Previous daf

1)

(a) What sort of rumor was spreading about Rava bar Sharshom that caused Abaye to ask him 'Eima Li Eizo Gufa de'Uvda Heicha Havi'?

(b) In response, he explained to Abaye that the Mashkanta de'Sura that he received from their father had just expired.
What is a Mashkanta de'Sura?

(c) On what basis did Rava bar Sharshom then continue to eat the fruit of the Yesomim?

(a) What 'Migu' did Rava bar Sharshom claim that he had?

(b) What was he trying to spare himself with this 'Migu'?

(c) Why would Rava bar Sharshom not have been obligated to swear even if he had claimed that he purchased the field?

(a) On what grounds did Abaye reject Rava bar Sharshom's argument? What did he instruct him to do?

(b) Why could he not swear to the Yesomim immediately and claim his debt?

(c) How do we reconcile Abaye, who authorized Rava bar Sharshom to claim from Yesomim from the time they reached the age of thirteen, with the Sugya in the last Perek, which delays their right to sell their father's property until the age of twenty?

(d) Would Abaye have issued the same ruling (authorising Rava bar Sharshom to claim from the Yesomim when they grew up) had the loan been an oral one?

(a) When a relative died leaving a date-palm, Rav Idi bar Avin claimed that he was the closest relation.
What did that man claim?

(b) What did Rav Idi bar Avin then claim when that man admitted that he was not as close a relative as he was?

(c) On what grounds did Rav Chisda reject his claim outright?

(d) What did Abaye and Rava say?

(a) According to another text, which Rabeinu Chananel accepts, both parties brought witnesses that they were relatives of the deceased man, and Rav Chisda placed the tree in the possession of Rav Idi's rival, before the rival admitted that Rav Idi was the closer relative.
On what grounds did ...

1. ... Rav Chisda then absolve the rival from paying for the fruit?
2. ... Abaye and Rava disagree with him?

(b) And on what grounds do we reject this version?

6)

(a) In a case where Reuven and Shimon both claim that a field belonged to their respective parents, and Reuven brings witnesses to that effect, whereas Shimon brings witnesses that he had worked on it for three years, on what grounds ...

1. ... does Rav Chisda accept Shimon's claim?
2. ... do Abaye and Rava disagree with him?

(b) Like whom do we rule?

(a) What did Rav Nachman rule when Reuven, who claimed that he had purchased a field from Shimon and that he had worked in it for three years, was only able to bring witnesses for two of them?

(b) In which case would he have been believed with a Shevu'as Hesses on the fruit?

(c) What is the reason for this?

(d) Why is this case different than the previous one, where, acording to Abaye and Rava, Rav Idi bar Avin's rival had to pay for all the fruit?

(a) Rav Z'vid, comparing this case to a statement of Rav Yehudah, rules that, were Reuven to claim that he went down to the field for Peiros (as we just explained), he would be believed.
What does Rav Yehudah say about Reuven who takes a scythe and a rope and after declaring that he is going climb the date-palm that Shimon sold him to pick dates, that is what he does?

(b) Why do we believe Reuven when he claims 'le'Peiros Yaradti' but not when he claims that the fruit is his because he purchased the field?

Next daf