Previous daf

1)

(a) What does the Beraisa say about a case where a river swept away Reuven's beams, wood and bricks and deposited them in Shimon's field?

(b) What do we extrapolate from here? Why is this a Kashya on Rava?

(c) What is the answer? What is the equivalent of being able to save the objects, by other Metzi'os?

(a) What does the Seifa of the Beraisa say? In which case is Shimon obligated to return the objects?

(b) If Reuven is able to save his objects at any time, why should there be a difference between whether he is making efforts to save them or not? How must we therefore establish the Beraisa?

(a) The Beraisa discusses a case where Reuven separates Terumah from Shimon's crops without his prior permission.
When will his Ma'aser take effect, and when will if not?

(b) We establish the case when Shimon arrives on the scene and tells Reuven to 'go to the better ones'.
How would this clarify the issue?

(c) When would the Terumah take effect even if there were no better crops to be found?

(a) As the case stands, where Shimon did not know about the Terumah until after it had been separated, it seems that the Tana holds 'Yi'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as Havi Yi'ush'.
How does Rava establish the Beraisa according to Abaye?

(b) If Shimon appointed Reuven a Sheli'ach, then why might his Terumah not be valid?

(c) How do we prove that in any event, this must be the case? Why could the Tana not be speaking when Reuven Ma'asered Shimon's crops without his prior permission?

(a) What did the Aris (sharecropper) of Mari bar Isak bring Ameimar, Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi when he found them in Mari's orchard?

(b) Did they eat what he gave them?

(c) What did Mari bar Isak say when he saw what his Aris had done?

(d) On what grounds did Mar Zutra still refuse to eat?

6)

(a) What does the Beraisa say about someone who is pleased with the dew ...

1. ... that he finds on his fruit which is drying on the roof?
2. ... that he discovers had previously been on the now dry fruit?

(b) The Seifa of the Beraisa indicates that this Tana holds 'Yi'ush she'Lo mi'Da'as, Lo Havi Yi'ush', a Kashya on Rava. How will Rava therefore explain the Beraisa, based on the word "ve'Chi *Yiten* (spelled without a 'Vav') Mayim al Zera"?

(c) The Reisha nevertheless places the fruit in the category of 'be'Chi Yutan', despite the fact that it was not the owner who made the fruit wet, because of a statement Rav Papa.
What does Rav Papa learn from the discrepancy between the way the word is written and the way it is spelt?

(a) What does Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "ve'Chein Ta'aseh le'Simlaso ... Asher Tovad Mimenu u'Metzasah"? Does it make any difference whether the owner knows about it at the time or not?

(b) What do we extrapolate from here that finally disproves Rava?

(c) In how many other cases in Shas do we rule like Abaye against Rava?

(d) What did Rav Acha Brei de'Rava ask Rav Ashi about dates that were blown off the palm-tree by the wind, due to the fact that Rava has been disproved?

(a) Why, in reality, could Rav Acha bar Rava have asked the same question even if Rava had not been disproved?

(b) What was Rav Ashi's reply?

(c) What would be the Din if the palm-trees belong to Yesomim Ketanim? Would we also forbid eating the dates from any date-palm, due to the possibility that the owner is a Yasom Katan?

(d) Rav Ashi also forbids the dates in the case of 'Karsh'sa'.
What is 'Karsh'sa'?

(a) Rabah establishes 'small sheaves in the Reshus ha'Rabim' (which our Mishnah permits the finder to keep) even when they have a Si'man.
What does Rava say?

(b) What is the basis of their Machlokes?

(c) How do others present the Machlokes?

(a) We extrapolate from 'K'richos bi'Reshus ha'Rabim', that in a Reshus ha'Yachid, the finder would be obligated to return them.
Why is this a Kashya on Rava?

(b) What does Rava reply? Why might one be obligated to return sheaves that one finds in a Reshus ha'Yachid, even if they have no Si'man?

(c) Then why is Makom not a Si'man in the Reisha?

(d) What does Rabah say in this matter?

(a) We just learned that the Tana of our Mishnah draws a distinction between whether one finds small sheaves in a Reshus ha'Rabim or in a Reshus ha'Yachid.
What does the Tana of the Beraisa add with regard to large sheaves.

(b) How will Rabah explain this latter ruling? Bearing in mind that, in his opinion, a Siman that is going to be trodden on is not a Si'man, why may the finder not keep large sheaves that he finds in a Reshus ha'Yachid?

(c) And the same Kashya applies to Rava, bearing in mind that in his opinion, a Siman that is going to be kicked about is not a Si'man?

Next daf