Previous daf

1)

(a) In the case of the man who sold himself to Luda'i, who were the 'Luda'i'?

(b) On what grounds did Rebbi Ami want to redeem even him, and certainly his children?

(c) On what grounds did the Rabbanan not allow him to do so?

(d) How did they know that he was not merely a Mumar le'Tei'avon? What is a Mumar le'Tei'avon?

(a) What did Resh Lakish take with him when he sold himself to the Luda'i (see Tosfos DH 'Resh Lakish)?

(b) On what basis did he get them to agree that he tie them up and hit them with his sack?

(c) What did he say to each of the dead men as they leered at him? Why were they all leering at him?

(d) What did he declare when ...

1. ... his daughter asked him whether he did not need something to lie on whilst he slept?
2. ... on his death-bed, he found that he was left with one Kav of saffron?

(a) What did Chazal obligate someone who sold a field to a Nochri in Eretz Yisrael to do?

(b) What is the reason for this Takanah?

(c) What does Rabah learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Behar "Ki Li ha'Aretz"?
2. ... "Tehilim "ha'Shamayim Shamayim la'Hashem, ve'ha'Aretz Nasan li'Venei Adam"?

(d) Rebbi Elazar disagrees. He learns from the Pasuk in Re'ei "Ma'asar *Degancha*" "Degancha" 've'Lo D'gan Oved Kochavim'.
What does he learn from the Pasuk in Tehilin "la'Hashem ha'Aretz u'Melo'ah"?

(a) What does Rabah, who obligates the grain of a Nochri to be Ma'asered, learn from "Degancha"? What does 'Digun' mean?

(b) The Mishnah in Pe'ah states 'ha'Leket ve'ha'Shikchah ve'ha'Pe'ah shel Oved-Kochavim Chayavin be'Ma'aser Ela-im-Kein Hifkir'.
Why does Rabah not want to establish the Mishnah by the Leket ... of a Yisrael that a Nochri collected? What does Rabah then prove from there?

(c) Then what is the Mishnah referring to, according to him?

(d) How do we refute Rabah's proof (by accepting the explanation in the Mishnah that Rabah rejected)?

(a) What does the Beraisa say about someone who purchased a field from a Nochri before the crops had grown to one third of their growth, and sold it back to him afterwards?

(b) What can we infer from here that poses a Kashya on Rabah?

(c) We reconcile Rabah with this Beraisa by establishing that it speaks in Syria.
What does this mean? How do this answer the Kashya?

(d) Is there anybody who might hold that even in Syria, the field of a Nochri will be Chayav under the above circumstances?

6)

(a) Rebbi says in a Beraisa that if a Yisrael and a Nochri purchased a field together, Tevel and Chulin are mixed together.
What does he mean by that?

(b) The only way of Ma'asering these crops is 'Minei u'Bei'.
What does this mean?

(c) What is the reason for this?

(a) What does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel say?

(b) What is the basis of their Machlokes?

(c) How do we reconcile Rabah with this Beraisa, which clearly holds that land belonging to a Nochri is not subject to Ma'asros?

(a) The Beraisa rules that someone who sells a field to a Nochri is obligated to purchase each year the Bikurim and to bring them to Yerushalayim because of Tikun ha'Olam.
What does Rav Chiya bar Avin extrapolate from there that poses a Kashya on Rabah?

(b) Why, according to Rabah, should he be obligated to purchase the Bikurim from the Nochri, even though Rabah himself agrees that he would not be obligated to purchase the Ma'asros from him?

(c) Rav Ashi replies that there were two Takanos.
How does this answer the Kashya on Rabah?

(d) The second Takanah is the one in our Mishnah.
What is the first one?
Why did Chazal waive the Torah obligation?

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, someone who sells his field only for the Peiros brings Bikurim and reads the Parshah.
What is the case?

(b) Why must this refer to the time when the Yovel no longer applied?

(c) What is the criterion for the Yovel to apply? When did it cease to function?

(d) According to Resh Lakish, the buyer brings Bikurim but does not read the Parshah. Why not? What is the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish (based on the Pasuk "me'Reishis Kol P'ri ha'Adamah Asher Nasata Li Hashem")?

(a) How will Resh Lakish explain the Beraisa "u'le'Veisecha", 'Melamed she'Adam Meivi Bikurei Ishto ve'Korei", despite the fact that a husband only has a Kinyan Peiros in his wife's property (see Tosfos DH 'u'le'Veisecha')?

(b) In the second Lashon, it is Resh Lakish who asks on Rebbi Yochanan from this Beraisa, which implies that specifically a husband reads when he brings the fruit from his wife's property, but not anybody else who has only a Kinyan Peiros.
What is Rebbi Yochanan's reply?

(a) The Beraisa says that a man who is bringing his wife's Bikurim to the Beis Hamikdash when he hears that she died, he brings them and reads the Parshah.
What do we infer from here that poses a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan?

(b) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina says that if someone appointed a Sheli'ach to take his Bikurim to the Beis Hamikdash, and the Sheli'ach died on the way, the owner brings the Bikurim but does not read the Parshah.
Why not?

(c) How do we know that Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina is speaking about the owner himself and not about another Shelia'ch finishing the job?

(d) How does this answer the Kashya we asked on Rebbi Yochanan?

Next daf