Previous daf

1)

(a) We then suggest that Rav agrees with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, that 'ha'Masneh al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah, Tena'o Bateil', but he holds that, if the woman dies, her husband (who made the T'nai, 'Din u'Devarim ... '), does not inherit her.
Why not?

(b) What is wrong with this suggestion?

(a) We then suggest that Rav disagrees with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's opinion, inasmuch as Raban Shimon ben Gamliel holds 'ha'Masneh ... *bi'd'Oraysa*, Tena'o Bateil' (Ha bi'de'Rabbanan, Tena'o Kayam), whereas *he* holds that even 'bi'de'Rabbanan, Tena'o Bateil.
What would be the practical ramifications of their Machlokes?

(b) On what grounds do we reject this suggestion?

(c) So how do we finally establish Rav?

(a) What ruling does Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, in a Mishnah in Bechoros, issue with regard to a husband who inherits his wife?

(b) Does an heir need to return his inheritance to the family of the deceased in the Yovel year?

(c) What is the problem with Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah's ruling, assuming that he holds 'Yerushas ha'Ba'al de'Rabbanan'?

(d) So how does Rav establish his ruling? Why does the man need to return the inheritance and what is the significance of the monetary deduction?

(a) This explanation is borne out by a Beraisa.
What does the Beraisa say about someone who sells his family sepulcher together with the path that leads to it?

(b) How do we reconcile Rav's interpretation of Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah's ruling with his own ruling that Yerushas ha'Ba'al is de'Rabbanan?

(a) If someone dies, leaving a wife, creditors and heirs, according to Rebbi Tarfon, any Pikadon (an object that is deposited with a third person), or money that is owed to him, is given to the 'weakest of them' (which will explained later in the Sugya - and not to the heirs).
On what grounds ...

1. ... do we ignore the principle 'Metalteli de'Yasmi Lo Mishtabdi le'Ba'al Chov'?
2. ... does Rebbi Akiva say that it is given to the heirs (rather than to the other claimants who now stand to lose their claims)?

(b) What does Rebbi Tarfon say about detached fruit in the same circumstances?

(c) What do Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva say in the previous case, in the event that the wife took more than the amount of her Kesuvah or the creditor took more than the amount of his loan? What happens to the excess?

(d) Having told us the Din by a loan, why does the Tana find it necessary to add that the same applies to a Pikadon?

(a) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina interprets 'the weakest' in our Mishnah as the one with the weakest proof.
What does he mean by that?

(b) Rebbi Yochanan interprets it to mean 'the woman, who is claiming her Kesuvah'.
What does the Tana mean by that?

(a) Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva argue in the Seifa regarding the excess fruit which the woman or the creditors claimed.
What does Rebbi Akiva hold with regard to the initial amount that is owed to them?

(b) Then why does he mention specifically the excess?

(c) Does Rebbi Akiva not hold of Tefisah (taking the object of doubt into one's possession) at all?

8)

(a) According to Rav and Shmuel, Rebbi Tarfon permits Tefisah even after the death of the original owner, only if the objects are lying in the street.
What would be the Din if they were lying in a Simta, according to them?

(b) What do Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish say?

(c) What did Rebbi Yochanan say when Resh Lakish forced the Dayanim who ruled like Rebbi Tarfon to rescind their ruling?

(d) Based on the principle 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Akiva me'Chaveiro', how do we initially explain their Machlokes?

(a) Is the principle 'Ta'ah bi'D'var Mishnah, Chozer' confined to an error in a Mishnah, as the wording suggests?

(b) Alternatively, we contend, both Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish agree that 'Ta'ah bi'D'var Mishnah, Chozer', but, assuming that Rebbi Tarfon was Rebbi Akiva's Rebbe, they argue whether the Halachah is like Rebbi Akiva even when he argues with his Rebbe.
What is the alternative to this explanation?

(c) What might be the basis of Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish's Machlokes, even assuming that Rebbi Tarfon was Rebbi Akiva's colleague, and not his Rebbe?

(a) Rebbi Yochanan vindicated his relatives, who took possession of a cow belonging to an orphan (whose deceased father owed them money) that was standing in a Simta (like Rebbi Tarfon).
What did Resh Lakish say?

(b) How did Rebbi Yochanan react when he heard what Resh Lakish had ruled?

(c) A certain creditor claimed that he had taken possession of an ox from the orphans' shepherd *before* their father's death, whilst the shepherd countered that he had taken it *after* his death.
On what basis did Rav Nachman believe the creditor?

(d) How do we reconcile this with Resh Lakish, who says that a Chazakah (proof of ownership from the fact that they are in one's domain) is not acceptable with regard to animals, who may have walked into one's field by themselves?

(a) When the family of the sexilarch took possession of a maidservant belonging to orphans from a Simta (like Rebbi Tarfon, according to Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish's interpretation). What did Rebbi Aba comment, when various Amora'im vindicated their action.

(b) When Yeimar bar Chashu's debtor died, Yeimar sent his Sh'liach to take possession of a boat that he had left. Rav Papa and Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua objected, based on a statement by Rebbi Yochanan. What did Rebbi Yochanan say?

(a) What is the significance of the fact that Rav Papa proceeded to row the boat in the above episode, whilst Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua steered it?
What claim did they have on the boat anyway?

(b) What did they retort, when Rav Pinchas bar Ami cited the opinion of Rav and Shmuel, who hold that Tefisah from a Simta is not effective?

(c) When they eventually came before Rava, what disappointing news did he have for them?

Next daf