meshubad to their father?

(d) How does Abaye ask from there on Rav Nachman's current opinion? What would he have said had the Yesomim acquired Karka after their father's death?

(a) What did Rabah reply (to answer Abaye's Kashyos on Rav Nachman as well as those on himself)?

(b) What do Rabah and Rav Nachman then really hold? Whose opinion do they follow?

(c) If that is so, on what grounds do they qualify the Shalchu mi'Tam? How do they know that they do not consider him Muchzak in both?

(a) If Rav Nachman really considers even Karka to be Ra'uy, on what basis does he quote Rabah bar Avuhah, who permits the creditor of the Yesomim's father to claim his debt from the property which the Yesomim claimed from their father's debtor?

(b) And how will we reconcile Rabah here, who considers the father Muchzak in his debtor's Karka according to the Shalchu mi'Tam, with the Shalchu mi'Tam, who, in the forthcoming case, consider the property Ra'uy, even though it was Karka]).
Why was it not Meshubad to the husband?

4)

(a) What did the owner of the property stipulate after bequeathing his property to his old grandmother?

(b) Who claimed the property after the old woman died?

(c) On what grounds did ...

1. ... Rav Huna uphold the husband's claim?
2. ... Rav Anan disagree? Who ought have then to have inherited the property?

(d) What would Rav Anan have ruled had the daughter survived her husband, and left a son or daughter when she died?

(a) What did Shalchu mi'Tam mean when they ruled like Rav Anan, but not for the same reason?

(b) What are the ramifications of this ruling?

(c) What problem did this initially pose on Rav Huna?

(d) What did Rebbi Elazar mean when he said in answering this Kashya, 'Davar Zeh Niftach bi'Gedolim, ve'Nistayem bi'Ketanim'? Whom did he mean by 'Gedolim' and 'Ketanim'?

(a) How did Rebbi Elazar explain Rav Huna, for the property not to have Ra'uy?

(b) Nevertheless, Rabah, based on a S'vara that we have already discussed, agrees with the B'nei Ma'arava (the Shalchu mi'Tam).
Which S'vara?

(c) Rav Papa issues a final ruling regarding the matters discussed in the above Sugya.
Which ruling effects a husband and a Bechor equally?

(d) What does he rule with regard to a Bechor receiving an extra portion in a loan? Does it make a difference whether the heirs claimed land or money?

(a) Is Rav Papa's first ruling absolute? Is there any kind of Ra'uy that a husband does inherit?

(b) Why is this obvious, despite the fact that the Rabbanan argue with Rebbi over this point with regard to a Bechor?

(c) In which case will the Rabbanan anyway concede to Rebbi that even a Bechor will inherit Ra'uy which grows from the object that one inherited?

(d) And in which case will Rav Papa agree that even a Bechor who has brothers will receive an extra portion, despite the fact that it is Ra'uy?

(a) Rav Papa concludes 'Bechor she'Imo Palgi'.
What is 'Bechor she'Imo'?

(b) What is the reason for this ruling?

(c) On what grounds might the Bechor's father be more Muchzak in this loan than in a loan that he is owed by a third party?

Next daf