Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua's concession to Raban Gamliel in a case of 'ha'Peh she'Asar' is confined to property that belonged to his friend's father, because he is speaking about land. We ask why he does not speak about a case of movable goods, in which case he could establish it by the friend himself. What is the case?

(b) We answer, like we answered earlier, that we would then have a problem with the Seifa (when there are witnesses).
What would then be the problem? What do we rule with regard to someone who borrows money with witnesses?

(a) We then suggest that the Tana could have chosen another case of 'ha'Peh she'Asar ... ' Manah le'Avicha be'Yadi ve'He'echaltiv P'ras'.
What would be the Chidush that would give this case the edge over the case in our Mishnah?

(b) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov and the Rabbanan dispute this case in a Beraisa. Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov says 'Pe'amim Adam Nishba al Ta'anas Atzmo'.
What do the Rabbanan say?

(c) We reject the suggestion that the Tana ought to have presented this case, on the grounds that Rebbi Yehoshua would then not hold like either Tana.
Why would he not hold ...

1. ... like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov?
2. ... like the Rabbanan?

(a) What Takanah did the Chachamim enact regarding a Meishiv Aveidah? Why did they do that?

(b) This poses a difficulty with Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, who obligates a Shevu'ah in the previous case.
On what grounds do we reject the suggestion that he calls it Ta'anas Atzmo because it speaks when a child is claiming from him?

(c) And on what grounds do we reject the suggestion that it speaks when it is a Gadol who is claiming?

(d) And what is wrong with explaining that it is Ta'anas Acheirim ve'Hoda'as Atzmo?

(a) We conclude that Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov and the Rabbanan argue over Rabah, who explains why the Torah obligates a Modeh be'Miktzas (someone who admits to part of a claim) to take an oath. Why does a Modeh be'Miktzas not deny the claim completely?

(b) So why does he not then admit to the entire claim?

(c) What is now the case that Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov and the Chachamim dispute?

(d) What is the basis of their dispute? Why, according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, is it not considered 'Meishiv Aveidah'?
2. ... the Rabbanan, is it considered 'Meishiv Aveidah?

5)

(a) Witnesses who verify their signatures on a document are nevertheless believed to invalidate it, when they add 'Anusim Hayinu'.
Why is that?

(b) Which other two arguments might they present to invalidate the document?

(c) If there are other witnesses however, who recognize their signatures, then they are not believed.
Under which other circumstances are they not believed?

(a) Rami bar Chama (according to our initial understanding) restricts 'Anusim Hayinu' in the *Seifa* of our Mishnah (where they are not believed) to when they said 'Anusim Hayinu *Machmas Mamon*', but had they said 'Anusim Hayinu *Machmas Nefashos*', they would be believed.
Why is the former not believed, whereas the latter, is?

(b) On what grounds do we reject this explanation? What do we learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Im Lo Yagid"?

(c) Based on the Lashon Hagadah ("Im Lo Yagid"), we try to restrict 'Keivan she'Higid to verbal testimony, establishing Rami bar Chama's explanation by testimony that is written.
What principle does Resh Lakish teach us that negates such a contention?

(a) We therefore amend Rami bar Chama's statement, connecting it with the Reisha.
What does he now say?

(b) Why are they not believed in the Reisha, in spite of 'ha'Peh she'Asar'?

(c) What will be the Din in the Seifa?

(a) In the Reisha, we believe the witnesses, even if they claim that they are P'sulei Eidus.
Why will that not automatically invalidate them in the same way as it invalidate 'Anusim Hayinu Machmas Mamon'?

(b) Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, is more stringent than the Tana of our Mishnah. What does he say?

(c) The only real problem with Rebbi Meir is from the case of 'Anusim Hayinu (Machmas Nefashos)', where there is no apparent reason not to believe the witnesses on account of 'ha'Peh she'Asar', but not from the other two cases. Why is there no problem from ...

1. ... P'sulei Eidus?
2. ... Ketanim?

Next daf