Previous daf

1)

(a) What causes us to comment that according to both Rava and Rabah bar Rav Huna, who establish the Beraisa by a Gazlan and Nigzal, the loan is only an oral one? How do we know that the Tana is not speaking when there is a Sh'tar?

(b) And so what if it is?

(c) We answer that, before selling the field (or before the Nochrim claimed it) they had been to Beis-Din.
So what if they had? How does this render it a documented loan?

(d) And the reason that the owner may claim the Peiros only from B'nei-Chorin is because they had abjugated on the Keren but not on the Peiros.
How do we justify establishing the Beraisa like this?

(a) Which three things did Shmuel instruct Rav Chin'na bar Shilas to consult with the debtor before inserting them in the Sh'tar? Who was Rav Chin'na bar Shilas?

(b) Why can this not be referring to a case of Ba'al-Chov?

(c) To which case does it then refer?

(d) How does Rav Yosef reconcile this with Shmuel's own ruling that a purchaser from a Gazlan does not take the Sh'vach? What does he gain by establishing the case in this way?

(a) What objection does Abaye raise to Rav Yosef's answer? Why should it still be forbidden to pay the Sh'vach?

(b) In answer to Abaye's Kashya, what distinction does Rav Yosef make between the case of Sa'ah be'Sa'ah and that of Shmuel?

(c) What alternative concession does Rav Yosef present that might be permitted by a sale which is not permitted by a loan?

(a) The seller writes in the Sh'tar of sale 'Ana Eikum, ve'Ashpi, ve'Adki, ve'Amrik Z'vini Ilein'.
What is the meaning of ...

1. ... 've'Ashpi'.
2. ... 've'Adki' (which is smilar in meaning to 've'Amrik')?

(b) What do we prove from the continuation 'Inun, ve'Amleihon *u'Shevacheihon'*?

(c) And what does Rava extrapolate from the fact that this is omitted from a Sh'tar Matanah?

(d) Rav Chiya bar Avin asked Rava whether a gift was really more powerful than a sale in this regard.
What did Rava reply?

(a) Rav Nachman proves Shmuel right from a Beraisa which rules (in connection with a field which is taken away from Shimon, after he bought it from Reuven) that he claims the Keren from Meshubadim and the Sh'vach from B'nei Chorin.
Who is claiming from whom?

(b) Rav Huna explains the Beraisa in connection with someone who purchased from a Gazlan.
Who is now claiming from whom?

(c) Why, according to Rav Huna, would the purchaser not claim in the case of a Ba'al-Chov?

(d) What gives a Nigzal more rights than the Ba'al-Chov (according to him)?

(a) Another Beraisa discusses a case where a purchaser had improved the field, when the Ba'al-Chov claimed the entire field including the Sh'vach. The Tana differentiates between where the Sh'vach amounts to more that the expenses and vice-versa.
What does the purchaser claim and from whom, assuming that ...

1. ... the Sh'vach amounts to more than the expenses?
2. ... the expenses amount to more than the Sh'vach?

(b) Why is there a Kashya on Shmuel from the Reisha ...

1. ... if we establish thc case by a purchaser from a Gazlan?
2. ... and from the Seifa, if we establish it by a Ba'al-Chov?

(c) Under which two possible conditions might we establish the Beraisa by a purchaser from a Gazlan?

7)

(a) Alternatively, we even establish the Beraisa by a Ba'al-Chov. To reconcile Shmuel with the Tana, we differentiate between 'Sh'vach ha'Magi'a li'Kesafim' and 'Sh'vach she'Eino Magi's li'Kesafim'.
What is 'Sh'vach ha'Magi's li'Kesafim'?

(b) How do we then establish ...

1. ... the Beraisa?
2. ... Shmuel?

(c) How do we then explain Shmuel, who would regularly authorize the Ba'al-Chov to claim even 'Sh'vach ha'Magi'a li'Kesafim' without having to pay the expenses?

(d) And why does the Tana say that the purchaser takes the Yetzi'ah ... , rather than that he takes the equivalent of his debt from the owner and the rest from the Ba'al-Chov?

(a) Some say that even if the purchaser has money, he is obligated to give the Ba'al-Chov the field that is Meshubad to him.
What do others say?

(b) What problem does this create with the Beraisa's ruling that the Ba'al-Chov takes the field and pays the purchaser money for the Sh'vach?

(c) We answer by establishing the Beraisa, 'K'gon she'As'o Apotiki'.
What is an Apotiki?

(d) How does this answer the Kashya?

(a) According to Rav, if the purchaser bought the field from the 'seller' knowing that it was stolen, he is entitled to claim the value of the field but not the Sh'vach.
What does Shmuel say?

(b) What is the basis of their Machlokes?

(c) According to ...

1. ... Rav, why did the purchaser not say that he gave the money as a Pikadon?
2. ... Shmuel why did he not say that he gave the money as a gift?

(a) In which other connection do we find the same Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel?

(b) Why, if they had only presented their Machlokes ...

1. ... here, would we have thought that, in Kidushin, Rav would concede that the money is a gift?
2. ... in Kidushin, would we have thought that Shmuel would concede here that the money is a Pikadon?

(c) What do we mean when we ask, according to both Rav and Shmuel, how the purchaser can possibly eat the fruit? What is the problem?

(d) What do we reply?

(a) In which regard do we conclude 've'Hilch'sa Yesh Lo Ma'os, ve'Yesh Lo Sh'vach'?

(b) And what do we rule with regard to ...

1. ... our current Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel? Is the money a Pikadon or a gift?
2. ... Acharayus? Does the Sofer include it automatically, or must he consult the debtor? Is this ruling confined to loans, or does it extend to purchases too?

(c) We ask what the Din will be if, after selling the stolen field to the purchaser, the Gazlan buys it from the owner.
What exactly, is the She'eilah?

(d) On what grounds do we rule that the Gazlan cannot claim the field from the purchaser (like a third person would have been permitted to do)?

(a) According to Mar Zutra, this is because of a Chazakah that he does not wish to be called 'a Gazlan'.
What does Mar Zutra mean?

(b) What does Rav Ashi say?

(c) Initially, we take the ramifications of this Machlokes to be when the purchaser died, where, we think, the first reason will no longer apply (and the Gazlan will then be able to take the field), whereas the second one will.
On what grounds do we refute ...

1. ... this suggestion?
2. ... the suggestion that the difference will be when the Gazlan died, where again the first reason will no longer apply, but the second one will (since the children will still want to remain on good terms with the purchaser)?

(d) So what *are* the ramifications of the Machlokes between Mar Zutra and Rav Ashi?

Next daf