Previous daf

1)

(a) So we try to establish the Machlokes between Rebbi Elazar and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel (who both say 'Ma'alin li'Kehunah al-Pi Eid Echad') when we had assumed the Safek's father to be a Kohen, then, after a Kol (a rumor) began to spread that he was a ben Gerushah or a ben Chalutzah, one witness reinstated him as a Kasher Kohen.
What happened next?

(b) Why does the Tana need to say that the first witness came to counter a Kol? Why could he not begin the case with one witness who came to consolidate the Safek's status as a Kohen?

(c) Assuming that both Tana'im agree that two witnesses who testify separately can combine to form one unit, how do we try to explain their Machlokes?

(d) If Rebbi Elazar is concerned about Zilusa de'Bei Dina, why does he permit Beis-Din to reinstate the Safek after having removed him following the Kol?

(a) What is wrong with the above interpretation of the Machlokes? How do we refute it, based on the fact that they argue in the case where one witness came at the end?

(b) Then what is the basis of their Machlokes?

(c) In any event, seeing as the two pairs of witnesses contradict each other, why is the Safek Kohen, Kasher according to Raban Shaimon ben Gamliel?

(d) In fact, this Machlokes is synonymous with another Machlokes Tana'im in a Beraisa. The Tana Kama requires two witnesses to appear in Beis-Din simultaneously.
What does Rebbi Nasan say?

(a) In the same Beraisa, the Tana Kama requires the two witnesses to have witnessed the transaction simultaneously.
What does Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah say?

(b) How is it possible for two witnesses to witness the transaction at two different times?

(c) And what does the Tana Kama say?

(d) What have we now concluded? How have we vindicated Rav Nachman, who is not concerned about Zilusa de'Bei Dina?

4)

(a) What did Reuven do, when, after producing a Sh'tar to substantiate that he had purchased a field from Shimon, the latter countered that the Sh'tar was a forgery?

(b) On what grounds did Rav Yosef object, when Rabah accepted his argument on the basis of a 'Migu' (that he could have insisted that the Sh'tar was Kasher)?

(c) Did Reuven have a Chazakah on the field?

(d) How could Rabah even suggest that Reuven had a 'Migu', seeing as he would then be obligated to substantiate the Sh'tar, which he himself had admitted was a forgery?

(a) Rabah and Rav Yosef followed their same respective lines of thought in a similar episode.
What did Reuven claim from Shimon there? What was the case?

(b) On what basis did Rav Idi bar Avin rule like Rabah in the first case, but like Rav Yosef in the second?

(c) Why was he not consistent? After all, who was Muchzak was not the issue, but whose line of thought was correct, Rabah's or Rav Yosef's?

(d) Why does Rav Idi bar Avin's ruling not clash with the ruling in 'Yesh Nochlin', where we conclude that apart from 'Sadeh', 'Inyan' and 'Mechtzah', the Halachah is like Rabah throughout Shas?

(a) An Areiv (guarantor) claimed a hundred Zuz from the debtor, claiming that he had paid the creditor, and produced a Sh'tar to that effect.
What sort of Areiv was he?

(b) What did the Areiv counter when the debtor claimed that he had already paid him?

(c) What did a rather surprised Abaye reply, when Rav Idi bar Avin (of all people) asked him what the Halachah was in this case?

(a) What was then the basis of Rav Idi bar Avin's Safek? Why might this case be worse (from the point of view of the debtor) than the previous one?

(b) Why did Abaye nevertheless consider the two cases comparable?

(c) Under which circumstances would Abaye have obligated the debtor to pay?

Next daf