Previous daf

1)

(a) What happened to the man who stipulated that if he failed to arrive within thirty days, the Get that he gave his wife was to be valid?

(b) What did Shmuel rule following the man's cries 'Chazu de'Asa'i, Chazu de'Asa'i'?

(c) Do we have an absolute proof from here that 'Ein O'nes be'Gitin' ('there is no such thing as an O'nes by a condition on a Get')?

(a) What happened to the man who stipulated that if he did not appease his wife within thirty days, the Get that he had given her would be valid?

(b) According to the first Lashon, Rav Yosef ruled there that he could have pacified her by offering her three Kav of Dinrim (even though he did not possess so much money). What did he say according to the second Lashon?

(c) What is the basis of the Machlokes between the two Leshonos?

(a) What does the Tana of our Mishnah rule with regard to someone who lends money to a Kohen, a Levi or a poor man? How can he obtain his debt by means of the various Ma'asros that he is obligated to give?

(b) After the death of the original debtors, why may he not continue to do this, without permission from the debtors' heirs?

(c) Why will the Din differ if the original loan took place in front of Beis-Din?

(a) Rav asks on our Mishnah from the fact that the particular Kohen or Levi did not actually make a Kinyan on his creditor's Terumah.
What is then the problem?

(b) Rav answers 'be'Makirei Kehunah.
What does this mean? How does it resolve the question of theft?

(c) According to Shmuel, the Tana speaks when the creditor actually asks a third person to acquire the Terumah on behalf of the debtor, before selling or eating it. Ula establishes the author of our Mishnah like Rebbi Yossi. What does Rebbi Yossi say?

(d) The two disputants of Rav and Shmuel respectively, decline to learn like them because the Tana made no mention of 'Makirei Kehunah' or of 'making a 'Kinyan'.
Why do Rav and Shmuel decline to learn like Ula?

(a) The Beraisa further permits the creditor to fix the price of repayments (of the Terumah ... ) at the cheap market price in advance of its fixing. What is the Chidush, seeing as, on the assumption that the basic price has already been fixed (see Maharam DH 'u'Posek'), this is always the case?

(b) Assuming that the basic price has not yet been fixed, why is this not Ribis? What is the meaning of 'Lo Karinan bei Lo Yigos'?

(c) We just learned that if the field became swamped, there is nothing the creditor can do about it. Rav Papa does however, permit the debtor to retract?
Why is that?

(a) If the creditor verbally despairs of receiving payment for his loan, the Tana of the Beraisa prohibits him from claiming it.
What is the case?

(b) What is the Chidush? Don't we already know that Yi'ush is fully effective and causes the owner to lose his property?

(c) Assuming that the loan took place in Beis-Din, what does Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov permit the creditor to do in the above case, if the debtor ...

1. ... the Kohen or the Levi dies?
2. ... the poor man dies?

(d) In the latter case, Rebbi Achi disagrees. He says 'be'Chezkas Aniyei Olam? What is the basis of their Machlokes?

7)

(a) What does the Tana of the Beraisa say in a case where the poor man becomes wealthy?

(b) Why did the Rabbanan make a Takanah on behalf of the creditor in the case when the debtor died, but not when he became wealthy?

(c) Which idiom did this distinction give rise to?

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if the debtor dies, the creditor may not continue to take the Ma'asros as payment of his loan without the heirs' express permission.
How does Rebbi Yochanan explain Rebbi, who says in a Beraisa 'Yorshim she'Yarshu'?

(b) Rebbi Yonasan permits the creditor to claim his loan up to the value of the Karka that the debtor left his children.
What does Rebbi Yochanan say?

(c) We compare this to the case of 'Ketina de'Abaye' in Kesuvos.
What happened there?

(a) According to Abaye's interpretation of the Beraisa, if a Yisrael gives a Levi money against the Ma'aser that he separated from his crops, and says '*Ma'aser* Yesh Lecha be'Yadi ve'Heilech Damav', we do *not* suspect that the Levi then declared it Terumas Ma'aser on other Ma'aser that he had received.
What is the difference between this case and where the Yisrael said '*Kur Ma'aser* Yesh Lecha be'Yadi, ve'Heilech Damav', where we *do*?

(b) What objection do we raise to Abaye's interpretation of the Beraisa?

(c) How does Rav Mesharshaya Brei de'Rav Idi therefore amend Abaye's interpretation of the Beraisa?

(d) On what grounds do we refute Rav Mesharshaya's explanation too?

(a) So how does Rav Ashi finally explain the Beraisa? Who left the Ma'aser to whom?

(b) Since when does a Yisrael separate Terumas Ma'aser?

(a) How does Aba Elazar ben Gamla extrapolate from the Pasuk in Korach "ve'Nechshav Lachem Terumaschem ka'Dagan min ha'Goren ... " that the Pasuk is referring to two Terumos? Which two Terumos?

(b) We learn that Terumas Ma'aser can be separated by assessment (without the need to measure it accurately) from the Torah's comparison to Terumah Gedolah. From where do we know that this is so by Terumah Gedolah?

(c) What do we learn from "ve'Nechshav Lachem Terumaschem"? Does this pertain to Terumah Gedolah or to Terumas Ma'aser?

(d) What else does Aba Elazar ben Gamla learn from the comparison of Terumas Ma'aser to Terumah Gedolah?

Next daf