Previous daf

1)

(a) Another Beraisa states that if Reuven sells Shimon grain, he must accept a Rova (a quarter of a Kav) of legumes per Sa'ah and a Rova of chaff per Sa'ah of barley.
What must he accept for each Sa'ah of lentils that he buys?

(b) We initially assume that, seeing as grain and barley grow from the ground just like lentils, they too, must accept a Rova of dirt (a Kashya on Rav Ketina).
Then why does the Tana mention it specifically by lentils?

(c) We refute this however, concluding that the Rova of dirt applies exclusively to lentils.
Why is that? Why must someone who purchases lentils expect more dirt than the others?

(d) Is it then proven that, since the Tana mentions a Rova of dirt specifically by lentils, in the case of wheat and barley, one is not obligated to accept a Rova of dirt (a proof for Rav Huna)?

(a) What does Rav Huna say about a case where Shimon begins cleaning the crops that he purchased from Reuven, and discovers that they contain more than a Rova of Tinofes per Sa'ah?

(b) What if Shimon finds exactly a Rova, and cleans it out, claiming that he is particular. Can he demand that Reuven reimburses him for the Rova?

(c) What is the reason for Rav Huna's ruling, assuming it is based on ...

1. ... logic (Mamon)?
2. ... a K'nas?

(d) What difference does it make whether it is Mamon or K'nas?

(a) The Beraisa requires the owner of a Sa'ah of crops, among which a Rova of another species is growing, to pull out the excess of a Rova. According to Rabeinu Chananel, the Tana is referring to when the owner is permitted to initially sow the Sa'ah of crops.
How else might we interpret his ruling?

(b) On the assumption that a Rova of another species by Kil'ayim is Chashuv like more than a Rova of Tinofes in a sale, what Kashya does this pose on Rav Huna (according to the Lashon that it is a Din Mamon)? Why is it even a 'Kal va'Chomer'?

(c) We answer that in fact, a Rova by Kil'ayim is not any more Chashuv than a Rova in our Sugya.
In that case, why is the owner obligated to remove the excess in the first place?

(a) What does Rebbi Yossi say in the Beraisa of Kil'ayim?

(b) Why would it have been easy to establish his reasoning according to our initial interpretation of the Tana Kama (equating a Rova by Kil'ayim with more than a Rova by Mechirah)?

(c) How do we nevertheless establish his reason according to our current understanding of the Tana Kama?

(d) Is maintaining Kil'ayim a La'av d'Oraysa or mi'de'Rabbanan?

5)

(a) The Tana Kama in the Mishnah in ha'Mafkid rules that in a case where Reuven and Shimon deposited with Levi, one a Manah and the other, two hundred Zuz, and each one claims two hundred, Levi gives each one a Manah. What happens to the third Manah?

(b) What Kashya does this pose on Rav Huna (according to the Lashon that it is a Din K'nas)?

(c) How do we differentiate between the two cases.
Why is there less reason to penalize even the Heter there, than there is here?

(a) What does Rebbi Yossi say in the Mishnah in ha'Mafkid?

(b) Why might Rebbi Yossi agree with Rav Huna? On what grounds is there more reason to penalize even the Heter there, than there is here?

(a) Rebbi Meir in the Beraisa invalidates a Sh'tar that contains Ribis even as regards claiming the actual debt.
Why does this not corroborate Rav Huna's ruling, that Chazal penalized the Heter because of the Isur?

(b) What do the Chachamim say there?

(c) Why does this not pose a Kashya on Rav Huna?

(a) How many ...

1. ... Sa'ah comprise a Kur?
2. ... Kabin comprise a Sa'ah?

(b) What will be the Din if Reuven stipulates 'Beis-Kur Afar Ani Mocher Lach, Midah be'Chevel', and adds 'Hein Chaser Hein Yeser'? How many Kabin would that allow for per Kur?

(c) What does the Beraisa quoted by Ravin bar Rav Nachman say about a shortfall or an excess of more than a Rova?

(d) Why is there no proof from this Beraisa for Rav Huna, that we fine the Heter because of the Isur? Why is that case worse than that of Rav Huna in this regard?

Next daf