Previous daf

1)

(a) What did Rav Daniel bar Rav Ketina Amar Rav say in the name of Rav about someone who siezes his friend's Eved and works with him?

(b) How does this clash with Rav's current ruling regarding Avadim?

(c) What do we mean when we answer that Rav Daniel is speaking 'she'Lo be'Sha'as Melachah'?

(d) And we base this on a ruling of Rav Huna.
What did Rav Huna rule when Mari bar Mar, prompted by Rebbi Aba, asked him what the Din will be if Reuven takes up residence in Shimon'a apartment without his knowledge?

(a) Some attribute Rav Huna's ruling to the fact that a house which is inhabited is better looked after and is therefore in better shape than one which has been uninhabited.
What do others say?

(b) Seeing as neither of these reasons apply to an Eved, how will we justify Rav Daniel bar Ketina's previous ruling?

(c) What did the members of Rav Yosef's household used to do with the Avadim belonging to their creditors?

(d) Rav Yosef initially justified his actions by quoting Rav Nachman, who stated that Avadim are not worth the bread that they eat.
On what grounds did Rav Yosef's son Rabah object to that? Who was Daru?

(a) What reason did Rav Yosef then offer for allowing his family to work with his creditors' slaves? With whose statement did he equate their actions?

(b) What was Rabah's final objection to his father's leniency? What distinction did he draw between Rav Daniel's case and that with which his father was involved?

(c) And how did Rav Yosef react to that?

(d) And he based this on a statement of Rav Yosef bar Minyumi Amar Rav Nachman.
What did he say in this regard?

(a) According to Rav, if Reuven siezes Shimons boat and uses it without permission, the owner may claim whichever is more of the going rental or the depreciation.
What does Shmuel say?

(b) Rav Papa explains that Rav and Shmuel in fact, do not argue, because Rav speaks about a boat which is for rent, and Shmuel, about one which is not. What then, is Rav's reasoning?

(c) And what is Shmuel's?

(d) Alternatively, both are speaking about a boat which is for rent.
Then how does he establish them in a way that they do not argue.

(a) Rav Huna explains our Mishnah 'Matbei'a ve'Nifsal ... Omer Lo Harei she'Lecha Lefanecha' to mean Nifselah Malchus (that the coin was completely withdrawn from circulation).
What does Rav Yehudah say about that?

(b) So does he interpret 'Nifsal'?

(c) Rav Chisda asked Rav Huna how he would differentiate between 'Paslaso Malchus and Peyros ve'Hichmitz ... ' (where the Tana rules 'Meshalem ke'Sha'as ha'Gezeilah').
What did he replied?

(d) And what did Rav Yehudah reply when Rabah asked him what the difference would be between 'Paslaso Malchus' (which he considered like 'Nisdak') and 'Terumah ve'Nitma'as ... ' (where the Tana rules 'Harei she'Lecha Lefanecha')?

6)

(a) If Reuven lent Shimon goods on condition that he receives money in exchange, Rav requires Shimon to repay coins that are local currency at the time of repayment.
What does Shmuel say?

(b) What would the Din be if he had lent him coins?

(c) How does Rav Nachman qualify Shmuel?

(a) The Beraisa forbids the redemption of Ma'aser-Sheini on to coins that are not currency, such as 'Kuzbiyos vi'Yerushalmiyos or of the early kings'. Besides money of the country K'ziv, what else might Kuzbiyos mean? How would this interpretation then affect the text?

(b) What do we infer from the statement 'or of the early kings'?
How does this pose a Kashya on Rav Nachman's interpretation of Shmuel?

(c) How do we establish the Beraisa to reconcile Shmuel's ruling with it? In which case does Shmuel then speak?

(a) If Shmuel is speaking when the governments are particular about foreign coins being spent there, how can Shimon then tell Reuven to go and spend the money in Meishan?

(b) Why is Reuven then not obligated to accept the coins if he is not going to Meishan?

(c) Another Beraisa forbids the redemption of Ma'aser-Sheini with Yerushalmi coins if the owner and the coins are both in Bavel.
Why is that?

(d) What does the Tana say about Babylonian coins that are ...

1. ... in Yerushalayim?
2. ... in Bavel?

(a) What do we ask from this Beraisa on Rav Nachman?

(b) How will Rav Nachman have to establish the Beraisa in order to answer this Kashya?

(c) How will he then explain the Seifa 'shel Bavel ve'Hein be'Bavel Mechalelin' (seeing as the Babylonian coins are totally useless in Yerushalayim)?

(d) And how will we reconcile the Beraisa 've'Lo al shel Bavel ve'Hein Ka'an' with the Beraisa 'Hiskiynu she'Yihyu Kol Ma'os Yotz'os bi'Yerushalayim'?

(a) The coins of Yerushalayim had David and Sh'lomoh engraved on one side of the coin.
What was engraved on the other side?

(b) What was the mark of a coin from the time of Avraham Avinu?

(a) What did Rav Chisda reply when Rava asked him ...

1. ...what the Din will be if Reuven were to lend Shimon goods on condition that he returns coins, and they subsequently increased the size of the coins?
2. ... whether this would even apply if the coins reached the size of a sieve or of a weight the size of a quarter of a Kav?

(b) Why is this She'eilah confined to the opinion of Rav? What would Shmuel say in this case?

(c) What problem do we have with Rav Chisda's ruling?

(d) How does Rav Ashi attempt to answer this Kashya? In what way does he restrict Rav Chisda's ruling?

Next daf