Previous daf

1)

(a) We ask whether Rebbi Chanina, who ascribes the Din in our Mishnah 'Ein Motzi'in la'Achilas Peiros ... mi'Nechasim Meshu'badim' to the fact that the amount is not fixed, is adding to Ula, who attributes it to the fact that it is not written, or whether he argues with Ula completely, and does not require it to be written.
What are the ramifications of the She'eilah?
What major Halachah will emerge assuming the second Tzad to be correct?

(b) Who is entitled to receive 'Isur Nechasim'?

(a) What does Rebbi Yochanan say in a case where one of two daughters received Isur Nechasim after her father's death, and before the second one had a chance to claim hers, their one brother died, leaving them as heirs?

(b) On what basis does Rebbi Chanina disagree with Rebbi Yochanan? What 'Kal va'Chomer' does he make to prove otherwise?

(c) Why may a daughter claim Parnasah from Meshubadim but Mezonos only from B'nei-Chorin?

(d) It seems that Rebbi Chanina permits claiming even oral debts from Meshubadim (since Parnasah [Isur Nechasim] is not written), which would resolve our She'eilah. How do we refute this proof (which is at the same time a Kashya on Ula)?

(a) What happens if a divorcee remarries, and both husbands have undertaken to feed her daughters for five years?
What should she and her daughters do with two lots of sustenance?

(b) What does the Tana of the Beraisa rule in the event that both husbands subsequently die within the five-year period?

(c) How does Rav Huna bar Mano'ach attempt at one and the same time, to resolve our She'eilah in Rebbi Chanina and pose a Kashya on Ula from here?

(d) How do we refute Rav Huna bar Mano'ach's proof?

(a) How do we initially explain the Tana making such a presumptuous distinction between the wife and the daughters?

(b) On what grounds do we refute this reasoning?

(c) In that case, they should not even need a Kinyan, because Mezonos ha'Bas is a T'nai Beis-Din! Why then, may they only claim from B'nei-Chorin (see Tosfos DH 'Eimar')?

(a) How does Rebbi Nasan in a Beraisa qualify the Din of 'Ein Motzi'in la'Achilas Peiros mi'Nechasim Meshuba'dim'? In which case may the first purchaser claim from the fields of the second one?

(b) What do we prove from here (see Tosfos)?

(c) How do we reconcile Ula with the Beraisa?

(d) The opinion in the first Beraisa is that of Rebbi Yossi in the second. What does the Tana Kama there say? Why does he refer to it as a Tikun ha'Olam?

(a) What does Rebbi Yitzchak say about a case where the owner claims that the finder found ...

1. ... two purses tied together, whilst the finder counters that he found only one?
2. ... two oxen tied together, whilst the finder counters that he found only one?

(b) What are the grounds for this distinction?

(c) What does Rebbi Yitzchak say about a case where the owner claims that the finder found two oxen that were tied and the finder counters that he found two and returned one?

(a) What Kashya do we pose on Rebbi Yitzchak's first statement, from our Mishnah?

(b) How can Rebbi Yitzchak argue with our Mishnah?

8)

(a) What does Rebbi Elizer ben Ya'alov mean when he says 'Pe'amim she'Adam Nishba al Ta'anas Atzmo'? What is the case?

(b) What do the Chachamim say?

(c) Why do we take for granted that a genuine Meishiv Aveidah is Patur from a Shevu'ah?

(a) Is one obligated to swear on the claim of a Katan?

(b) Then what do we mean by establishing Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov when a Katan claims from him?

(c) In that case though, he should not have referred to it as 'Ta'anas Atzmo'.
What is wrong with explaining that 'Ta'anas Atzmo' means 'Ta'anas Acheirim ve'Hoda'as Atzmo'?

(a) So we establish the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov and the Rabbanan, when a Katan is claiming from him that he owed his father a hundred Zuz and he admitted to fifty, and they argue over a statement of Rabah.
What basic reason does Rabah give for 'Modeh be'Miktzas ha'Ta'anah Yishava'? Why is a debtor embarrassed to lie and therefore not believed without a Shevu'ah?

(b) What is now the basis of their Machlokes? What is the reason ...

1. ... of Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, who says that he is obligated to swear?
2. ... of the Rabbanan, who say that he is not?

(c) If we suspect that really he wants to deny the entire claim, and only admits to half because he has to, how can trust him to make an oath? Why do we not apply the principle 'Migu de'Chashid a'Mamona Chashid a'Shevu'asa' (someone who is suspect in money matters, is also suspect on making a false Shevu'ah)?

Next daf