Previous daf

1)

(a) In a case where Shimon claimed that he had already repaid the debt that Reuven was claiming with a Sh'tar, what did Reuven counter?

(b) Rav Nachman rules 'Isra Sh'tara'.
What does he mean by that?

(c) What does Rav Papa say?

(a) We cite a similar case, but where Reuven claimed 'Sitra'i Ninhu' only after Shimon had countered that Reuven had given him the money for a specific purpose.
Which purpose?

(b) And what did he mean when he added 've'Asivas a'Mischasa'?

(c) What does Rav Papa rule there?

(d) How do we reconcile the two 'contradictory' rulings of Rav Papa?

(a) Rav Papi rules 'Lo Isra Sh'tara' (like Rav Papa), Rav Sheishes b'rei de'Rav Idi rules 'Isra Sh'tara' (like Rav Nachman).
What is the Halachah?

(b) We restrict this ruling to where Shimon paid Reuven in the presence of witnesses.
Why is that?

(c) What would be the Din if he paid him privately?

(a) What happened in a case where Shimon stipulated that he would believe Reuven whenever the latter claimed that he had not yet paid?

(b) On what grounds did Rav Papa object to Abaye and Rava's ruling that Shimon must now abide by his own condition and pay?

(a) In which case are three witnesses an advantage over two?

(b) What did Rav Papa therefore rule in a case where Shimon stipulated that he would believe Reuven like two witnesses, should he claim that he had not yet paid, and then went and paid him in front of three witnesses?

(c) On what grounds did Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua disagree with that?

(d) In a second Lashon, Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua again maintained that there is no difference between two witnesses and a hundred.
What did he add this time with regard to a case where Shimon stipulated that he would believe Reuven like three witnesses ... ?

(e) What is the difference between the two cases?

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Ein Nishba'in al Ta'anas Cheresh, Shoteh ve'Katan'.
Seeing as a Cheresh cannot speak, how can he present a claim?

(b) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Mishpatim (in connection with the Din of Shevu'as ha'Dayanim) "Ki Yiten *Ish* el Re'ehu Kesef O Keilim Li'shemor"?

(c) From where do we learn the Din by Cheresh and Shoteh?

(d) Rav reconciles the above with the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Aval Nishba'in al Ta'anas Katan', by establishing the latter like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov.
What does Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov say?

(a) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov actually refers to the case as 'Nishba al Ta'anas Atzmo'.
Why is that?

(b) On what grounds do the Chachamim therefore argue with him?

(c) What problem do we now have with Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov?

(d) We reject the suggestion that it is a real Katan who is claiming from him, because of the principle 'Ein Nishba'in al Ta'anas Katan' (see Maharshal). So we establish it when the claimant is a Gadol.
Then why does the Tana refer to him as a Katan?

8)

(a) With regard to the Kashya why Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov refers to it as 'Ta'anas Atzmo', why do we reject the answer 'Ta'anas Acherim ve'Hoda'as Atzmo'?

(b) So we establish the Machlokes Tana'im when in fact it is a Katan who is claiming from him, and they argue over Rabah's explanation of 'Modeh be'Miktzas'. What makes this claim subject to a Shevu'ah any more than the regular claim of a Katan?

(c) Why does Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov then refer to it as 'Ta'anas Atzmo'?

(a) What does Rabah say to explain why every 'Modeh be'Miktzas' is not Patur from a Shevu'ah with a 'Migu' of 'Kofer ba'Kol'?

(b) If, as Rabah goes on to say, the debtor really wants to admit to the entire claim, then why doesn't he?

(c) Why does Rabah need to add that he really wants to admit to the entire claim?

(d) We finally establish the basis of the Machlokes on the She'eilah whether 'Ein Adam Me'iz Panav bi'Fenei Ba'al Chovo' extends to the creditor's son (from whom the debtor did not actually borrow) or not.
What is then the reasoning behind ...

1. ... Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov's ruling, who holds that it does?
2. ... the Chachamim's ruling, who holds that it doesn't?

(a) What does the Reisha of our Mishnah rule in the case 'Manah le'Aba be'Yadcha; Ein Lecha be'Yadi Ela Chamishim Dinar'?

(b) Why does this not contradict the Seifa, which we just established like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov?

(a) Shmuel establishes the Seifa when a claimant claims from the property of Yesomim (unconnected to Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov).
What is the source of this Shevu'ah?

(b) To answer the Kashya that we have already learned this in a Mishnah in 'Kol ha'Nishba'in', we cite a Beraisa quoted by Abaye Keshisha.
What does Abaye Keshisha's Beraisa say to explain why we need two Mishnos regarding this Shevu'ah?

(c) What other specific aspect of claiming from Yesomim does the Beraisa mention?

(a) Our Mishnah concludes 'Aval Nishba'in ... le'Hekdesh'.
How does Shmuel establish this ruling?

(b) What do we ask on this from the same Mishnah in 'Kol ha'Nishba'in'?

(c) How do we answer this Kashya? Why might we have thought that Hekdesh is different and does not therefore require a Shevu'ah?

(d) What does Rav Huna say about a Shechiv-Mera who declares 'Manah li'Peloni be'Yadi' after declaring all his property Hekdesh? Why is that?

(e) How do we reconcile this with our Mishnah, which holds 'Adam Oseh Kenunyah im Hekdesh'?

(a) Our Mishnah lists four things over which one does not swear. The first three are Avadim, Sh'taros and Karka'os.
What is the fourth?

(b) What else are these four things not subject to?

(c) A Shomer Chinam does swear over them.
Does a Shomer Sachar have to pay?

(d) According to Rebbi Shimon, one does swear over Kodshim she'Chayav be'Acharayusan.
What does this mean?

(a) To what is Rebbi referring when he says 'Yesh Devarim she'Hein ke'Karka, ve'Einan ke'Karka'?

(b) What do the Chachamim say?

(c) What principle governs the Tana's ruling 'Bayis Malei Masarti Lach ... ve'ha'Lah Eini Yode'a, Ela Mah she'Hinachta Atah Noteil, Patur'?

(d) What does the Tana rule in the case 'Zeh Omer ad ha'Ziz, ve'Zeh Omer ad ha'Chalon'?

(a) What does the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk in Mishpatim (in connection with Kefel) ...

1. ... "Al Kol D'var Pesha ('Klal') al Shor al Chamor ... (P'rat), al Kol Aveidah' (K'lal)?
2. ... "Yeshalem Shenayim *le'Re'eihu*"?

(b) What is the source to exempt Avadim, Sh'taros, Karka'os and Hekdesh from 'Tashlumei Arba'ah va'Chamishah'?

(c) What do we learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... (in connection with the Shevu'ah of a Shomer Chinam) "Ki Yiten Ish el Re'eihu (K'lal) Kesef O Keilim (P'rat) Lishmor (Klal)"?
2. ... (in connection with the Chiyuv Geneivah va'Aveidah of a Shomer Sachar) "Ki Yiten Ish el Re'eihu (K'lal) Chamor O Shor O Seh (P'rat) ve'Chol Beheimah Lishmor (K'lal)"?
3. ... "Re'eihu" in both cases?

Next daf