Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Yehudah states in the Beraisa 'Nasan Asham li'Yehoyariv, ve'Kesef Li'Yedayah, Yachzir Kesef Eitzel Asham'.
What do the Chachamim say?

(b) Why can the Beraisa not be speaking when the Gazlan gave the Asham to Yehoyariv during their Mishmar and the money to Yeda'ayah during their Mishmar?

(c) Rava therefore establishes the Beraisa when he gave both during the Mishmar of Yehoyariv. If the Chachamim's reason is because Yehohariv should not have accepted the Asham before the Gazlan had returned the money (as we learned in our Mishnah in a case where he gave the money to Yedayah during their Mishmar), what is Rebbi Yehudah's reason?

(a) What does Rebbi in a Beraisa say about the above case if Yehoyariv atually brought the Asham before Yedayah returned the money to them?

(b) What does Rebbi mean when he says that Yehoyariv may keep the Asham that they have? Of what use is a Pasul Asham?

(c) In that case, when does Rebbi Yehudah say 'Yachzir Kesef Eitzel Asham'?

(a) In a second Beraisa, Rebbi states that, according to Rebbi Yehudah, if the Asham is still alive, 'Yachzir Asham Eitzel Kesef' (meaning that Yehoyariv must give the Asham to Yehoyada to bring.
But did Rebbi Yehudah not say 'Yachzir Kesef Eitzel Asham'?

(b) In yet another Beraisa, Rebbi states that, according to Rebbi Yehudah, if the Asham is still alive, 'Yachzir Kesef Eitzel Asham'.
But surely that is precisely what Rebbi Yehudah said?

(c) What is Rebbi coming to teach us?

(d) What is the point of returning the money to the Yehoyariv? Seeing as their Mishmar has already come to an end, when will they bring the Asham?

(a) What does Rava learn from the Pasuk in Naso "ha'Asham ha'Mushav la'Hashem la'Kohen, mi'L'vad Eil ha'Kipurim Asher Yechaper Bo Alav"?

(b) Assuming that Rava learns this from "mi'L'vad Eil ha'Kipurim"' which, he maintains, implies that the Asham comes later, what Kashya does this pose on the Pasuk in Pinchas "mi'L'vad Olas ha'Boker Asher le'Olas ha'Tamid", which is written immediately after the Korban Musaf?

(c) What does Rava himself Darshen from the word "ve'Arach Aleheh *ha'Olah*" (written in Vayikra, in connection with the Korban Tamid)?

(d) So from where does Rava really learn that the Gazlan must return the Gezel ha'Ger before bringing the Asham?

(a) The Torah writes in Vayikra, in connection with Me'ilah (the misappropriation of Hekdesh) "ve'ha'Kohen Yechaper Alav be'Eil ha'Asham ve'Nislach Lo".
What does "ha'Asham refer to"?

(b) In that case, what does the Beraisa learn from ...

1. ... "be'Eil ha'Asham ve'Nislach Lo"?
2. ... the order of the words "be'Eil ha'Asham"?

(c) Is the Chomesh Me'akev, too?

1. ... by Hekdesh from Hedyot?
2. ... by Hedyot from Hekdesh?

7)

(a) Our Mishnah exempts the heirs of a Gazlan who fed them or left them what he stole.
In which case does the Tana concede that they will are Chayav?

(b) What does Rav Chisda say in a case where someone eats what a Gazlan stole before the owner has been Meya'esh?

(c) Why is that?

(d) How does Rav Chisda then establish our Mishnah, which exempts the heirs who ate what their father left them from paying?

(a) What does Rami bar Chama extrapolate from the previous statement of Rav Chisda (from the fact that the heirs acquire the object with Yi'ush and Shinuy Reshus)?

(b) We are clearly assuming that Yi'ush alone is not Koneh.
How do we know that this is what the Tana of our Mishnah holds?

(a) Rava interprets our Mishnah differently.
Why according to him, are the heirs Patur from paying (even if we were to hold like Rav Chisda's basic Halachah)?

(b) The heirs can only be Patur, according to Rava - if they ate the stolen object after their father's death.
Why is that? What would be the Din if the object was still available?

(c) Our Mishnah concludes 've'Im Hayah Davar she'Yesh Bo Acharayus, Chayavin Le'shalem'.
How do we currently interpret this?

(d) In that case, it seems that the Reisha speaks when the stolen object is still available (a Kashya on Rava).
How will Rava therefore explain the Mishnah? How does he amend the Seifa 've'Im Hayah Davar she'Yesh Bo 'Acharayus ... '?

(a) We ask on this however, from a statement that Rebbi made to Rebbi Shimon his son.
How did Rebbi explain to his son 'Davar she'Yesh Bo Acharayus'?

(b) In response, Rava said that when he died, Rebbi Oshaya would come out to greet him.
Why did he say that?

(c) How does Rebbi Oshaya interpret ...

1. ... 'Hini'ach Lahem Avihem Peturim mi'Le'shalem'?
2. ... 've'Im Hayah Davar she'Yesh Bo Acharayus, Chayavin Le'shalem'?

(a) We just established our Mishnah according to Rebbi Oshaya to read 'Gezeilah Kayemes, Chayavin Le'shalem. Ein Gezeilah Kayemes, Peturin'. How will ... ...

1. ... Rav Chisda, who learned earlier that the third person (who ate the object) is Chayav, explain 'Ein Gezeilah Kayemes, Peturin'?
2. ... How will Rami bar Chama, who holds 'Reshus Yoresh ki'Reshus Loke'ach Dami', explain 'Gezeilah Kayemes, Chayavin Le'shalem', seeing as according to him, the heirs ought to acquire the object with Yi'ush and Shinuy Reshus?

(b) What have we proved from here? From which point have we now retracted, with regard to Rami bar Chami?

(c) Why are the Gazlan's heirs not Koneh the Gezeilah anyway, according to Rami bar Chama, because of Shinuy Reshus?

Next daf