Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Mishnah obligates a Shomer Chinam to swear on everything.
What does 'everything' incorporate?

(b) What is the Din of ...

1. ... a Sho'el?
2. ... a Shomer Sachar and a Socher?

(c) In spite of what we learned, in which case will a Sho'el be Patur with a Shevu'ah?

(a) Seeing as we already learned these Halachos in Ba'va Metzi'a, why did Rebbi find it necessary to repeat them here?

(b) If the owner asks for his ox, and the Shomer Chinam claims that it died, or was broken, captured, stolen or lost, when in reality, anything else happened to the animal other than what he claimed; the owner then demanded a Shevu'ah, and the Shomer swore, is he Chayav to bring a Korban Shevu'ah?

(c) And what does the Mishnah rule in the same case, only where the Shomer Chinam denied having received the ox in the first place?

(d) What is the common reason for both of these rulings? What is the criterion for being Chayav a Korban Shevu'ah?

(a) What does the Tana rule in a case where, after the Shomer Chinam claims and swears that the ox ...

1. ... went lost, witnesses testify that he ate the animal?
2. ... was stolen, witnesses testify that he is the thief?

(b) In both of the above cases, how will the Din differ if he confesses himself that he ate it or stole it?

(c) Why does he not pay Kefel in these cases?

(d) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Naso (in connection with Gezel ha'Ger) "Vehisvadu es Chatasam Asher Asu"?

(a) What does our Mishnah say about a case where Shimon denies knowledge of the ox that Reuven claims he stole from him, and witnesses testify that ...

1. ... he did steal it?
2. ... he Shechted or sold it?

(b) Is the Tana speaking here too, when Shimon swore?

(c) The Tana then cites a case where Shimon saw that witnesses were about to go to Beis-Din, but preempted them and admitted to having stolen, but denied having Shechted or stolen the animal.
In the event that the witnesses subsequently testify that he did steal the animal and Shechted or sold it, on what basis do Beis-Din obligate Shimon to pay only the Keren ...

1. ... but not the Kefel?
2. ... but not Arba'ah va'Chamishah?

5)

(a) In a case where Reuven asks a Sho'el what happened to his ox, and he replies that it died, or was broken, captured, stolen or lost, when in reality, anything else happened to the animal other than what he claimed; the owner then demands a Shevu'ah, and the Sho'el swears, our Mishnah exempts the Sho'el from a Korban Shevu'ah.
Why is that?

(b) And what does the Tana rule in a case where the Sho'el denies having received the animal, and swears to that effect, and witnesses testify that the animal died, was wounded, captured, stolen or lost?

(c) What does the Tana rule in a case where a Shomer Sachar or Socher claims, backing his claim with a Shevu'ah, that the animal ...

1. ... died, when in reality, it was captured or vice-versa?
2. ... was stolen, when in reality, it went lost or vice-versa?
3. ... died, or was wounded or captured, when in reality, it was stolen or went lost?
4. ... was stolen or went lost, when in reality, it was wounded or captured?

(a) What objection did Rava rule, when Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah established our Mishnah (which refers to four types of guardians) like Rebbi Meir?

(b) Then what did Rav Nachman really mean with that statement?

(c) How did Rabah bar Avuhah reconcile what he just said with the Beraisa, which presents this opinion in the name of Rebbi Yehudah, whereas Rebbi Meir says 'Socher ke'Shomer Chinam'?

(d) And how do we explain our Mishnah 'Arba'ah Shomrim Hein' in light of the fact that there are only three Dinim?

(a) What does Rav comment regarding all the cases that we just cited absolve the Shomer from a Korban Shevu'ah?

(b) According to Shmuel, they are Patur because of Shevu'as Bituy, too. What are the ramifications of this Machlokes?

(c) Rav's reason is because the Shevu'ah is applicable 'be'La'av ve'Hein (Nignav, ve'Lo Nignav)'.
What is Shmuel's?

(d) What problem do we have with this Machlokes?

(a) To answer the Kashya, we explain that even if they had argued in the case of 'Shevu'ah she'Zarak P'loni Tz'ror le'Yam ... ', we would have thought that, in our case, Rav would agree with Shmuel, because of a statement by Rebbi Ami.
What did Rebbi Ami say about any Shevu'ah that is enforced by Beis-Din?

(b) And having taught us their Machlokes here, why did they then find it necessary to repeat it there?

(c) What does Rebbi Ami learn from the Pasuk in Vayikra (in connection with the Shevu'as Bituy) "O Nefesh Ki Sishava"?

(d) This in turn, is based on a statement of Resh Lakish.
What did Resh Lakish say about the word "Ki"?

(e) So how does Rebbi Ami now interpret "Ki Sishava"?

(a) How does Rav interpret "Ki Sishava"?

(b) With whom does Rebbi Elazar side in the previous Machlokes?

(c) In his opinion, all the cases in our Mishnah are Chayav for Shevu'as Bituy except for two (which might be construed as more). One of them is 'Eini Yode'a Mah Atah Sach' of a Sho'el.
What is the other?

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah categorizes all of the above cases into two 'K'lalim'.
Of all the possible computations of changing from Chovah to Chovah, from P'tur to P'tur, from Chavah to P'tur and from P'tur to Chovah, which is the only one which renders a Shomer Sachar (or Socher) Chayav?

(b) Which second 'K'lal' does he present, based on 'Lehakel and Lehachmir'?

On to Avodah Zarah