Previous daf

1)

(a) If Shimon plants the fruit that Reuven sold him and it failed to grow, the Tana Kama exempts Reuven from responsibility.
What did Reuven stipulate at the time of the sale?

(b) What is the basis of this ruling?

(c) Will it extend to flax? Why might it not?

(a) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel precludes garden seeds from this ruling.
Why is that?

(b) Why is this case even more obvious than one where Reuven sells Shimon wine and it turns out to be beer (where the sale is also invalid)?

(c) What does the Tana Kama hold? How can he argue with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel?

(d) Why is Shimon not obligated to at least pay Reuven the price of firewood, since all he can do with the seeds is burn them?

(a) According to Rav, if Reuven sells Shimon an ox which turns out to be a goring ox, the sale is invalid.
Why is that?

(b) What does Shmuel say?

(c) Why will even Sumchus, who rules 'Cholkin' (in Bava Kama, in the case where an ox gored a cow, and we find a stillborn calf beside the dead cow), concede here that the sale is valid?

(d) According to Shmuel, why is this different than 'Yayin ve'Nimtza Chometz', where the sale is invalid?

(a) Why do we not just not ascertain whether Reuven usually sells for eating or for plowing (whether he is basically a butcher or a farmer)?

(b) How might the price indicate what he sold it for?

(c) What do the Rabbanan rule in the previous Perek, in the case where Reuven sold a plow, and the price indicates that the ox was included in the sale?

(d) Then why here will they concede that it is?

(a) Why do we not look at the price in our case to determine whether Shimon bought the ox for eating or for plowing?

(b) If, as we just explained, the purchaser received what he paid for, then what difference does it make whether the sale is valid or not?

(a) Why must Rav and Shmuel be speaking when Reuven actually has money with which to pay?

(b) What can we extrapolate from here with regard to Rav Huna's D'rashah "Yashiv", 'le'Rabos Shaveh Kesef ke'Kesef' (the source of the previous D'rashah)?

(c) Perhaps this extrapolation only goes as far as returning the actual money that Shimon paid Reuven, but not to other money (which would not preclude Reuven from the right to pay Metaltelin)?

(d) What is now the Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel?

7) We just concluded that Rav and Shmuel argue over whether a Rov can extract money from the defendant. Even Shmuel agrees however, that a Rov determines in matters of Isur, such as the case of nine shops.
What is the case of nine shops?

8)

(a) What does the Mishnah in Kesuvos rule with regard to a widow or a divorcee who claims that she was a Besulah when she married (and is therefore entitled to a Kesuvah of two hundred Zuz), whereas the husband claims that she was a widow (who only receives a hundred)?

(b) What does this imply that poses a Kashya on Rav?

(c) Initially, we answer that most women marry as Besulos and all Besulos have a Kol that they did, and that consequently, since the woman under discussion did not have a Kol, unless she has witnesses, she only receives a hundred Zuz (since the fact that there is no Kol outweighs the Rov).
On what grounds do we refute this answer?

(d) So how do we amend the previous answer in order to answer the Kashya? Why do we not after the majority there (even according to Rav)?

(a) What does the Beraisa say about Reuven who sold Shimon an Eved who turned out to be ...

1. ... a Ganav or a kidnapper?
2. ... an armed robber or a murderer who is wanted by the government?

(b) According to Shmuel (who does *not go after the majority* in money-matters) why ought the sale to be invalid in the Reisha too?

(c) In that case, why is the sale valid, if not because we *do*)?

Next daf