Previous daf

1)

(a) 'ke'she'Timtzi Lomar, le'Divrei Rebbi, al K'sav Yadan Heim Me'idim'. What is the meaning of ...

1. ... 'ke'she'Timtzi Lomar'?
2. ... 'al K'sav Yadan Heim Mei'idim'?

(b) What do the Chachamim hold?

(c) Why do we need to explicitly interpret the Machlokes in this way? Why is it not obvious?

(a) In which case are the Chachamim (who maintain 'al Manah she'bi'Shtar Heim Me'idim') more strict than Rebbi? Why is that?

(b) What does one do if only one new witness can be found?

(c) Why should he sign his signature on clay and not on parchment? What are we afraid of?

(d) Why would we not be afraid of the same thing when he sends his signature on a piece of clay?

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules like the Chachamim. Why is such a ruling necessary, in view of the principle 'Yachid ve'Rabim, Halachah ke'Rabim'?

(b) How do we reconcile Shmuel's previous ruling (like the Chachamim) with the case of a document that emerged from Shmuel's Beis-Din where the Beis-Din substantiated it, specifically stating that each witness had verified both signatures - like Rebbi?

(c) What was Shmuel afraid of?

(a) What does Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel mean when he rules that a witness and a Dayan may combine?

(b) Rami bar Chama concurs with Shmuel's ruling, but Rava is unimpressed. What is the basis of his objection?

(c) We therefore conclude that the Halachah is like Rami bar Yechezkel. Who was Rami bar Yechezkel?

(d) What did *he* say?

6)

(a) What does Rav Safra ... Amar Rav Huna or Amar Rav Huna Amar Rav say in a case where two of the Dayanim recognize the signatures of both witnesses, but one does not? Up to when are two Dayanim permitted to testify in front of the one, according to the initial version of his statement?

(b) What did Rav Papi Amar Rava say regarding the Beis-Din's substantiation of a document that forces us to retract from the original version of his statement?

(c) So what *did* Rav Huna say?

(d) What major principle do we learn from here?

(a) On what grounds does Rav Ashi reject the proof from sRav Huna's statement that ...

1. ... once Dayanim recognize the witnesses' signatures, it is not necessary to verbally attest to the signitures in front of them?
2. ... it is necessary to attest to the signatures on behalf of each of Dayan who does recognize them?

(b) The Mishnah in Rosh Hashanah teaches that if three members of Sanhedrin saw the new moon, two of them must stand down to be replaced by other members of the Sanhedrin. Then they testify before the three Dayanim who did not see the new moon ... .
Why do they need to testify at all? Why can they not ...

1. ... just sit down and pronounce Rosh Chodesh there and then?
2. ... testify before the third Dayan, and then sit down and pronounce Rosh Chodesh together with him?

(c) What did Rebbi Aba tell Rav Safra, when he asked him to reconcile this ruling with the previous one (with regard to Kiyum Sh'taros - the verification of documents), where we just ruled 'Eid Na'aseh Dayan'?

(d) Rebbi Chiya bar Rav ultimately presented his father with the Kashya. What did he reply?

(a) What did Rav Huna Amar Rav rule with regard to three Dayanim who sat down to substantiate a Sh'tar, and before the third Dayan was able to sign, a rumor spread that he was Pasul?

(b) Why can they not attest to his validity once they have signed?

(c) What does 'a rumor' imply?

(d) Why can this not be speaking about a rumor that ...

1. ... he is a thief (according to our initial understanding)?
2. ... he is a slave?

Next daf