Previous daf

1)

(a) We just concluded that, in order to be considered She'eilah be'Ba'alim, the owner must work for the Sho'el at the time of the She'eilah, but not necessarily when the O'nes occurs. And we learn this from a superfluous Pasuk.
What problem do we have with this conclusion?

(b) Seeing as the She'eilah would not obligate the Sho'el without the O'nes, on what grounds do we place the criterion on the She'eilah?

(c) How does Rav Ashi extrapolate the same thing from the Pasuk "ve'Chi Yish'al Ish me'Im Re'eihu ... Shalem Yeshalem"?

(d) According to Rav Ashi, why does the Torah then need the two Pesukim "Be'alav Ein Imo ... " and "Im Be'alav Imo"?

(a) Rami bar Chama asks a series of She'eilos.
What does he ask about ...

1. ... someone who borrowed an animal for sinful purposes? Why might he be Patur from Onsin?
2. ... someone who borrowed it in order to appear wealthy so that merchants should sell him goods on credit? On what grounds may he be exempt from paying for Onsin?
3. ... someone who borrowed two cows to work to the value of one Perutah.
   What are two sides of the She'eilah?

(b) What must this latter She'eilah assume in the case of the previous She'eilah, where he borrowed a cow to work for less than a Perutah?

(c) He also asks what the Din will be if someone borrows from two partners together with one of the partners, whether "Be'alav" must be total or the borrower will at least be Patur from the half pertaining to the partner who is working for him. In the reverse case, where partners borrowed someone's cow together with the owner who was to work for only one of them, what will be a major difference between the work of the cows and that of the owner?

(a) Finally, Rami bar Chama asks two She'eilos. One of them, is 'Sha'al min ha'Ishah, ve'Nish'al Ba'alah, Mahu'.
What is the case?

(b) What exactly is the She'eilah?

(c) What is his last She'eilah?

(d) What did Ravina ask Rav Ashi about someone who instructed his Sheli'ach to lend someone the owner's cow together with himself? In view of the principle 'Shelucho shel Adam Kamoso', why might this not be considered 'She'eilah be'Ba'alim'? Why might the borrower nevertheless be liable?

(a) Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ivya remarked to Rav Ashi that each of the two previous (sets of) She'eilos is rooted in a Machlokes. The last set of She'eilos of Rami bar Chama is in fact a Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish.
What is the bone of contention regarding Bikurim in the case where Reuven sells Shimon his field for two or three years?

(b) Rebbi Yochanan says 'Meivi ve'Korei'.
Why is that?

(c) What does Resh Lakish say?

(d) How does this tie up with Rami bar Chama's last set of She'eilos?

(a) Ravina's She'eilah is rooted in the Machlokes between Rebbi Yonasan and Rebbi Yoshiyah.
What does Rebbi Yoshiyah learn from the Pasuk in Matos (in connection with an Apotropus whom a man appoints to annul his wife's Nedarim) "Iyshah Yekimenu, ve'Iyshah Yeferenu"?

(b) What does Rebbi Yonasan say?

(c) How will this determine how each one will hold in the case of 'ha'Omer li'Shelucho Tzei ve'Hisha'el Im Parasi' (see Tosfos DH 'Sheli'ach')?

(a) Rav Ilish asked Rava what the Din will be if a man says to his Eved 'Tzei ve'Hisha'el Im Parasi'.
Why might this ...

1. ... not be considered She'eilah be'Ba'alim even according to Rebbi Yonasan?
2. ... be considered She'eilah be'Ba'alim even according to Rebbi Yoshiyah?

(b) What did Rava reply?

7)

(a) Rami bar Chama asks whether a man is considered a Sho'el or a Socher on his wife's property.
What objection does Rava raise to the She'eilah?

(b) He answers by establishing the case where a man hired a cow from a woman and then married her.
How does he then explain the She'eilah?

(c) On what grounds do we object to this explanation too?

(a) We finally establish the case of Rami bar Chama's She'eilah, where a woman hired a cow from a third party, and after she married, an Ones occurred, and the She'eilah is according to Rebbi Yossi in Hamafkid.
What does Rebbi Yossi say" What is the She'eilah?

(b) Why will the She'eilah not apply according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi Yossi? What do they hold?

(c) Rava resolves the She'eilah by citing Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina. What does he quote the Chachamim in Usha as having ruled (with regard to a woman who sold her Nechsei Milug during her husband's lifetime)?

(a) Rami bar Chama asks who is Mo'el if a man who receives his wife's property contained some Hekdesh.
What is ...

1. ... the case?
2. ... the She'eilah?

(b) Rava ruled that neither of them is Mo'el.
Why not?

(c) Then why are Beis-Din (who are responsible for all Takanos in their generation) not Mo'el, for placing the woman's property in her husband's domain?

(d) Does this mean that there is no Me'ilah at all on the property in question?

(a) They asked in the Beis-Hamedrash whether if a borrowed animal becomes worn out through regular work, the Sho'el is liable to pay.
What did Rav Chilkiyah B'rei de'Rav Ivya infer from the She'eilah?

(b) Why was he surprised by it?

(c) So what did Rava conclude?

(a) What did Rava rule regarding a borrower who broke the borrowed ax?

(b) In a similar case where there were no witnesses, Rav obligated the borrower to replace the broken ax with a new one.
What was the reaction of his Talmidim, Rav Kahana and Rav Asi?

(c) And how did Rav react to that?

(d) What is the Halachah?

Next daf