Previous daf

1)

(a) We learned in a Beraisa 'Get ha'Me'useh be'Yisrael Kasher'.
What is a 'Get Me'useh'?

(b) The Beraisa concludes 'be'Akum Pasul'.
How do we initally interpret this Beraisa? What is the reason for the distinction between the Reisha and the Seifa?

(c) To reconcile the Beraisa with Rav Huna, who holds 'Talyuhu ve'Zavin, Z'vineih Z'vini', we cite Rav Masharshaya.
How does he explain 'be'Akum Pasul'?

(a) Rav Hamnuna asks from the Beraisa (already discussed on the previous Amud) 'Lakach mi'Sikrikun, ve'Chazar ve'Lakach mi'Ba'al ha'Bayis, Mekcho Bateil', which we reconcile with Rav Huna by citing Rav.
How does Rav qualify the Beraisa?

(b) How will we achieve this according to Shmuel, who says 'Af bi'Sh'tar Nami Lo Kanah'?

(c) And what will Rav Huna do with Rav Bibi, who, quoting Rav Nachman, rules 'Karka Ein Lo, Ma'os Yesh Lo'?

(d) What would we have answered had Rav Bibi made this statement in his own name (and not in the name of Rav Nachman)?

3)

(a) Rava rules 'Talyuhu ve'Zavin Z'vineih Z'vini', but he qualifies it.
In which case will the sale be invalid?

(b) Even in the case of 'Sadeh Zu', Rava concedes that the sale will be valid in one of two cases. One of them is if the seller (in spite of his predicament) counted the money that he received as payment for the field.
What is the other?

(c) The Halachah however, is not like Rava.
What then, is the Halachah?

(d) And we prove this from a statement by Ameimar.
What did Ameimar say about 'Talyuhah ve'Kadish'? How does that clash with Rava's previous ruling?

(a) Mar bar Rav Ashi rules in the case of 'Talyuhah ve'Kadesh', that the Kidushin is not valid, even though he agrees with the Halachah regarding 'Sadeh Zu'.
How is that possible?

(b) This makes sense in a case of Kidushei Kesef (which the Chachamim have the power to negate [due to the principle of 'Hefker Beis-Din Hefker']).
But how will it work by Kidushei Bi'ah?

(c) Why (apart from the fact that we learn Kidushei Kesef from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah') can we not interpret the Kashya to mean that Kidushei Kesef is easier to negate since it is only mi'de'Rabbanan, whereas Kidushei Bi'ah is d'Oraysa?

(a) Tavi suspended Papi on a Kinra-tree, forcing him to sell him his field.
Who was Tavi?

(b) What else might 'Tavi Tala Papi *be'Kinra'* mean?

(c) Besides signing on the Moda'a, Rabah bar bar Chanah also signed on the Ashkalta.
What is an 'Ashkalta'?

(a) What did Rav Huna mean when he said that whoever signed on the Moda'a did well, and whoever signed on the Ashkalta did well?

(b) What do we mean when we say 'Rav Huna le'Ta'ameih'?

(c) But did Rava not rule earlier that we do not write a Moda'a on a sale, unless the seller is under threat of losing his field without receiving payment?

(a) What is 'Amanah'?

(b) What did Rav Nachman say about witnesses who said ...

1. ... 'Amanah Hayu Devareinu'?
2. ... 'Moda'a Hayu Devareinu'?

(a) Why is a Sh'tar Amanah not a Sh'tar Mukdam (pre-dated), and therefore Pasul anyway?

(b) 'Amanah Hayu Devareinu' is certainly not believed, if the witnesses signatures were substantiated from another source.
But why are the witnesses not believed with a 'Peh she'Asar Hu ha'Peh she'Hitir', if they substantiate their own signatures?

(c) We know that 'Keyvan she'Higid ... ' applies even in the case of a Sh'tar (which, we may have thought, is not Kasher until it is substantiated), on the basis of a statement by Resh Lakish.
What did Resh Lakish say about witnesses who sign on a Sh'tar?

(d) What other reason is there not to believe witnesses who say 'Amanah Hayu Devareinu', in spite of the 'Peh she'Asar'?

(a) How do we reconcile Rav Nachman's latter statement ('Moda'a Hayu Devareinu Ein Ne'emanim)' with Rabah bar bar Chanah, who signed on a Sh'tar Moda'a?

(b) On what grounds is 'Moda'a Hayu Devareinu' in a Sh'tar believed? Why do we not apply here as well, the principle 'Keyvan she'Higid ... '?

Next daf