Previous daf

1)

(a) How (besides two witnesses attesting to each signature on a Sh'tar) do Beis-Din verify a Sh'tar?

(b) Why do they not require two witnesses for each signature?

(c) What do Beis-Din do if one of the witnesses is no longer alive?

(a) In a case where one of the signatories on a Sh'tar died, and the remaining signatories brother came together with another witness to verify his signature, what did Ravina have in mind to rule? On which case in our Mishnah was this based?

(b) On what grounds did Rav Ashi object to his intended ruling?

(c) Why is this case different than that of our Mishnah?

(a) Our Mishnah lists things which are or are not subject to a Chazakah. Rearing an animal or setting-up any kind of oven or a mill are not.
Why must the Tana be referring to a moveable oven and a hand-mill?

(b) What does the Tana include in his list that are subject to a Chazakah?

(c) Rearing chickens and placing manure in the Chatzer also belong in the first list.
What belongs in the second list that is connected with ...

1. ... rearing chickens?
2. ... placing manure in the Chatzer?

(d) What is the purpose of the pit or wall?

(a) Which kind of Chazakah are we concerned with here?

(b) According to Rabeinu Chananel, the opening phrase of our Mishnah 'Eilu Devarim she'Yesh Lahen Chazakah' pertains to the cases listed in the earlier Mishnahs in the Perek.
To which kind of Chazakah would this then be referring?

(c) In what grounds do we reject Rabeinu Chananel's interpretation of our Mishnah?

(a) We ask why the difference between the Reisha of the Mishnah and the Seifa, why with a Mechitzah, there is a Chazakah, and without one, there is not.
On what mistaken premise is this Kashya based?

(b) What is Ula's initial answer?

(c) How could we have refuted this answer from the Seifa? Which of the cases there does not acquire by Nechsei ha'Ger?

(d) Rav Sheishes however, presents a more basic rejection of Ula's principle.
Which case ...

1. ... acquires by Nechsei ha'Ger, though it does not establish a Chazakah?
2. ... establishes a Chazakah, yet it does not acquire by Nechsei ha'Ger?

6)

(a) To resolve the discrepancy between the Reisha of our Mishnah and the Seifa, Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah establishes the Mishnah when the one who began to rear animals ... in the Chatzer was one of the partners who owned the Chatzer.
How does this reconcile the Reisha and the Seifa?

(b) What does the Mishnah in Nedarim say about partners who had declared a Neder forbidding Hana'ah on each other, entering their shared Chatzer?

(c) What does this prove? Why would this not be prohibited if partners tended not to fussy on this point?

(d) So Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah amends the previous answer, restricting it a wood-store behind the house.
How does this answer the Kashya? What is the difference between the Chatzer and the wood-store behind the house?

(a) Rav Papa establishes both Mishnahs by the actual Chatzer, only he holds that some people tend to be particular, and others not.
How does he then resolve the discrepancy? What distinction does he draw between a Chezkas Karka and Nedarim?

(b) Assuming that the Machzik is forbidden to rear his animals in the Chatzer (because of Safek Gezel), why do we go le'Kula on behalf of his partner, to prevent the Machzik from establishing a Chazakah (see Rabeinu Gershom). Note, that the Lashon of the Rashbam, who seems to fuse these two conflicting interpretations, is confusing.

(a) According to Ravina, partners tend not to be particular about entering the Chatzer (and using it casually, like we said at first).
Then how does he explain the Mishnah in Nedarim? Who will be the author of that Mishnah?

(b) If a storekeeper from whom Reuven is Mudar Hana'ah, sends the latter a nut or two extra, on what grounds does Rebbi Eliezer forbid him to accept it?

(c) What do the Rabbanan say?

(a) What is the only thing, according to Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi B'na'ah, which one partner cannot prevent the other from doing in the Chatzer? Why is that?

(b) To whom does the Pasuk in Yeshayah "ve'Otzem Einav me'Re'os be'Ra" refer?

(c) Why can this not apply to a case where the person concerned ...

1. ... could travel by another route?
2. ... had no alternative route (according to our current understanding)?

(d) So how do we establish the Pasuk?

(a) What did Rebbi B'na'ah reply when Rebbi Yochanan asked him to describe a Talmid-Chacham's ...

1. ... undershirt?
2. ... cloak?

(b) He also told him that the Talmid-Chacham's table was two-thirds 'Gedil' and one third uncovered.
Which part was covered with a cloth? What purpose did it serve?

(c) Why did they refer to the tablecloth as 'Gedil'?

(d) What was on the uncovered part of the table?

(a) And what is the function of the ring?

(b) Initially, we reconcile Rebbi B'na'ah, who places the ring on the outside of the table, with the Beraisa, which places it on the inside, by establishing his statement when there is a child sitting at table with his father.
What do we mean by that? How does this answer the Kashya?

(a) Alternatively, both opinions speak when there is no child at the table, but a waiter serving.
Who is speaking when there is a waiter, the Tana or Rebbi B'na'ah?

(b) We conclude that both opinions might even be speaking when there is a servant serving.
Then why does Rebbi B'na'ah place the ring on the outside? Why is he not afraid that the servant might upset the table by knocking into the ring?

(c) Why, according to ...

1. ... the earlier answer, do we display more concern about the waiter knocking the table than the other participants?
2. ... the latter answer, do we display more concern about the other participants knocking the table than the waiter?

(d) In contrast, how does the table of an Am ha'Aretz look?

1. ... a Talmid-Chacham?
2. ... an Am ha'Aretz?

Next daf