Previous daf

1)

(a) In the case where a Shechiv-Mera divided his property between his wife and his sons, leaving over only one date-palm, what did Ravina initially think (with regard to the woman claiming her Kesuvah)?

(b) What would he have said had the husband not left over the date-palm?

(c) Rav Yeimar objected to Ravina's intended ruling.
What did he say to him?

(d) Rav Yeimar therefore ruled that she was entitled to claim her entire Kesuvah out of the sons' portions, as well as the date-palm.
Why?

(a) What did Rav Huna say about a Shechiv-Mera who wrote all his property to someone other than his son?

(b) What did he actually write?

(c) What makes us assume that if the beneficiary was an heir, he meant to give it to his as a Yerushah?

(d) Why did Rav Huna mention specifically a Shechiv-Mera?

(a) Why was Rav Nachman surprised at Rav Huna's ruling?

(b) What then, was the actual case to which he must have been referring?

(c) What is Rav Huna now coming to teach us?

(a) Rav Ada bar Ahavah initially suggested that the difference between Yerushah and Matanah concerned an Almanah being fed from her husband's estate.
What was he trying to say?

(b) What is the basis for this distinction? Why did Rav Ada bar Ahavah think that if the property was a Matanah, the Almanah could not be sustained from it?

(c) What makes a Matnas Shechiv-Mera a Kinyan de'Rabbanan? Why does the beneficiary not acquire it min ha'Torah?

(d) On what grounds did Rava object to Rav Ada bar Ahavah's suggestion? What 'Kal va'Chomer' did he Darshen?

(a) Rava therefore concluded by citing Rav Acha bar Rav Ivya (whom we discussed earlier).
What did Rav Acha bar Rav Ivya say about someone who says 'Nechasai Lach, ve'Acharecha li'Peloni', according to Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah?

(b) How does this now explain Rav Huna's ruling?

(c) How will this conform with Rav Huna, who specifically mentioned 'Shechiv-Mera she'Kasav' (and not 'she'Amar')?

(d) On what grounds can we not accept the Shechiv-Mera's words 'Acharecha li'Peloni'?

6)

(a) What did Rav Ilish want to rule in a case of 'Acharecha' where the first beneficiary was an heir?

(b) Rava, citing the words of Acha bar Rav Ivya, compared Rav Ilish initial ruling to the rulings of 'Dayni de'Chatzatzta'. According to Rabeinu Chananel this means graveyard Dayanim (see Rashash).
What else might it mean?

(c) Why was Rav Ilish embarrassed?

(d) Rava consoled him by quoting the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Ani Hashem be'Itah Achishenah".
What did he mean by that?

(a) What does the Mishnah say about someone who writes his estate to others, ignoring his children?

(b) What does Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel say?

(c) We ask whether the Rabbanan argue with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel or not. On what logical grounds might they argue with him?

(d) We try to resolve this She'eilah from a Beraisa which discusses an incident that occurred with Yosef ben Yo'ezer.
Why did he declare a wine [or oil]-drawing vessel full of Dinrim, Hekdesh?

(a) Whom did the errant son then marry?

(b) What did he find in the fish that he bought his wife? What was the occasion?

(c) Why did his wife advise him to sell the stone to the treasurers of Hekdesh, rather than to the King's treasurers?

(d) What else did she warn him when having the it evaluated?

(a) What price did they quote for the stone? What did they want the stone for?

(b) What did the son of Yosef ben Yo'ezer reply when the treasurers informed him that they only had seven vessels-full of gold coins in the kitty?

(a) What do we try to prove from the statement 'Yosef ben Yo'ezer brought in one, but his son brought in six'?

(b) The statement may have been made by the assessors for the sake of the records. Who else may have made it?

(c) What can we learn from the alternative version 'Yosef ben Yo'ezer brought in one, but his son took out seven'?

(d) What does this leave us with?

(a) We resolve our She'eilah from a statement by Shmuel.
What did Shmuel tell Rav Yehudah not to do? What does that prove?

(b) What 'Kal va'Chomer' did he add?

(c) How do we resolve Shmuel's ruling with Rebbi Yochanan's principle 'Halachah ke'Raban Shimon ben Gamliel be'Mishnaseinu'?

(d) What must we bear in mind regarding the many principles stated in Shas (such as 'Halachah ki'S'tam Mishnah', 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Akiva me'Chavero')?

(a) What did Yonasan ben Uziel do, when a man whose sons were not going on the right path, left him his entire estate?

(b) With the continuation of the episode in mind, why did he make a point of first selling a third and declaring a third Hekdesh, before returning the remaining third to the original heirs?

(c) Why did Shamai ha'Zaken approach him with his stick and his satchel?

(d) What did he answer him?

(a) What was the basis of Shamai's argument?

(b) What were its ramifications?

Next daf