Previous daf

1)

(a) Someone was selling a field which measured one hundred Amos from north to south. Upon selling his field, he specified Yehudah's field as his western border, and Reuven's field as the field's eastern border, even though Shimon's field took up half of that side.
What did Rav initially rule? How much of Reuven's field would the purchaser acquire?

(b) If he intended the purchaser to acquire only half his field, then why did not specify his western border as the half of Yehudah's field that faced Shimon's?

(c) How much of the field would the purchaser acquire if the seller were to specify Reuven and Shimon's fields in the east, and Yehudah's in the west, even though Levi's field, which took up half of the western border together with Yehudah's, faced Shimon's field?

(a) Which of Rav's rulings did Rav Kahana and Rav Asi query?

(b) What did Rav reply?

(c) According to Rav's initial ruling, why would the purchaser acquire more in the second case than in the first? What ought the seller to have written in the Sh'tar if he meant him to receive only half the field?

(d) Rabeinu Chananel has a slightly different text. According to him, Rav's second case comes to explain (not why the seller did not intend to sell more than half, but) why he did not intend to sell the entire field.
What ought he to have written had he meant to sell him the entire field?

(a) Assuming that the seller intends to sell his entire field, what must he write in the Sh'tar if Reuven's fields flank his on the east and west, and Shimon's on the north and south?

(b) What would the purchaser acquire if, in the previous case, the seller wrote that he was selling him his field which was flanked by the fields of Reuven and Shimon?

(c) We ask what the Din will be if his field is flanked by fields that are owned by many people, and he specified the four owners who bordered the four corners of his field.
If he did not mean to sell him the entire field, then what did he mean to sell him?

(a) We also ask what the Din will be if the seller specified two opposite corners 'like a Greek Gam(ma)'. What does this mean? What is a Greek Gam(ma)?

(b) This case might be no better than the previous one, in which case the purchaser will only acquire one diagonal strip that joins the two Gam(ma)s.
Why on the other hand, might it be better that the previous case? How much of the field would he then receive?

(a) Finally, we ask 'be'Sirugin Mahu'.
What does this mean? What is the case?

(b) What did the seller write in the Sh'tar?

(c) Why might the purchaser acquire the entire field, even assuming that, in the previous case (of the Gam[ma]), the purchaser only acquires one furrow running through the field?

(d) What is the outcome of all the She'eilos?

6)

(a) Rav rules that if the seller specifies three of the borders but not the fourth, the purchaser acquires three sides, but not the fourth.
What does he mean by that? What does he not acquire?

(b) According to Shmuel, he acquires the fourth side as well.
What does Rav Asi say?

(c) What do we mean when we say that Rav Asi holds like Rav?

(d) In which point does he then argue with him?

(a) Rava rules like Rav, only he qualifies his ruling to where the fourth side is not absorbed.
What does he mean by that? When will even Rav then concede that the purchaser acquires the entire field (like Shmuel)?

(b) In which case will the purchaser acquire the field, even according to Rav, and even if the fourth side is not absorbed in the field?

(c) What will Rav hold in a case where the furrow is absorbed but there is a cluster of date-palms growing there, or if the furrow measures nine Kabin?

(d) How will Rava define Rav's opinion, according to this Lashon?

(a) In the second Lashon, Rava rules like Shmuel, and again, he qualifies his ruling.
How does he do that? In which case will Shmuel concede to Rav that the purchaser does not acquire the furrow on the fourth side?

(b) And how does Rava qualify Shmuel's ruling even in a case where the furrow is absorbed in those of the two adjacent sides?

(c) What will Shmuel then hold in a case where the furrow is not absorbed ... , and neither is there a cluster of date-palms growing on it nor does it measure nine Kabin?

(d) According to this Lashon, how does Rava define Shmuel?

(a) Taking into account both Leshonos of Rava, we know that the Halachah is not like Rav Asi.
What will we rule in a case where the furrow is ...

1. ... absorbed and neither are there date-palms growing on it nor does it measure nine Kabin?
2. ... not absorbed and in addition, there are either date-palms growing on
3. it or it measures nine Kabin?

(b) Which cases then remain a Safek?

(c) What would we normally rule in such a case?

(d) What do we rule here?

(a) Rabah draws a distinction between a case where Reuven, who owns a field in partnership with Shimon sells 'Palga de'Is Li be'Ar'a' and where he says 'Palga be'Ar'a de'Is Li'.
What is the difference?

(b) Abaye disagrees.
How does Abaye interpret 'Palga be'Ar'a de'Is Li'?

(c) Initially, Abaye thought that Rabah's silence constituted admission. How did he discover that Rabah maintained his stance?

(a) What does Rabah rule in a case where Reuven sells Shimon a field, specifying the western border, but adding that he is retaining for himself ...

1. ... 'Palga'?
2. ... 'P'sika'?

(b) In this case too, Abaye disagrees with Rabah, and here too, Rabah remains silent. How do we initially understand Abaye's objection?

(c) What does Rav Yeimar bar Shalmaya say about this? How does he explain Abaye's statement?

Next daf