Previous daf

1)

(a) What does our Mishnah require the owner to do, in the event that he does not want to redeem his Peter Chamor?

(b) The Tana lists the preferences of the cases in Shas where there is a choice, but where the choice is not equal.
From where does he know that the Mitzvah of redemption takes precedence over that of breaking the donkey's neck?

(c) Which takes precedence when there is a choice between ...

1. ... Yi'ud (the 'marriage' of a master with his Jewish maidservant) and the father redeeming her?
2. ... Yibum and Chalitzah (according to Torah law)?

(d) On what grounds did the Chachamim change that?

(e) What does the Tana learn from the Pasuk in Bechukosai (in connection with the owner redeeming his Beheimah Temei'ah from Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis) "ve'Im Lo Yiga'el, ve'Nimkar be'Erkecha"?

2)

(a) What does our Mishnah say regarding 'ha'Loke'ach Ubar Pasaso shel ha'Oved Kochavim ve'ha'Mocher Lo, ve'ha'Mishtatef Lo, ve'ha'Mekabel Mimenu, ve'ha'Nosen Lo be'Kabalah'? What do they all have in common?

(b) What is the source for all these rulings?

(c) Which of these does the Tana forbid doing Lechatchilah?

(d) What is the Din of a Kohen or a Levi who has ...

1. ... a Bechor Beheimah Tehorah?
2. ... a firstborn son or a Peter Chamor?

(a) We ask why the Tana first deals with the Din of Peter Chamor and then with that of Bechor Beheimah Tehorah.
Why would we have expected Rebbi to reverse the order?

(b) We already cited in the first Perek the B'nei Ma'arva's explanation that there are fewer issues connected with Peter Chamor than with a Bechor Beheimah. Alternatively, the B'nei Ma'arva ascribe Rebbi's reason to the special affinity to the Din of Peter Chamor, due to a statement of Rebbi Chanina (cited in the first Perek).
What did Rebbi Chanina say about the reason behind Pidyon Peter Chamor?

(a) What is Resh Lakish in the name of Rebbi Oshaya quoted as saying in a case where ...

1. ... a Yisrael paid for an animal be'Dineihem (according to the Nochri laws) even though he did not yet make Meshichah?
2. ... a Nochri paid for an animal (according to the Nochri laws) even though he did not yet make Meshichah?

(b) We suggest that 'be'Dineihem' in the first case means 'like one acquires the Nochri's body'.
From where do we learn that one acquires a Nochri with Kesef?

(c) What does this have to do with acquiring an animal from him?

(a) We query this 'Kal-va'Chomer' on two scores, one of them, that if that is so, then one ought also to acquire his property with Sh'tar and Chazakah (with which one also acquires fields).
What else do we ask from a Yisrael acquiring from a Yisrael?

(b) Why does the Sugya (Resh Lakish) hold that a Yisrael acquires from a Yisrael with Meshichah?

(c) Abaye therefore interprets 'be'Dineihem' to mean 'the Din that the Torah delegates to them'.
What do we extrapolate from "O Kanoh mi'Yad Amisecha"?

(d) How do we know that "mi'Yad Amisecha" does not come ...

1. ... to preclude purchasing from Nochrim altogether?
2. ... to add Kinyan Kesef that of Meshichah, when purchasing from a Nochri?
3. ... to give a choice of either Meshichah or Kesef when purchasing from him?

(a) We now discuss 'be'Dineihem' in the second case (where the Nochri acquires the Yisrael's Bechor.
What do we learn from the Pasuk in Behar (in connection with a Yisrael selling himself to a Nochri) "mi'Kesef Miknaso"?

(b) How do we then refute the suggestion that 'be'Dineihen' means that we learn the Din of the Nochri acquiring the Yisrael's animal with Kesef from the fact that he acquires his body with Kesef?

(c) Once again, Abaye interprets it to mean the Din that the Torah delegates to them.
From which Pasuk does he extrapolate it this time?

(d) And we answer the three queries (why "la'Amisecha" does not come a. to preclude purchasing from Nochrim altogether, b. to add the Kinyan Kesef to that of Meshichah, when purchasing from a Nochri, and c. to give a choice of either Meshichah or Kesef when purchasing from him), in the same way that we answered them earlier.
What problem still remains, according to Ameimar, who holds that a Nochri acquires with Meshichah?

7)

(a) Rebbi Yochanan holds that money is Koneh min ha'Torah.
What is his source for this?

(b) How will Ameimar ('Meshichah be'Akum Koneh') now Darshen "Amisecha" according to ...

1. ... Rebbi Yochanan?
2. ... Resh Lakish?

(c) What do we learn from "Al Tonu Ish *es Achiv*"?

(d) Why, according to Resh Lakish, do we need two Pesukim for that?

(a) Why do we need both D'rashos? Why will one not suffice?

(b) What is the Din regarding Gezel Nochri?

(c) Assuming Ameimar holds 'Gezeilo Mutar', why will we no longer require both of the above Pesukim ("Amisecha" according to Resh Lakish and "Achiv")?

(d) What conclusion are we therefore forced to draw?

(a) The Beraisa discusses someone who buys pieces of gold from a Nochri and, after making a Meshichah, he finds among them an Avodah-Zarah.
Under which circumstances does the Tana rule ...

1. ... that he may simply return the pieces of gold?
2. ... that he throws the Avodah-Zarah (see Rashash) into the Yam ha'Melach?

(b) What difficulty do we have with ...

1. ... this Beraisa, according to Rebbi Yochanan?
2. ... the answer that the seller undertook to abide by Diynei Yisrael?
3. ... the answer to the previous question that what the Beraisa means in the Seifa is that even though he already paid, he is permitted to retract?
4. ... the answer to the previous question is that the Reisha is a case of Mekach Ta'us (a false sale), as Abaye suggests?

(c) Rava therefore concludes that in fact, both the Reisha and the Seifa are cases of Mekach Ta'us.
Why, in that case, is he not permitted to retract in the Seifa?

(d) Abaye disagrees. In his opinion, there is no Mekach Ta'us in the Seifa (if there was, he would be able to retract).
Why not?

(a) Rav Ashi establishes the Beraisa without any special undertakings from the Nochri.
What is then the Chidush in the Reisha?

(b) Why does the Tana then mention Meshichah in the Seifa?

(a) Ravina, on the other hand, takes the Seifa literally, and the Tana speaks when the seller undertook to abide by Diynei Yisrael (like we explained earlier).
What is the problem with that?

(b) How does he therefore amend the Reisha 'Im ad she'Lo Nasan Ma'os Mashach, Yachzir' to read?

(c) Seeing as no Kinyan has taken place, what is then the Chidush? What would be the Din if the seller was a Yisrael?

(d) Then why can he retract in this case?

Next daf