Previous daf

1)

(a) What can we extrapolate from our Mishnah, which exempts an ox that meant to gore another ox, and inadvertently gored a pregnant woman, killing her babies?

(b) How do we reconcile this Mishnah with Rav Ada bar Ahavah, who exempts the ox even in the latter case too? In that case, why does the Tana specifically present the case in this way?

(c) What will be the Din if an ox gores a pregnant Shifchah, killing her babies?

(d) What do we Darshen from the Pasuk in Vayeira (in connection with the Akeidah) "Sh'vu Lachem Poh im ha'Chamor"?

(a) On what grounds do we query the Lashon 'Keitzad Meshalem *D'mei V'lados*' in our Mishnah?

(b) So how do we amend it?

(c) Does this assessment incorporate the personal Nezek sustained by the woman?

(d) What proportion of the woman's personal Nezek goes to the husband, and what proportion goes to the woman herself ...

1. ... in the case of revealed blemishes?
2. ... hidden blemishes?

(a) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel argues with the Tana Kama in our Mishnah. He says 'Im Kein, mi'she'ha'Ishah Yoledes Meshabachas'.
How does Rava interpret this?

(b) What does one then assess, according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel?

(c) In a Beraisa which supports Rava's explanation, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel adds 'u'Sh'vach V'lados Cholkin'.
How do we reconcile this with our Mishnah, where Raban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees with those who hold that there is such a thing as Sh'vach V'lados?

(a) Bearing in mind that the Torah has already written "ve'Yatz'u Yeladehah", it seems obvious that the Pasuk is talking about a pregnant women.
What do the Rabbanan therefore learn from the word "ve'Nagfu Ishah *Harah*"?

(b) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel Darshens it like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. How does he qualify the obligation of the man who struck the woman, depending upon where he struck her?

(c) How does Rav Papa extend Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov's qualifiction?

(a) According to Rabah, it is only if the incident under discussion took place during the lifetime of the Ger, who died only afterwards, that the man who dealt the stroke is exempt from paying, but not if the Ger was no longer alive at the time of the incident.
Why is that?

(b) On what grounds does Rav Chisda vehemently object to Rabah's statement?

(c) What does 'Mari Dichi' mean?

(d) So what does Rav Chisda rule?

(a) We ask on Rabah from the Beraisa that we cited already in the previous Perek. The Tana says there that in the current case, the Nezek and Tza'ar go to the woman and the D'mei V'lados to her husband.
In the event that ...

1. ... the woman is no longer alive, who gets the Nezek and Tza'ar?
2. ... the husband is no longer alive, who gets the D'mei V'lados?
3. ... the woman is a Shifchah or a Giyores, who receives the Nezek and Tza'ar and the D'mei V'lados?

(b) What is the problem with Rabah from this Beraisa?

(c) Rabah resolves the problem in one of two ways; one of them, by establishing the Beraisa when the incident took place during the lifetime of the Ger (like he established our Mishnah). Alternatively, the Beraisa is speaking when it took place after the death of the Ger. How will he then amend the Beraisa ('Haysah Shifchah O Giyores, Zachah')?

7)

(a) We cite a Beraisa which discusses a pregnant bas Yisrael who is married to a Ger and whom someone struck, killing her baby. If this took place during her husband's life-time, says the Tana, the D'mei V'lados go to the Ger. If it happened after his death, there are two opinions.
What are the two opinions?

(b) How do we initially try to correlate this Machlokes with that of Rabah and Rav Chisda currently under discussion?

(c) But we conclude that, although Rabah must hold like this, Rav Chisda need not.
What will Rav Chisda say? How can both Tana'im hold like him?

(d) What will the Machlokes Tana'im then be?

(a) Why can Rabah not also establish both Tana'im like himself?

(b) If as we just concluded, according to Rav Chisda, the author of the Beraisa that says Chayav is Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, why does the Tana speak specifically in a case where the husband *died*, seeing as, according to him, the Mazik would even be Chayav in the Ger's lifetime?

(a) Alternatively, we establish both Beraisos like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel.
How is this possible?

(b) Seeing as, after the death of her husband, the woman receives Sh'vach V'lados, according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, we ask why he will not say the same with regard to D'mei V'lados.
If that were so, would we also say it according to the Chachamim?

(c) On what grounds do we reject this suggestion?

(a) Rav Yeiva Saba asked Rav Nachman about someone who is holding the documents of a Ger who dies.
What exactly did he ask him?

(b) What are the ramifications of the She'eilah?

(a) What does Rabah rule in the case of a Yisrael who seizes the Mashkon (security) ...

1. ... that a Ger received from his Jewish debtor, after the death of the Ger?
2. ... that a Yisrael received from his debtor who is a Ger, after the death of the Ger?

(b) We ask why, in the latter case, the creditor's Chatzer did not acquire the remainder of the Mashkon on his behalf. What do we initially answer?

(c) So what if the owner is not there? Is that a reason for his Chatzer not to acquire on his behalf?

(d) This is not the Halachah however.
What is the Halachah? Why does the creditor's Chatzer not acquire the entire Mashkon on his behalf?

(a) What does our Mishnah say about someone who digs a pit in the Reshus ha'Yachid which opens into the Reshus ha'Rabim or to another Reshus ha'Yachid, or in the Reshus ha'Rabim which opens into the Reshus ha'Yachid?

(b) Can we extrapolate from this Mishnah that a Bor bi'Reshus ha'Rabim is Patur (because it has no owner)?

(c) Why, in the case when he dug the pit in the Reshus ha'Rabim which opens into the Reshus ha'Yachid, must we say that he declared his Reshus Hefker?

(a) What does Rebbi Yishmael say about someone who digs a pit in the Reshus ha'Yachid which opens into the Reshus ha'Rabim?

(b) What does Rebbi Akiva say?

(c) According to Rabah, Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva argue over a Bor bi'Reshuso. What does Rebbi Akiva learn from the Pasuk "Ba'al ha'Bor Yeshalem"?

(a) According to Rabah, what will both Tana'im hold in the case of a Bor bi'Reshus ha'Rabim?

(b) How do they learn this from the Pasuk "Ki Yiftach Ish Bor" .. "ve'Chi Yichreh Ish Bor"?

(c) How does Rebbi Yishmael interpret "Ba'al ha'Bor"?

(d) Bearing in mind that Rebbi has a Pasuk for a Bor bi'Reshus ha'Rabim as well as for a Bor bi'Reshuso, what does he mean when he says 'Zehu Bor ha'Amur ba'Torah'?

Next daf