Previous daf

1)

(a) If a Kohen divorces a woman, which of them is obligated to move out of the Chatzer, assuming the Chatzer belongs ...

1. ... to him?
2. ... to her?
3. ... to neither, but they are both renting?

(b) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Hinei Hashem Metaltelecha Taltelah Gaver"? Which She'eilah do we resolve with this Pasuk?

(c) How does the woman claim her debts from her husband if the divorce took place ...

1. ... after the marriage?
2. ... after the betrothal?

(d) In light if what we just learned, how did Rava explain to Rav Ada bar Masna why, in the case of a Kohen who divorced his former wife to whom he had been betrothed, he ordered him to pay his debts through the services of a Sh'li'ach?

3)

(a) What do the following casess have in common: testifying on his father's or his Rebbe's signature, that a woman married in the manner that proves she was a Besulah?

(b) On whose signature is he also believed, besides that of his father and of his Rebbe?

(c) What might he have testified about a school-friend, besides that he would be taken from school to be Toveled and to eat Terumah, that is included in the above list?

(d) Which case does the Tana incorporate in his list regarding ...

1. ... Tum'ah?
2. ... Shabbos?

(a) Why is a Gadol not believed when he testifies that he remembers how so-and-so owned a path leading to his field?

(b) Neither is he believed when he says 'Ma'amad u'Misped Hayah li'P'loni ba'Makom ha'Zeh'.
What does this mean?

(c) In all of the cases where he *is* believed, is he believed in the capacity of a single witness?

(a) Having taught us that we believe ...

1. ... the man when he attests to the signature of his father, why does the Tana need to add that he is also believed when he attests to the signature of his Rebbe?
2. ... the man when he attests to the signature of his Rebbe, why does the Tana need to add that he is also believed when he attests to the signature of his father?
3. ... the man when he attests to the signature of his father and of his Rebbe, why does the Tana need to add that he is also believed when he attests to that of his brother?

(b) Why do we in fact, believe him at all in such an important issue as verifying a Sh'tar (particularly as it involves extracting money) from the debtor? What is the Torah-law in this matter?

(c) And why is he believed when he testifies that a woman was a Besulah when she married, seeing as there too, it is a matter of extracting money from her husband?

(d) Seeing as the slave of a Kohen is permitted to eat Terumah, how do we know that the school-friend about whom the witness testifies (to permit him to eat Terumah), is not the slave of a Kohen? How does this prove a statement made by Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi?

(a) What do the following have in common: An Eved who lent his master money, or whose master appointed him as an administrator or who put on Tefilin in his master's presence?

(b) Included in this list is an Eved who read even just three Pesukim in the Torah in Shul.
How do we reconcile this with the statement of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi (that we just quoted - in 5d.)?

7)

(a) How can the Tana accept the testimony of the witness in our Mishnah to allow someone to eat Terumah d'Oraysa?

(b) He also accepts the testimony of the same witness when he testifies that his friend used to receive Terumah at the granary together with him.
How do we know that he is not the Eved of a Kohen? Was an Eved not permitted to receive a portion of Terumah at the granary?

(c) What does Rebbi Yossi say?

(d) Wich other Machlokes is based on this one?

(a) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Yossi stated that on the sole occasion that he testified with regard to someone being a Kohen, the Beis-Din permitted an Eved to the Kehunah on the basis of his testimony.
What is wrong with that statement?

(b) What did the donkey of Rebbi Pinchas ben Yair do?

(c) So what did he really testify? What happened on that occasion?

(d) On what grounds do we permit the witness in question to testify regarding the border of T'chum Shabbos?

(a) What is a Beis ha'P'ras?

(b) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel permits blowing one's way through a Beis ha'P'ras in certain instances (see Tosfos DH 'Menafei'ach').
Why were they not concerned that one may walk over Tamei bones?

(c) What did Rav Yehudah bar Ami Amar Rav Yehudah mean when he said 'Beis ha'P'ras she'Nidash Tahor'?

(d) What does all this come to prove?

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa believes a grown-up who testifies that his father told him when he was a child that one family is Tamei and another family, Tamei.
What does the Tana mean by that?

(b) And what does he mean by 've'she'Achalnu bi'Ketzatzah shel bas P'loni?

(c) He also accepts his testimony when he remembers how they used to carry Chalah and Matanos to so-and-so.
How does the Tana qualify this case?

(a) Which two people are not believed in all of the above cases?

(b) What does Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah say in this regard?

(c) How do we know that Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah does not come to argue with the Tana Kama's last statement ('Derech Hayah li'Ploni be'Makom ha'Zeh, Ma'amad u'Misped Hayah ... ')?

(d) What is the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah and the Rabbanan?

Next daf