Previous daf

1)

(a) If Shimon sold to Levi what he stole from Reuven, Rav quoting Rebbi Chiya rules 'ha'Din Im ha'Rishon'.
What does he mean by that? What if the owner were to claim from Levi?

(b) What does Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Yanai say?

(c) How does Rav Yosef reconcile the two opinions? What does 'Lifnei Yi'ush' and 'le'Achar Yi'ush' mean?

(d) What does Rav Yosef mean when he adds that both opinions hold like Rav Chisda? What does Rav Chisda say about 'Gazal ve'Lo Nisya'ashu ha'Ba'alim'?

(a) And how do we reconcile Rav Chisda's ruling with 'Takanas ha'Shuk', which authorizes the purchaser from the Ganav to recoup what he paid for the article from the owner?

(b) Abaye queries Rav Yosef's view (that Rav agrees with Rebbi Yochanan, that before Yi'ush, the Ganav can claim his article from Levi) from the Mishnah in Chulin. What does the Tana say in a case where someone buys ...

1. ... the entire stomach of a cow, which still contains the Keivah (one of the Matanos)?
2. ... parts of the cow by weight, including the stomach?

(c) How does Rav qualify this Mishnah? What will be the Din in a case where it was not the purchaser who took the stomach and gave it to the him?

(d) What does Abaye extrapolate from here? Why does he assume that the Tana is speaking before Yi'ush?

(a) How do we reconcile Rav Yosef with Rav's statement in Chulin? What does Rav mean when he says 'ha'Din Im ha'Tabach'?

(b) What is the Chidush? Why might we have thought that the Kohen must claim from the purchaser and not from the butcher?

(c) According to Abaye, who maintains that Rav argues with Rebbi Yochanan, in what point does he argue with him?

(d) Rav Z'vid establishes Rav and Rebbi Yochanan when the owner was Meya'esh after the purchaser had already bought the article.
What will then be the basis of their Machlokes?

(a) According to Rav Papa, Rav agrees that the purchaser must return the article, in the event that the owner asks him for it.
How does he interpret ...

1. ... Rav's ruling 'ha'Din Im ha'Rishon'?
2. ... Rebbi Yochanan's ruling 'ha'Din Im ha'Sheini'?

(b) According to Rav Z'vid and Rav Papa, do Rav and Rebbi Yochanan hold like Rav Chisda or not?

(c) What are the ramifications of Rebbi Yochanan ruling like Rav Chisda (according to whom the purchaser cannot say 'I did not steal from you. Go and claim from the Ganav!', seeing as the owner is obligated to pay him anyway?

(a) Chanan Biysha stole a coat and sold it.
What did Rav say to the owner?

(b) Why does this pose a Kashya o Rav? What is the connection between Rav Huna and Rav?

(c) Rava rules that the Chachamim did not decree Takanas ha'Shuk in the case of a well-known Ganav.
Why not?

(d) Then why did Rav Huna apply Takanas ha'Shuk in the case of Chanan Biysha, who was infamous for his wickedness?

(a) Why did Chazal not decree Takanas ha'Shuk in the case of Reuven who borrowed money from Shimon or who bought from him on credit, and he subsequently payed off his debt with an object that he stole?

(b) If Reuven gave Shimon a stolen article worth two hundred Zuz as a security against a loan of a hundred Zuz, the Chachamim did decree Takanas ha'Shuk (since the money was in fact given against the object). But if the security was worth a hundred Zuz, says Ameimar, they did not (even though Mar Zutra disagrees).
Why not?

(c) According to Rav Sheishes, if Reuven sells Shimon an article worth a hundred Zuz for two hundred, they did not decree Takanas ha'Shuk, (even on the second hundred [although Rava disagrees]).
Why not?

(d) What is the Halachah in all of the above cases? Which are the only two to which Takanas ha'Shuk does apply?

(a) When Avimi bar Nazy lent a certain man four Zuz, what did the latter go and do? Who was Avimi bar Nazy?

