Previous daf

1)

(a) We just cited Rav Ashi, who explains that, according to the Tana of the Beraisa, if the price of fruit dropped anyway, due to a bountiful harvest - the borrower is permitted to take a coin that is larger than the one he borrowed. What problem do we have with this?

(b) We conclude by citing Rav Papa and Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua, who dealt with just such a case. The two men there went to Agardimus.
Who was Agardimus?

(c) What do we mean when we say ' ... ad Yud bi'Temanya' (see Tosfos)? Why does this not present a problem regarding Ribis?

(a) What will be the Din if Reuven threw Shimon's coin into the sea? Will it make any difference if the water is clear or not?

(b) Then on what grounds does Rabah exempt someone from paying in similar circumstances?

(c) In which case will he liable to pay, even according to Rabah?

(a) What does the Beraisa say about redeeming Ma'aser-Sheini with money that he has in Kastera or Har ha'Melech (which are all but impossible to obtain) or in a purse that is lying at the bottom of the sea?

(b) How does Rabah reconcile his previous statement with this Beraisa?

(a) Under which circumstances does Rabah exempt someone who erases the face of a coin? When is he then liable?

(b) What does the Beraisa say about someone who strikes his Eved ...

1. ... on his ear and deafens him or on his eye and blinds him?
2. ... on the wall next to his ear ... ?

(c) What does Rava ask Rabah from the Reisha?

(d) We answer that Rabah follows his own reasoning.
What does he say with regard to someone who deafens his parents?

(a) On what grounds does Rabah exempt Reuven if he nicks the ear of Shimon's cow?

(b) Why is he not liable for disqualifying the cow from the Mizbe'ach?

(c) What does the Beraisa say about someone who weighed against the ashes of the Parah Adumah or who worked with the cow whilst it was still alive?

(d) What can we infer from the fact that the Beraisa presents specifically the case of 'Melachah'? Why is this a Kashya on Rabah?

(a) To reconcile Rabah with the Beraisa, we reply that the Tana had good reason for presenting specifically the case of Melachah.
What is that reason?

(b) Why does Rabah exempt Reuven for burning Shimon's Sh'tar?

(c) What problem does Rami bar Chama have with Rabah's ruling assuming that Shimon ...

1. ... has witnesses?
2. ... does not have witnesses?

(d) What does Rava answer?

7)

(a) What does Rebbi Shimon say about 'Davar ha'Gorem le'Mamon'? What is the case?

(b) The Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Shimon.
According to Rav Dimi bar Chanina, what does Rabah have to do with Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan?

(c) On what grounds does Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua refute Rav Dimi bar Chanina's explanation?

(a) Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua bases his rejection of Rav Dimi bar Chanina on a statement of Rabah.
What does Rabah say about Levi who burned the Chametz that Reuven stole from Shimon before Pesach ...

1. ... 'be'Mo'ed' (from the sixth hour and onwards)?
2. ... after Pesach, according to Rebbi Shimon ...
3. ... according to the Rabbanan?

(b) What did Ameimar say about those who hold of 'Diyna de'Garmi'? To whom is he referring?

(c) What ruling did Rafram issue against Rav Ashi?

(a) We already discussed the Beraisa 'Shor she'Heimis ad she'Lo Nigmar Diyno ... ' (in Perek 'Shor she'Nagach Daled ve'Hey'). What distinction does the Tana draw between an owner who, after his ox killed someone, sold it, Shechted it or declared it Hekdesh *before* it had been sentenced to stoning, and *afterwards*?

(b) And what does he say about a Shomer who returned the ox that gored someone to death to its owner ...

1. ... before the sentence?
2. ... after the sentence?

(c) With which of the Tana Kama's rulings does Rabbi Ya'akov disagree?

(d) According to Rav Chisda, the basis of their Machlokes is whether one can say to the owner of Isurei Hana'ah 'Harei she'Lecha Lefanecha'.
What other practical ramifications will their Machlokes have? In which other case will they argue?

(a) Rabah concludes that in fact, even the Tana Kama concedes that one can say to the owner of Isurei Hana'ah 'Harei she'Lecha Lefanecha'.
Then what is the Tana Kama's reason for saying 'Hichziro Shomer le'Beis Ba'alav, Eino Muchzor? What makes this case worse than Chametz on Pesach?

(b) And what does Rebbi Ya'akov then hold? On what grounds does he argue with the Rabbanan?

(c) How does Rabah know that this is the Rabbanan's reason and not because they hold that one cannot say to the owner 'Harei she'Lecha Lefanecha'?

(d) And how do we know that Rabah's reason in the Rabbanan is because the Shomer failed to return the owner's ox to him, thereby depriving him of the possibility of saving it (as the Lashon suggests)?

(a) Rebbi Ya'akov maintains that it is possible to conclude the Din of an ox even in its absence.
How does he counter the Rabbanan's proof from the principle 'ke'Miysas ha'Ba'alim, Kach Miysas ha'Shor'?

(b) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Mas'ei "Ad Omdo Lifnei ha'Eidah la'Mishpat"?

(a) Rabah bar Shmuel told Rav Chisda that they had learned the Beraisa which discusses 'Chametz ve'Avar Alav ha'Pesach, Peiros ve'Hirkivu ... ve'Shor Ad she'Lo Nigmar Diyno, Omer Lo Harei she'Lecha Lefanecha'.
What does the Tana have to say about this?

(b) How did they extrapolate from this Beraisa that the author must be the Rabbanan of Rebbi Ya'akov?

(c) Rav Chisda asked him not to tell this to the B'nei ha'Yeshivah, because it would embarrass him.
Why is that?

(d) How does Rav Papa reconcile this Beraisa, which includes 'Peiros ve'Hirkivu' in the Din of 'Omer Lo Harei she'Lecha Lefanecha' with our Mishnah, which rules 'Meshalem ke'Sha'as ha'Gezeilah'?

(a) What does the Tana of our Mishnah rule in the following cases: a craftsman who wrecks the vessel he has been handed to fix; a carpenter who breaks the wagon or the cupboard he has been given to repair; a builder who smashes or damages the stones of the wall he has been commissioned to demolish?

(b) What will be the Din if the latter is hammering the wall on one side, and stones ...

1. ... fall from the other side (from the vibrations, but partly because the wall is not firm)?
2. ... fall from the other side, but as a direct result of his having shammered too hard)?

(c) Rav Asi qualifies our Mishnah.
Why in his opinion, will a carpenter who breaks the cupboard he is manufacturing be Patur (despite the fact the materials belong to the person who commissioned him)?

(d) How does Rav Asi therefore establish the Reisha of our Mishnah 'Nasan le'Umnin Le'saken ve'Kilkelu ... Chayav Le'shalem'?

(a) The Seifa speaks specifically when the owner handed a craftsman a wagon or a cupboard to repair.
What do we try and extrapolate from there that will pose a Kashya on Rav Asi?

(b) How do we refute the Kashya? What might the Seifa be coming to teach us?

(c) How do we try to substantiate Rav Asi, by proving that the Seifa must be coming to elaborate on the Reisha (and not to balance it)?

(d) How do we refute this proof too?

Next daf