Previous daf

1)

(a) What does Rav Chisda mean when he says 'Sheli'ach she'As'o be'Eidim, Havi Sheli'ach'? What is the case?

(b) And what are the ramifications of Rav Chisda's statement?

(c) What does Rabah say?

(d) Rav Chisda's reason is because, it is evident from the fact that the creditor appointed the Sheli'ach in front of witnesses, that he intended to appoint him his official Sheli'ach.
How does Rabah counter this?

(a) What does the Mishnah in 'ha'Sho'el' say about Reuven who asks to borrow a cow from Shimon, who sends it to him through a son, an Eved, or a Sheli'ach belonging to either of them, and the cow died on the way? What does this prove?

(b) How do we know that the Sheli'ach was appointed in front of witnesses?

(c) We learned in our Mishnah that the Ganav may not send the stolen article on which he swore via the owner's son or Sheli'ach, from which we can extrapolate the same as we extrapolated from the Mishnah in 'ha'Sho'el'. How does Rav Chisda establish the Mishnah in 'ha'Sho'el' in order to reconcile his opinion with it?

(d) 'Sechiro' means a paid worker. 'Lekito' might mean a man who gathers in the crops.
What else might it mean?

(a) How do we reconcile the Mishnah in ha'Sho'el with Rav Chisda?

(b) It transpires that, according to Rav Chisda, the Tana of our Mishnah will hold that, had the owner appointed the Sheli'ach with witnesses, the Ganav would be permitted to send the stolen article with him.
Then why, in the Seifa, does he jump to a Sheli'ach Beis-Din? Why does he not present the case of a Sheli'ach who was appointed with witnesses?

(c) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar in a Beraisa disagrees with this ruling.
What does he say about a Sheli'ach Beis-Din who is appointed at the instigation of either the Ganav or the owner only?

(a) Like whom do Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar rule, like Rav Chisda or like Rabah?

(b) Then, aside from Rav Chisda's answer ('bi'Sechiro u'Lekito'), how do they establish our Mishnah?

5)

(a) What does Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel mean when he says 'Ein Meshalchin Ma'os bi'Deyukni'?

(b) Nor will it make any difference if witnesses sign on the letter to back the request, according to him.
What does Rebbi Yochanan say?

(c) What would be the problem if the debtor would hand the Sheli'ach the money?

(a) To get round the problem of claiming a debt from someone who lives in another town, Shmuel cited the incident of Rebbi Aba who was owed money by Rav Yosef bar Chama (though this is difficult, seeing as Shmuel lived long before Rav Yosef).
What request did he make of Rav Safra?

(b) What did Rav Yosef's son Rava, advise his father to do before handing Rav Safra the money?

(c) What caused Rava B'rei de'Rav Yosef to retract from his previous ruling?

(d) So he advised Rav Safra to tell Rebbi Aba to do what Rav Papa would do at a later date.
With Rav Shmuel bar Aba as the Sheli'ach, what did Rav Papa do ...

1. ... to retrieve his debt from the Bei Chuza'i?
2. ... upon Rav Shmuel bar Aba's return with the money, demonstrating his joy at receiving his debt?

(a) What do we infer from the fact that the Tana of our Mishnah found it necessary to exempt the Ganav from taking the Chomesh to Madai together with the principle?

(b) How do we prove this again from ...

1. ... the continuation of our Mishnah 'Nasan Lo es ha'Keren ve'Nishba al ha'Chomesh'?
2. ... a Beraisa? What does the Beraisa say about someone who steals and swears, and then dies?

(c) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Asher Gazal va'Asher Ashak" that a son does not need to pay a Chomesh for what his father stole if neither his father nor he swore.
What does the Tana then go on to add to that?

(d) How does Rav Nachman reconcile the previous Beraisa (which obligates a son to pay Keren ve'Chomesh for the father's theft) with this Beraisa?

(a) What can we infer from the latter Beraisa, which only speaks about a Chomesh?

(b) How does this pose a Kashya on Rav Nachman, who just establishes this Beraisa when the father did not admit to having sworn falsely?

(a) What does another Beraisa say about a son having to pay Keren for the father's theft, irrespective of whether either of them swore or not?

(b) The Beraisa concludes 'Talmud Lomar Gezeilah, ve'Oshek, Aveidah. u'Pikadon; Yesh Talmud'.
What did Rabah bar Rav Huna ask his father, who had just quoted this Beraisa, about the last two words? What is the alternative text to 'Yesh Talmud'?

(c) What is the difference between the two texts?

(d) What did Rav Huna reply to his son's She'eilah?

(a) The latter Beraisa, which is a continuation of the previous one, is a further proof that this Tana does obligate the sons to pay the Keren, which makes no sense if there was no admission.
How do we therefore qualify the 'Lo Hodeh' of Rav Nachman?

(b) If the son swore and then admitted, why does he not pay a Chomesh on his own admission?

(c) Then why does he pay the Keren?

(d) Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua explains that he is nevertheless exempt from paying the Chomesh, because one never pays Chomesh for any denial that involved Karka.
Why is that?

(a) According to some texts, we ask that even if the father did leave Karka, it is no better than an oral loan.
What is the Kashya? Why ought the son then not be obligated to pay even the Keren?

(b) What do we answer?

(c) On what grounds do we reject this text in view of ...

1. ... the Kashya? What does the Sugya later say about an oral loan where the father left Karka?
2. ... the answer? Why would it be ineffective?

(d) What other problem do we have with the answer 'be'she'Amad ba'Din'?

(a) Rava has another way of explaining why the Beraisa obligates the son to pay the Keren but not the Chomesh. He establishes the case 'K'gon she'Haysah Diskaya shel Aviv Mufkedes be'Yad Acheirim'.
What does this mean?

(b) How does this explain why the son ...

1. ... pays the Keren?
2. ... does not pay the Chomesh?

Next daf