Previous daf

1)

(a) Having already taught us the Din of 'Nishba'in ve'Notlin' by 'Nigzal', why does the Tana find it necessary to add the case of 'Mesachek be'Kuvya'?
What is a 'Mesachek be'Kuvya'?

(b) Why is he only Pasul mi'de'Rabbanan?

(c) When Rava asked Rav Nachman whether, in the case of 'Sheneihen Chashudin', Rebbi Yossi holds 'Chazrah Shevu'ah li'Mekomah', and Rebbi Meir, 'Yachloku' (as it stands in our Mishnah), or vice-versa, he replied that he did not know.
What did he reply when he asked him what the Halachah was?

(d) All the other opinions cited here, including Rav Yosef bar Minyumi quoting Rav Nachman, invert the opinions in our Mishnah.
Again citing Rav Yosef bar Minyumi, how did Rav Nachman actually rule in a case that came before him?

(a) What does Rebbi Ami mean when he quotes Raboseinu she'ba'Bavel, who say 'Chazrah Shevu'ah le'Sinai'?

(b) What do Raboseinu she'be'Eretz Yisrael say?

(c) 'Raboseinu she'be'Eretz Yisrael' says Rav Papa, are Rav and Shmuel.
Who is 'Raboseinu she'be'Bavel'?

(a) When the Tana adds Yesomim to the list of 'Nishba'in ve'Notlin', why can he not be referring to an ordinary debtor?

(b) Then to whom is he referring?

(a) Rav and Shmuel confine this Halachah exclusively to a case where the creditor died in the lifetime of the debtor.
Why is that? What would have been the Din if the debtor had died first?

(b) What is the reason for this principle?

(c) What is the practical application of this ruling? What would happen to the claim in such a case?

(d) How does this prove that 'Raboseinu she'be'Bavel' are synonymous with Rav and Shmuel?

(a) What did Rebbi Aba rule in the case (which we discussed in 'Shevu'as ha'Eidus'') that came before Rebbi Ami, where Reuven grabbed a lump of silver from Shimon in front of one witness, and claimed that it belonged to him?

(b) What do we prove from there?

(a) What did Rebbi Ami Darshen from the Pasuk "Shevu'as Hashem Tih'yeh Bein Sheneihem"?

(b) Why can this not refer to a case where Reuven's heirs claim that their father lent Shimon's father a Manah, and Shimon's heirs admit to fifty Zuz and deny the other fifty?

(c) Then what is the case?

(d) How does this support Rebbi Aba's opinion?

7)

(a) Rav and Shmuel Darshen the Pasuk "Shevu'as Hashem Tih'yeh Bein Sheneihem" like Shimon ben Tarfon in a Beraisa.
How does he interpret it?

(b) Shimon ben Tarfon also learns from the Pasuk "Lo Tin'af" that 'Okef Achar No'ef' is included in the La'av. What does 'Okef Achar No'ef' mean?

(c) How does he Darshen this from "Lo Tin'af"?

(a) And how does Shimon ben Tarfon explain the Pasuk in Devarim ...

1. ... "Vateragnu be'Ohaleichem"?
2. ... "ad ha'Nahar ha'Gadol Nehar P'ras"? Why does the Pasuk refer to the Euphrates as ''ha'Nahar ha'Gadol"?

(b) Why can we not understand the Pasuk literally?

(c) Shimon ben Tarfon extrapolates from here the adage 'K'rav Legabei Dehina ve'Idhen'.
What does this mean?

(d) What similar adage does de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learn from it?

(a) What did Rebbi mean when he commented on the Tana Kama's ruling with regard to Chenvani al Pinkaso, 'Torach Shevu'ah Zu Lamah'?

(b) Which of two statements might Rebbi have been making?

(c) Rebbi Chiya cites our S'tam Mishnah, where Rebbi explicitly learns 'Sheneihem Nishba'in ve'Notlin mi'Ba'al ha'Bayis'.
Why did he cite it?

(a) We ask whether Rebbi accepted Rebbi Chiya's observation or not. How do we attempt to resolve the She'eilah from another Beraisa, where Rebbi says 'Po'alin Nishba'in le'Chenvani'?

(b) How do we explain this Beraisa to repudiate this suggestion?

(c) Why is that necessary?

(a) According to Rav Huna, if two pairs of witnesses contradict one another, each one is permitted to testify independently.
What does he not allow them to do?

(b) What does Rav Chisda say?

(c) With regard to the above, what do we comment about ...

1. ... two creditors, two debtors and two Sh'taros?
2. ... 'Malveh ve'Loveh u'Shenei Sh'taros'?

(d) What do we mean when we say 'Sh'nei Malvin ve'Loveh Echad u'Shenei Sh'taros, Haynu Masnisin'?

(a) What She'eilah do we ask about a case of 'Sh'nei Lovin u'Malveh Echad u'Shenei Sh'taros? Why according to Rav Huna, might we ...

1. ... not accept either claim against the Loveh?
2. ... accept both claims against him?

(b) Why is this She'eilah confined to Rav Huna? What would Rav Chisda say?

(c) What is the outcome of the She'eilah?

(a) Rav Huna bar Yehudah cites a Beraisa.
What does the Tana rule in a case where one witness gives the height of the new moon in the sky as ...

1. ... two ox-goads and the other, as three?
2. ... three ox-goads and the other, as five?

(b) How do we initially interpret the Tana's ruling 'u'Mitztarfin le'Eidus Acheres'?

(c) On whom is Rav Huna bar Yehudah asking?

(d) How does Rava therefore interpret the Beraisa, to reconcile Rav Chisda with the Tana?

(e) What is the Tana's reasoning?

Next daf