Previous daf

1)

(a) What did Rebbi Tarfon reply, when Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah asked him how much the lamb of Pidyon Chamor ought to be worth?

(b) The Halachah, said Rava, is be'Ragya.
How much is 'be'Ragya'? What does it mean?

(c) How do we reconcile this ruling with Rava's previous ruling, permitting a Kol she'Hu?

(a) What did Rebbi Yitzchak Amar Resh Lakish say about someone who has a firstborn donkey, but no lamb to redeem it with?

(b) We establish this ruling like Rebbi Shimon.
Why not like Rebbi Yehudah?

(c) Why is this not quite correct? Why could Resh Lakish even hold like Rebbi Yehudah?

(a) This is Rav Acha's version.
What problem does Ravina have with establishing Resh Lakish like Rebbi Shimon?

(b) What was he referring to when he said 've'Sasam Lan Tana ke'Rebbi Yehudah? With regard to which Halachah did our Mishnah rule like Rebbi Yehudah and not like Rebbi Shimon?

(c) How does he therefore reconcile Resh Lakish with Rebbi Yehudah?

(d) What did Rav Nachman (or Rav Nechemyah) b'rei de'Rav Yosef use to redeem his firstborn donkey?

(a) What does Rav Shizbi Amar Rav Huna say about Reuven who redeems Shimon's firstborn donkey?

(b) What She'eilah do we ask on this? What are the two possible ramifications of Rav Huna's statement?

(c) Why is this not a problem according to Rebbi Shimon, who permits the Peter Chamor be'Hana'ah?

(a) The She'eilah then, is confined to Rebbi Yehudah, who forbids the Peter Chamor like Hekdesh.
What is the source for the Halachah that Hekdesh belongs to whoever redeems it?

(b) Why might the redeemed donkey belong to the owner (even according to Rebbi Yehudah) in spite of the Pasuk?

(c) We resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa, which obligates someone who steals a Peter Chamor to pay double to the owner. The Tana adds 'Af-al-Pi she'Ein Lo Achshav, Yesh Lo le'Achar mi'Kein'.
Why must the author then be Rebbi Yehudah?

(d) What does this prove? How does it relate to the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ve'Gunav mi'Beis ha'Ish"?

(a) The Beraisa discusses our Mishnah 'Nichnas le'Dir Lehis'aser'.
Why can this not refer to a lamb that the owner already gave to the Kohen (even if the Kohen has returned it to him?

(b) So what does it refer to?

(c) This Beraisa supports a statement of Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah.
What did he say ...

1. ... in this regard?
2. ... regarding a Yisrael who inherited ten Pitrei Chamorim from his maternal grandfather who was a Kohen, who had in turn, inherited them from his maternal grandfather, who was a Yisrael?

(d) What makes him Patur from giving the lambs to a Kohen?

(a) Rav Nachman issues the same ruling concerning Tevel that has already had Miru'ach done to it.
What is 'Miru'ach?

(b) Why did he find it necessary to repeat the Halachah in both cases. Having taught us the din with regard to ...

1. ... Peter Chamor, why did he need to repeat it with regard to Tevel?
2. ... Tevel, why did he need to repeat it with regard to Pidyon ha'Ben?

(c) When Rav Nachman adds the fact that the Kohen inherited it from his maternal grandfather who was a Yisrael, is it because otherwise, he would be Patur from separating Ma'asros altogether?

(d) Then why did he do so?

8)

(a) What does Rebbi Shmuel bar Nasan Amar Rebbi Chanina rule regarding someone who purchases Tevel that has already had Miru'ach done to it?

(b) What does he mean when we he says 've'Hein she'Lo'? How can a Zar eat Terumah?

(c) Why can he not be speaking when it was the Nochri who performed the Miru'ach?

(d) In that case, it must have been a Yisrael who performed it.
In what capacity did he do that (seeing as he was neither the owner nor a purchaser)?

(a) Since the purchaser bought it from a Nochri, why is he then Chayav to Ma'aser it at all?

(b) In that case, why is he permitted to keep the Ma'asros?

(c) What does the Mishnah in D'mai mean when it rules that if someone deposits his (Ma'asered) fruit with a Kuti or with an Am ha'Aretz, 'Chezkasan ...

1. ... le'Ma'asros'?
2. ... ve'li'Shevi'is'?

(d) What does the Tana Kama say in a case where he deposits them with a Nochri?

(a) Why in the latter case, is he not Patur mi'Mah Nafshach, since the Nochri performed the Miru'ach?

(b) Rebbi Shimon argues with the Tana Kama in this case, referring to the fruit that the owner gets back from the Nochri as D'mai.
What does he mean by that?

(c) Rebbi Elazar (ben P'das, the Amora) explains that even according to Rebbi Shimon, the owner is obligated to separate Ma'asros.
Then what is their bone of contention?

(a) When Rav Dimi repeated Rebbi Elazar's interpretation of the Machlokes, what did Abaye extrapolate from the fact that the Tana'im argue in a case where it is not sure that the Nochri exchanged the Yisrael's fruit with his own?

(b) What problem does this create with Rebbi Shmuel bar Nasan Amar Rebbi Chanina?

(c) How did Abaye therefore suggest that one differentiates between the two?
How might one establish the Mishnah in D'mai and Rebbi Chanina, respectively?

(d) This reminded Rav Dimi what he heard in the name of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi.
What did Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi learn from the Pasuk in Korach "ve'el ha'Levi'im Tedaber ve'Amarta Aleihem, ki Sikchu me'es B'nei Yisrael ... "?

(a) Our Mishnah concludes 've'Im Meis, Nehenim Bo'.
Why can the Tana not be referring to there the lamb died in the domain of the Kohen?

(b) So we establish it there where it died in the domain of the Yisrael. Why is that not also obvious?

(c) So what does the Mishnah teach us?

Next daf