Previous daf

1)

(a) What does Rava say about an employer who hired workers to water his field? Who bears the loss in the event that their services are not required because...

1. ... it rained?
2. ... the local river overflowed its banks?

(b) What does Rava say if those same workers are forced to stop work in the middle of the day because the local river dried up? When do the workers bear the loss and when must the employer bear it?

(c) And what does he rule in a case where an employer employed workers to do a certain task that day, and they completed it in the middle of the day?
When is the employer permitted to give them other work, and when must he pay them in full for what they did?

(d) Seeing as they did not work in the afternoon, why should he pay them in full, and not like a Po'el Batel?

(a) Why does the Beraisa (that we discussed on the previous Amud) find it necessary to inform us that if the retracting workers subsequently complete the job, they receive the full two Sela'im? Is that not obvious?

(b) But surely, when the employer convinced them to return, he cannot have expected them to continue working on the same terms as before?

(c) And why does the Tana then need to add that if what they did is worth a Sela, they receive a Sela?

(a) After citing Rebbi Dosa (who holds 'Yad *Po'el* al ha'Elyonah'), the Tana continues 'O Yigmeru Melachtan ve'Yitlu Sh'nei Dinrim'.
Why does the he need to tell us this? Is it not obvious?

(b) But surely, when the workers convinced the employer to return, they cannot have expected to continue working on the same terms as before?

(c) And why does he need to add 'Sela, Nosen Lahem Sela'? Is this too, not obvious?

(d) What is the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Dosa and the Rabbanan?

(a) Rav rules like Rebbi Dosa (who holds 'Kol ha'Chozer Bo, Yado al ha'Tachtonah').
What problem do we have with Rav's ruling? What does he say about a worker's right to retract?

(b) What is the basis of Rav's Chidush? From which Pasuk does he derive it?

(c) Initially, we attempt to draw a distinction between a day worker (who may retract) and a contractor, who is hired to do a specific job, (and who may therefore not do so).
What is the reason for this distinction?

(d) In which case does Rebbi Dosa speak?

5)

(a) What is the difference between a Sachir and a Kablan?

(b) What does the Tana of the Beraisa say in a case where either of them retracted in the middle of the day, due to the death of a close relative or because he was running a high fever?

(c) Why do we intially establish the author as Rebbi Dosa?

(d) What do we extrapolate from here concerning the opinion of Rebbi Dosa?
What is then the Kashya on Rav?

(a) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak establishes Rebbi Dosa by a Kablan, and the Beraisa can even go like the Rabbanan.
How does he establish the Beraisa to achieve this?

(b) Our Mishnah states 'Kol ha'Meshaneh, Yado al ha'Tachtonah; ve'Chol ha'Chozer Bo, Yado al ha'Tachtonah'. The Chidush of the former statement is in presenting a S'tam Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah (in Perek ha'Gozel Eitzim).
What does Rebbi Yehudah say?

(c) What is the Chidush in the latter statement? What does 'ha'Umnin' in the Reisha of our Mishnah imply?

(d) So how do we then reconcile Rav's ruling like Rebbi Dosa on the one hand, and his permitting a Sachir to retract on the other?

(a) Alternatively, Rav rules like Rebbi Dosa with regard to a Sachir as well, and 'Kol ha'Chozer Bo, Yado al ha'Tachtonah' refers to something else. What does it refer to? What is the case?

(b) How does this apply practically? What will be the Din if ...

1. ... the seller retracts after having paid part of the money?
2. ... the purchaser retracts?

(c) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees.
Why, according to him, would this situation never arise?

(a) The Tana requires the seller to pay good-quality land if he is the one to retract.
What two problems do we have with this, assuming that the Tana means 'from his best-quality fields'?

(b) How does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak therefore interpret the Beraisa?

(c) Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ika interprets the Beraisa like we assumed initially.
Why is that? What makes him consider the purchaser a Nizak?

(a) The Beraisa discusses a case where one of two men entering into a business deal, hands his friend a security, assuring him that, should he retract from the deal, he will forego the security.
What does his friend say?

(b) On what basis does Rebbi Yossi rule that the agreement is valid? What is 'Asmachta'?

(c) Rebbi Yehudah qualifies Rebbi Yossi's ruling.
What does he say?

(d) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel qualifies Rebbi Yehudah's ruling.
What does he say? In which case will the Eravon acquire completely?

11)

(a) And what does Rava say about a debtor who pays off his debt of a hundred Zuz, a Zuz at a time?

(b) What She'eilah did Rav Ashi ask with regard to a purchaser who had paid all but for the last Zuz for a donkey (see Maharam), for which the seller was pestering him?

(c) What did Rav Mordechai quote ... Rava as saying in this regard?

(a) In which case then, did Rava rule that, under the same circumstances, the purchaser acquires the object?

(b) On what grounds is this case different than a regular case of 'Ayil ve'Nafik a'Zuzi'?

Next daf