(b) When, after Avimi made him a second loan, the Ganav was discovered, Ravina ruled that whereas the first loan was a case of 'Ganav u'Para be'Chovo', the second loan was made against the stolen coat, and that the owner was therefore obligated to pay Avimi when he retrieved it. Rebbi Avahu however, ruled like Rav Kohen.
What did Rav Kohen say?

(c) A Narsha'ah stole a Sefer which he sold to a Papuna'ah for eighty Zuz, and the Papuna'ah then sold it to a bar Mechuza'ah (all place names, like saying 'a Yerushalmi' or 'a New Yorker') for a hundred and twenty Zuz. Then, the Ganav was discovered.
What objection did Rava raise to Abaye's ruling, that the owner should pay eighty Zuz to the bar Mechuza'ah for his coat, and the bar Mechuza'ah had to reclaim the remaining forty from the Papuna'ah?

(d) So what did Rava's rule?

8)

(a) If Reuven, who is transporting a barrel of wine, collides with Shimon who is transporting a barrel of honey, the honey begins to spill through a crack in the barrel, and Reuven pours out his wine in order to save Shimon's honey, what is he entitled to claim from Shimon, according to the Tana of our Mishnah?

(b) In which case would he be entitled to recoup his entire loss? (c) Which other case does the Tana cite which has the equivalent Halachah?

(a) What does the Beraisa say about someone who is carrying jars of wine or oil when he notices that they are breaking and that all the contents are about to spill?

(b) This indicates that, in such a case, the contents of the container are considered Hefker. In that case, the owner of the wine in our Mishnah should be permitted to keep the honey. The reason that he is not, is because of Rebbi Yirmiyah.
How does Rebbi Yirmiyah establish a similar Beraisa?

(a) Another Beraisa prohibits a traveler who sees a robber coming towards him, from transferring the Kedushah of Ma'aser-Sheini fruit that he has at home on to the money that he has with him.
What would be the Din if he did? Would the transfer be valid?

(b) Then how do we account for the fact that the Tana in the previous Beraisa disqualifies the Ma'asros that the owner designated, even Bedi'eved?

(c) What does the Tana of another Beraisa say about someone who notices that one of ten barrels of wine of Tevel Tamei that he is transporting is breaking or became uncovered?

(d) How does Rebbi Yirmiyah reconcile this Beraisa with the previous Beraisa, which forbids the transfer of Kedushas Ma'aser-Sheini on to the money that is being threatened by the approaching robber?

(a) Wine that is spilling is fit to be used for Ziluf (as an aromatic). We have a problem however, with wine that became uncovered, which we substantiate with a Beraisa.
What does the Tana say about water that became uncovered?

(b) We answer the Kashya by establishing the Beraisa like Rebbi Nechemyah. What use does uncovered wine have, according to him?

(c) The Tana Kama forbids an uncovered strainer outright.
What does Rebbi Nechemyah say?

(d) But did Rebbi Si'mon Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi not forbid a strainer even according to Rebbi Nechemyah, there where someone mixed them (because then, the snake's venom slips through the strainer)?

(a) The Tana Kama of a Beraisa permits Ma'asering from Tahor on to Tahor, Tamei on to Tamei and Tahor on to Tamei.
What does Rebbi Nechemyah say?

(b) In that case, how can we establish the Beraisa which permits Ziluf by uncovered wine, seeing as the Tana is talking about Ma'asering Tevel Tamei on to Tevel Tamei?

(c) The same Tana who permits Ma'asering the wine of Tevel Tamei, forbids it if the barrels contain oil.
Why is that?

(d) Does this mean that Ziluf is not important and is therefore not considered a loss to the Kohen?

(a) We therefore establish the Beraisa by new wine that is not so good for Ziluf.
Why is not possible to wait until the wine becomes old?

(b) Why are we not similarly afraid of Takalah in the case of oil?

(c) If one can place oil in an old vessel (to ensure that one does not use it together with food), why can one not do the same with wine?

Next daf