Previous daf

1)

(a) Everyone agrees that the regular Areiv of a Kesuvah is not obligated to pay.
What do they say by an Areiv Kablan of a debt?

(b) What is the dual basis of this distinction?

(c) Amora'im argue whether a S'tam Areiv of a debt or an Areiv Kablan of a Kesuvah obligates himself or not. Under which circumstances do they argue?

(d) We rule that in all cases, the Areiv is obligated to pay except for the the Areiv of a Kesuvah (who is not an Areiv Kablan).
Why is he not obligated (even if the husband has property)?

(a) Ravina asks one last Kashya on Mar Zutra who restricted the Din of 'Kesuvas Ishah be'Ziburis' to when she claimed from the Yesomim. What reason does the Beraisa give for the Takanah confining a woman's claim to Ziburis?
How does that pose a Kashya on Mar Zutra?

(b) What do we answer?

(a) What does Mar Zutra Brei de'Rav Nachman quoting his father, say about a Sh'tar Chov that is produced against Yesomim on the condition that the creditor may claim Idis?

(b) Who wrote the Sh'tar?

(c) How does Abaye attempt to prove this from the Din of a Ba'al-Chov?

(a) What does Ula learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "be'Chutz Ta'amod, ve'ha'Ish Asher Atah Nosheh Bo Yavi Eilecha ... "?

(b) Then why did Chazal extend his claim to Beinonis?

(c) How do these facts refute Abaye's proof?

(d) Why does Rava refer to Mar Zutra's case as Torah-law? What is the source for it?

(a) How will Rava, who maintains that one only claims from the Ziburis of Yesomim in cases which min ha'Torah, everyone claims from Ziburis, explain the Beraisa cited by Avram Chuza'ah, that even Nizakin may only claim from the Ziburis of the Yesomim? Who will then be the author?

(b) How do we initially explain the Beraisa cited by Rebbi Eliezer Nivsa'ah 'Ein Nifra'in mi'Nechsei Yesomim Ela min ha'Ziburis, va'Afilu Hein Idis'?
How does this pose a Kashya on Rava?

(c) Rava however, establishes the Beraisa by 'Shapa'i Idis'.
What is 'Shapa'i Idis'?

(d) What did Rava say in a case of ...

1. ... Hizik Ziburis?
2. ... Hizik Shapa'i Idis?

(a) Rav Achdevu'i bar Ami asks whether the restriction of claiming from Yesomim to Ziburis applies only to Yesomim Ketanim, or whether it extends to Gedolim as well. If it (reverting to Torah-law by Yesomim) is merely a Takanas Chachamim, it will only apply to Ketanim, basically because Gedolim can look after themselves.
What is the other Tzad of the She'eilah?

(b) Why can we not resolve Rav Achdevu'i bar Ami's She'eilah from the Beraisa cited by Abaye Keshisha 'Yesomim she'Amru Gedolim, ve'Ein Tzarich Lomar Ketanim'? What might the Tana be referring to, other than from which quality fields the creditor may claim?

(c) What is the final ruling on this matter?

7) Rav Achdevu'i bar Ami asked whether the restriction of claiming from Meshuba'dim when there are B'nei Chorin available extends to a gift. It might not apply there, because the beneficiary of the gift does not lose anything (and the purpose of the Takanah is to safeguard the purchaser, who paid for the fields).
What is the other Tzad of the She'eilah? Why might it nevertheless apply?

8)

(a) What does the Tana of the Beraisa say about a Shechiv-Mera who left instructions to give two hundred Zuz to Reuven, three hundred, to Shimon and four hundred, to Levi? In what proportion would they be obligated to pay, if the donor's creditor produced a Sh'tar that the donor owed him a Manah?

(b) When would they be obligated to pay according to the order they received their gift (i.e. the last one first, the second last, second ... .)?

(c) Based on the fact that the Shechiv-Mera said 'T'nu', what do we extrapolate from here that would appear to resolve our She'eilah?

(d) How do we first refute this proof? What might 'T'nu' mean?

(a) In the previous case, why does the date on their respective Sh'taros not determine the order in which they pay?

(b) Then what does 'Kol ha'Kodem bi'Sh'tar mean (See Tosfos DH 've'Ha')?

(c) We refute the initial proof in two additional ways, even if the Tana is referring to Matanah.
What do we mean when we say ...

1. ... 'Mai Govah min ha'Acharon, Ein Nifsad Ela Acharon'?
2. ... 'de'Shavu Kulhu Lehadadi'?

(a) Ula Amar Resh Lakish explains that the purchaser cannot claim the Peiros from the thief's Meshuba'dim because they were not written. So what if they were weren't?

(b) In fact, the thief had stated that he would reimburse the Sh'vach and the Peiros.
So what does Ula mean when he says that they were not written?

(c) Rebbi Zeira asked Rebbi Asi from 'Mazon ha'Ishah ve'ha'Banos', which are considered as if they are written, even though they are not, yet they are not authorized to claim from Meshuba'dim.
What did he mean when he said 'they are considered as if are written'?

(d) How did Rebbi Asi answer Rebbi Zeira?

Next daf