Previous daf

1)

(a) Why does Rebbi Yochanan forbid lending a (golden) Dinar for a (golden) Dinar?

(b) Why can he not be referring to a silver Dinar?

(c) According to which Tana is Rebbi Yochanan speaking?

(d) What do we try to prove from here, concerning the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish?

(a) We conclude that really Rebbi Yochanan holds that one can transfer Ma'aser Sheini on to gold coins, because against fruit, they are considered currency.
Then why does he forbid lending a golden Dinar for a golden Dinar? What does that have to do with the Din of selling?

(b) We prove this from a statement Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan made when he came from Eretz Yisrael.
What did Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan say when he came from Eretz Yisrael?

(a) In the Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheini, Beis Shamai permit transferring a Sela's-worth of P'rutos of Ma'aser Sheini into a silver Sela. Beis Hillel permit the transfer of only half.
Why is that?

(b) What do we ask from this Mishnah on Resh Lakish, who forbids the transfer of Ma'aser Sheini fruit on to a golden Dinar?

(c) To answer this Kashya, what distinction do we make between copper P'rutos and gold coins?

(a) Also in the second Lashon, either Rebbi Yochanan or Resh Lakish confines the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel to the transfer of Sela'im on to Dinrim, only Beis Shamai forbids it (not because Dinrim are considered Peiros, but) because the Torah writes an extra "ha'Kesef".
What do we learn from there?

(b) The other opinion extends the Machlokes to the transfer of the actual Ma'aser Sheini on to gold coins.
What is then Beis Shamai's reason for forbidding it?

(c) According to the first opinion (of this Lashon), why do they argue over redeeming Sela'im against Dinrim, and not over redeeming Sela'im against Sela'im (which is a more straightforward case of 'Kesef Sheini')?

(a) We ask from the Mishnah in Ma'aser Sheini, where Beis Shamai permit the transfer of a Sela of Ma'aser Sheini on to P'rutos in Yerushalayim. Why do Beis Hillel permit transferring only a half?

(b) What do we ask from this Mishnah on those who learned above 'Kesef Rishon ve'Lo Kesef Sheini'?

(c) How do we answer this Kashya? Why would Yerushalayim be different in this regard?

(d) How do we finally refute the contention that Beis Shamai forbids the transfer of Kesef Rishon on to Kesef Sheini, from the Beraisa we quoted above 'ha'Poret Sela mi'Ma'os Ma'aser Sheini?

6)

(a) Instead (of Kesef Rishon and Sheini), we establish the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel as to whether they forbade the transfer of Sela'im for Dinrim because of a decree.
Which decree?

(b) Why are ...

1. ... Beis Hillel not afraid of this?
2. ... Beis Shamai not afraid of the same thing when it comes to transferring *fruit* on to Dinrim?

(c) What does the other opinion (of Resh Lakish or Rebbi Yochanan) say?

(d) How do we prove this Lashon (over the first Lashon, which establishes the Machlokes whether gold coins against fruit is considered currency or Peiros) from the wording of the Beraisa 'Beis Shamai Omer, Lo Ya'aseh Adam Sil'in Dinri'?

(a) Rav and Levi argue over whether a coin can be used as Chalipin.
If one wanted to acquire something with coins, what would be ...

1. ... the practical difference between a Kinyan Kesef and a Kinyan Chalipin?
2. ... the Halachic ramifications of saying that a coin could be used as Chalipin?

(b) Why can the reason of the one who disqualifies coins from the realm of Chalipin not be because he holds like Rav Nachman, who will later disqualify anything that is not a K'li (a vessel)?

(c) Rav Papa gives the reason as being that a person's mind is on the picture on the coin.
So what if it is? What is the source for this P'sul?

(a) 'ha'Zahav Koneh es ha'Kesef' in our Mishnah implies a Kinyan Chalipin. How do we amend the Mishnah to repudiate the Kashya against the one who disqualifies a coin from the realm of Chalipin?

(b) How do we prove this from the Seifa 'ha'Kesef Eino Koneh es ha'Zahav' (based on its reason)?

(c) And we bring a similar proof from the Seifa of a Beraisa, which invalidates a silver coin from acquiring a gold one. What problem do we have then with the Reisha, which after presenting the reverse case, adds 'Keivan she'Mashach es ha'Zahav, Nikneh Kesef be'Chol Makom she'Hu'?

(d) Rav Ashi answers this Kashya by explaining 'be'Chol Makom she'Hu' to mean 'K'mos she'Hu, ke'de'Amar Leih'.
What does he mean by that?

(a) According to Rav Papa, what does the opinion which holds 'Ein Matbe'a Na'aseh Chalipin' concede?

(b) How does he prove this from Rav Nachman, who (as we already learned), holds that Peiros cannot acquire with Chalipin? What does 'Peiros' mean in this context?

Next daf