Previous daf

1)

(a) Bearing in mind that the Torah writes (with regard to payment of damages) "Meitav "Sadeihu*", what does Rebbi Yishmael learn from the Pasuk mentioned later in Mishpatim "u'Bi'er *bi'S'dei* Acher"?

(b) From where does Rebbi Akiva learn that the Mazik is obligated to pay from his own Meitav?

(c) Rebbi Yishmael, it seems, agrees with Rebbi Akiva's basic contention that the Pasuk implies the Idis of the Mazik.
In which case will he then apply it?

(a) Rebbi Akiva adds 'Kal va'Chomer le'Hekdesh'.
Why can he not be referring to a case where ...

1. ... someone's ox gored an ox belonging to Hekdesh?
2. ... someone undertook to pay a Manah to Hekdesh?

(b) Perhaps Rebbi Akiva holds that a creditor always claims Idis?

(c) We conclude that Rebbi Akiva holds like Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya.
What does Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya say about ...

1. ... an ox of Hekdesh damaging an ox belonging to a Hedyot?
2. ... an ox of a Hedyot damaging an ox belonging to Hekdesh?

(d) How does Rebbi Shimon ben Menasya Darshen "Re'eihu" (from which the Chachamim exempt payment of damages to Hekdesh)?

(a) Based on this explanation of Rebbi Akiva, how do we suggest changing the basic Machlokes between Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Yishmael? What might they now be arguing about?

(b) We refute this contention however, on three scores. Firstly, due to the Lashon used by Rebbi Akiva 'Lo Ba ha'Kasuv Ela Ligvos li'Nezikin min ha'Idis' (implying that the Machlokes concerns a Hedyot and not Hekdesh). Secondly, on the grounds that 've'Od, Mai Kal va'Chomer' le'Hekdesh'?
What is the problem with that?

(c) The third problem with this contention is based on a Beraisa cited by Rav Ashi.
What does the Beraisa say?

4)

(a) Ravina establishes our Mishnah like Rebbi Akiva, who maintains that the Mazik pays with his own Idis min ha'Torah.
To explain why the Tana then ascribes it to 'Tikun ha'Olam', he establishes the author as Rebbi Shimon. How does that answer the Kashya? What does Rebbi Shimon say?

(b) According to Rebbi Shimon, why does the Torah obligate ...

1. ... a Mazik to pay from Idis?
2. ... a creditor to claim from Beinonis (and not from Idis)?

(c) In that case, why did the Torah not obligate him to claim from Ziburis?

(d) And why does a woman claim her Kesuvah from Ziburis, and not from Beinonis?

(a) It is Rebbi Yehudah who holds that a woman claims her Kesuvah from Ziburis.
What does Rebbi Meir say?

(b) What problem did the Tana have when he added 'Davar Acher, Ishah Yozt'ah li'Retzonah ve'she'Lo li'Retzonah, ve'ha'Ish Eino Motzi Ela li'Retzono'?

(c) How does that resolve the problem?

(a) In what way does Mar Zutra Brei de'Rav Nachman qualify the Din of 'Kesubas Ishah be'Ziburis'?

(b) How do we reconcile this with the Halachah cited in our Mishnah that whoever claims from Yesomim may only claim Ziburis? Then why does the Tana find it necessary to mention the Din by Kesuvas Ishah?

(c) We learned earlier the Beraisa where, according to Rebbi Meir, a woman may claim her Kesubah from Beinonis.
Why does Rava assume that Rebbi Meir is referring to the woman claiming from her husband personally?

(d) He therefore extrapolates that the Rabbanan, who tie her down to Ziburis, must also be speaking about claiming from him.
How do we reconcile Mar Zutra with this Beraisa?

(a) What does Abaye extrapolate from our Mishnah 'ha'Nizakin Shamin Lahen be'Idis, u'Ba'al-Chov be'Beinonis, u'Kesuvas Ishah be'Ziburis', to pose a Kashya on Mar Zutra?

(b) Rav Acha bar Ya'akov establishes the Mishnah when a father became a guarantor for his son ... .
What is the case? How does this answer the Kashya?

(a) Seeing as a guarantor of a Kesuvah is not obligated to pay in any case, why would the father have to pay at all?

(b) According to one opinion, an Areiv Kablan obligates himself even if the debtor has no property at the time of the loan.
What is the reason of those who argue with him?

(c) What is then the problem in our case? Why do we think that the son must not have had any property?

(d) We reconcile Rav Acha bar Ya'akov with this opinion by establishing the case when the son had fields at the time of the loan, but which subsequently became flooded.
What alternative answer to we give (even assuming that the son had no property at all, even at the time of the loan)?

Next daf