Previous daf

1)

(a) How did the statement of the B'nei Eretz Yisrael 'Ben she'Machar be'Nechsei Aviv be'Chayei Aviv, u'Meis, B'no Motzi mi'Yad ha'Lekuchos' end?

(b) On what grounds do we refute the suggestion that this is because the Lekuchos can say to him 'Your father sells, and you take back'?

(c) From where do we know that a grandson inherits from his grandfather?

(a) So we amend the statement once more to 'Bechor she'Machar Cheilek Bechorah be'Chayei Aviv u'Meis be'Chayei Aviv, B'no Motzi mi'Yad ha'Lekuchos'.
Why do we initially assume this to match the concluding phrase more than the previous suggestion?

(b) On what grounds do we refute this suggestion too?

(a) We amend the statement yet again to 'Hayah Yode'a Lo Eidus bi'Sh'tar ad she'Lo Na'aseh Gazlan ve'Na'aseh Gazlan, Hu Eino Me'id al K'sav Yado, Aval Acherim Me'idin'.
If a witness is believed to substantiate his signature on a Sh'tar, from where do we learn that he is not believed in a case where he is suspect?

(b) What makes him suspect in this case? What are we afraid of?

(c) Then why is this ruling initially considered to be beyond comprehension?

(d) On what grounds do we refute this Kashya, too? How do we establish the case to render it perfectly comprehensible?

5)

(a) We resolve the problem however, by citing the ruling that even Moshe and Aharon would be disqualified from testifying in cases involving their fathers-in-law.
How does that solve the problem?

(b) So we revert to the original text of the statement of the B'nei Eretz Yisrael ('Ben she'Machar be'Nechsei Aviv... ').
How do we establish the Pasuk "Tachas Avosecha Yiheyu Banecha" to refute the proof that a grandson inherits his grandfather directly?

(a) Our Mishnah discussed the case of 'Nafal ha'Bayis Alav ve'al Aviv, Alav ve'al Morishav ... . Yorshei ha'Av Omrim ... '. If 'Yorshei ha'Av' refers to his (the son's) sons, then to whom does 'Morishav' refer?

(b) What do we try and prove from here?

(c) We refute this proof by explaining 'Yorshei ha'Av' to mean his (the son's) brothers (who certainly inherit directly from their father).
Then what does 'Morishav' mean?

7)

(a) What did they ask Rav Sheishes about a son inheriting his mother in the grave?

(b) Rav Sheishes resolved the She'eilah from a Beraisa.
What does the Tana say about a father who was taken captive, and whose son died in his hometown or vice-versa?

(c) What problem do we have with this Beraisa the way it stands?

(d) How do we therefore amend the Beraisa?

(a) What is the Safek? Is the daughter still alive?

(b) Who exactly, are the two parties who share the inheritance?

(c) What is the reason for the Beraisa's ruling?

(d) What does Rav Sheishes now prove from this Beraisa?

(a) How does Rav Acha bar Minyumi substantiate Rav Sheishes ruling from our Mishneh 'Nafal ha'Bayis Alav ve'al Imo, Eilu ve'Eilu Modim she'Yachloku'?

(b) What is the source of this ruling? What does "Seivah" "Seivah'' mean?

(c) What is strange about this 'Gezeirah-Shavah'?

(a) On what grounds did Reuven, who had sold Shimon all the fields that he had purchased from Bei bar Sisin, refuse to give Shimon one particular field, even though it was also called 'de'Bei bar Sisin'?

(b) Rav Nachman placed that field in the possession of Shimon.
What did Rava hold? On what grounds did he disagree with Rav Nachman?

(c) How do both Rava and Rav Nachman appear to have switched their opinions from another case (regarding the case of 'Ana be'Shechuni Gava'i Hava'i')?

(d) How do we resolve the apparent discrepancy ...

1. ... in Rava, by making a distinction between who currently owns the property?
2. ... in Rav Nachman? Why does he go after the purchaser in the case of Bei bar Sisin, but after the seller in the case of 'Ana bi'Shechuni Gava'i Hava'i'?

Next daf