Previous daf

1)

(a) Rava, quoting Rav Nachman, will discuss some Halachos of 'Huchzak Kafran'.
What will be the Din, according to Rav Yosef bar Minyumi, with regard to believing the debtor who claims 'Para'ti' following Beis-Din's ruling ...

1. ... 'Tzei Ten Lo'?
2. ... 'Chayav Atah Liten Lo'?

(b) What is the basis for this distinction?

(c) What will be the Din with regard to Beis-Din subsequently writing a Sh'tar Adrachta on behalf of the creditor?

(a) What does Rav Z'vid Amar Rava say?

(b) How does he therefore present the distinction between whether the debtor claims Para'ti after 'Tzei Ten Lo' or after 'Chayav Atah Liten Lo'?

(c) Why, in the latter case, is the debtor not Huchzak Kafran?

(a) What does Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan say about a case where the debtor denies having borrowed the money ('Lo Hayu Devarim me'Olam') and refuses to pay after witnesses testify that he did?

(b) This is borne out by an incident where Shabsa'i the son of Rebbi Merinus, denied having entered a valuable article of clothing in his daughter-in-law's Kesuvah.
Who ruled that he was 'Huchzak Kafran' on that article of clothing after witnesses testified that he had indeed entered it into the Kesuvah?

(a) What does Rebbi Avin Amar Rebbi Ila'a Amar Rebbi Yochanan say about someone who is obligated to swear and who claims that he already swore, in spite of the witnesses who testify that he did not?

(b) How did Rebbi Avahu qualify Rebbi Yochanan's statement?

(c) Why is that?

(d) What did Rebbi Avin comment when he heard about Rebbi Avahu's qualification?

(a) What does Rebbi Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan say about a case where someone found a Sh'tar with a Henpek in the street which was dated on the same day?

(b) Why do we not suspect that the debtor may have paid?

(c) Rebbi Asi also quoted Rebbi Yochanan as saying that a Sh'tar which was used to borrow with and the loan was repaid, cannot be re-used.
What reason did he give for this?

(d) Why did he not rather attribute it to the fact that the Sh'tar is Mukdam (in which case it will be forbidden to use it even for the same debt, let alone another one)?

(a) Rebbi Zeira asked Rebbi Asi from Rebbi Yochanan's latter ruling, which implies that people do pay their debts on the same day.
What did he reply?

(b) Rav Kahana disagrees. According to him, Rebbi Yochanan does suspect that the Sh'tar may have been paid even on the same day as it was dated.
Then why does he rule 'Yachzir'?

(c) What is then the Chidush, according to Rav Kahana?

(d) Why are we not afraid that the debtor might do this in order to save himself the Sofer's fees?

(a) We established the Mishnah earlier in the Perek 'Matza Sh'tarei-Chov, Im Yesh Bahen Acharayus Nechasim, Lo Yachzir', when the debtor admitted that he was Chayav to pay.
What is the Tana then worried about?

(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan, why is the Tana worried about that? Why does he not assume that the creditor will not allow the debtor to get away with his ruse, like he did in the previous case?

8)

(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan states that someone who claims that he has paid a Ma'aseh Beis-Din is not believed.
What is meant by 'Ma'aseh Beis-Din'?

(b) Bearing in mind the fact that the woman does not claim with a Sh'tar, what is the reason for this ruling?

(c) What did Rebbi Yochanan reply, when Rebbi Chiya bar Aba asked him whether his ruling was not synonymous with the Mishnah in Kesuvos 'Hotzi'ah Get ve'Ein Imo Kesuvah, Govah Kesuvasah'?

(a) On what grounds does Abaye refute Rebbi Yochanan's reply to Rebbi Chiya bar Aba? How does he establish the Mishnah, even if 'Para'ti' *would* apply to Ma'aseh Beis-Din?

(b) Why else, besides the fact that her husband can claim 'Para'ti', might the woman not be able to claim her Kesuvah without the Sh'tar Kesuvah?

(c) Abaye repudiates his own rebuttal however, by referring to a widow from the betrothal.
What would be the problem if, on principle, the man was believed to claim 'Para'ti' in a place where they wrote a Kesuvah?

(a) Mar Keshishah B'rei de'Rav Chisda queried the very concept of an betrothed woman being paid a Kesuvah.
Why is there no proof from the Mishnah in Kesuvos 'Nisarmelah O Nisgarshah, Bein min ha'Eirusin u'Vein min ha'Nisu'in Govah es ha'Kol' that an Arusah receives a Kesuvah?

(b) If the Mishnah speaks when her husband wrote her a Kesuvah (but normally, an Arusah does not receives one), what is the Chidush? Is it not obvious that if he wrote her a Kesuvah, she claims it?

(c) The Lashon of the Mishnah in Kesuvos is 'Govah es ha'Kol'.
What does ha'Kol' mean?

(d) What do we then prove from here?

Next daf