Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Chisda too, establishes the middle case of the Beraisa ('Beinonis ve'Ziburis, Nizakin u'Ba'al Chov be'Beinonis') when the borrower had Idis at the time of the debt.
How do we attempt to prove this from a second Beraisa 'Beinonis ve'Ziburis, Nizakin be'Beinonis, Ba'al Chov u'Kesuvas Ishah be'Ziburis'? In which point do both Beraisos agree?

(b) How will we explain the discrepancy between the two Beraisos, if we establish them both when ...

1. ... the borrower did not have Idis at the time of the debt?
2. ... the borrower did not have Idis at the time of the debt, and in addition, his Beinonis was on a par with that of world?

(c) And an alternative text to the final suggestion is that both Beraisos speak when his Beinonis was on a par with the world's Idis. How will we then explain the Machlokes between them?

(a) According to Ravina, the two Beraisos argue over Ula's Din.
What does Ula learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "ba'Chutz Ta'amod, ve'ha'Ish Asher Atah Nosheh Bo Yotzi Eilecha es he'Avot"?

(b) What does Ula then add to that?

(c) How does Ravina now explain the Machlokes between the two Beraisos?

(a) What does the Tana of the Beraisa rule in the event that the debtor sold his fields to one person, or to three people simultaneously?

(b) What will be the Din if he sold the three fields to three different people on three different occasions?

(c) What is the reason for this?

(d) Why can the Reisha not be speaking when the debtor sold the purchaser the three fields in one Sh'tar?

(a) What would be the Din in the previous case, had he purchased the Ziburis last?

(b) Then why does the Tana say 'Kulan Nichnesu Tachas ha'Ba'alim'?

(c) In that case, why can they not all claim from Idis?

(a) Would the purchaser be able to force the Nizak to take Beinonis using the same argument of 'I Shaskas Shaskas ... '?

(b) Then why does the Tana authorize the Nizak to take Idis? What difference does it make whether the debtor is alive or not?

(c) In that case, back comes the Kashya, why can all three not claim from Idis, seeing as that was the last field that he purchased?

(d) The right to forgo a Takanas Chachamim that is instituted for one's benefit, is taught by Rava, who was referring to the case stated by Rav Huna.
Which case was that?

6)

(a) What will be the Din if the man who bought all three fields (and the Idis last) subsequently sold the Beinonis and the Ziburis? What do all three claimants receive?

(b) Abaye thought that, in the event that he sold Idis, leaving himself with Beinonis and Ziburis, they would all claim from Idis.
What was Rava's objection to this ruling?

(a) What did Rava rule in a case where Reuven sold all his fields to Shimon, and Shimon then sold one field to Levi? From whom is Reuven's creditor permitted to claim?

(b) How do we qualify Rava's ruling? In which case would Reuven's creditor be forced to claim from Shimon?

(c) When would the same ruling apply even if he purchased Beinonis?

(a) Abaye rules that if Reuven sold Shimon a field with Acharayus (the undertaking to reimburse him should his creditor claim it from him), Reuven is permitted to appear in Beis-Din to assist Shimon to ward off his creditor, should he indeed claim the field.
Why might we have thought otherwise?

(b) Then why is he permitted to do so?

(c) And on what grounds do others permit it even if he sold him the field without Acharayus?

Next daf