Previous daf

1)

(a) According to the Chachamim, if a man fixes a dowry for his daughter who is already betrothed and then goes bankrupt, there is nothing the woman can do but to wait until her Chasan makes the next move.
What does Admon say?

(b) 'Pashat Lo es ha'Regel' can simply be a degrading way of informing his creditor that he cannot supply the goods; so he stretches out his foot as if to say 'Take the dirt from my foot (in payment)'.
What else can it mean?

(c) According to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, even the Chachamim agree in the previous case that she can force her Chasan's hand to act one way or the other (seeing as it is her father and not her, who made the condition and who went bankrupt).
In which case then, do they maintain that she remains in limbo?

(d) In that case, what is Admon's reason? Seeing as it is the woman who retracts, what right can she possibly have to force his hand?

(a) The Tana of another Beraisa that comes to qualify the previous one, states 'Bameh Devarim Amurim, bi'Gedolah, Aval bi'Ketanah, Kofin'.
Why can this not mean that, if she is a Ketanah, we force her father to pay?

(b) Then what *does* the Tana mean?

(a) Rebbi Yitzchak ben Elazar quoting Chizkiyah states that whenever Raban Gamliel sides with Admon, the Halachah is like him.
Does this include Beraisos, or is it confined to Mishnahs?

(b) 'Amar Rebbi Zeira Amar Rabah bar Yirmiyah, Sh'nei Devarim she'Amar Chanan Halachah ke'Yotzei Bo'.
To whom does 'ke'Yotzei Bo' refer?

(c) What is Rebbi Zeira then saying?

(a) He also added 've'Shiv'ah Devarim she'Amar Admon Ein Halachah Kemoso ve'Lo ke'Yotzei Bo'.
To whom does 'ke'Yotzei Bo' refer?

(b) Why can he not mean that the Halachah is neither like Admon nor like Raban Gamliel in all seven cases?

(c) For the same reason, we reject the suggestion that what Rebbi Zeira means is that the Halachah is not like Raban Gamliel, but like Admon.
What does this mean?

(d) So what *does* Rebbi Zeira mean when he says 've'Shiv'ah Devarim she'Amar Admon Ein Halachah Kemoso ve'Lo ke'Yotzei Bo'? How do we amend his statement?

(a) According to Admon, on what grounds do we believe Reuven, when he claims that the field that Shimon bought from Levi, Levi had stolen from him, and then we discover that he was one of the witnesses who signed on the document of sale?

(b) What do the Chachamim say?

(c) In which case does Admon concede that he has lost his right to the field?

(d) Abaye, commenting on the Chachamim, explains that he only loses his rights if he signed as a witness, but not if he signed as a Dayan, and he bases this on a Beraisa learned by Rebbi Chiya.
What distinction does the Beraisa make between witnesses and Dayanim?

6)

(a) We just learned that should Reuven sign on a document that merely refers to the field in question as bordering another field that Shimon sold to someone else, he loses his right to the field. This will not be the case however, if Shimon was selling the field to *him*.
Why is that?

(b) Why can Shimon not counter that Reuven should then have a made a Moda'ah in front of witnesses? What is a Moda'ah?

(a) A certain man merely referred to the field in question as bordering another field that Shimon sold to someone else. He then protested that the field was his and died, but not before he had appointed an administrator for the Yesomim.
On what basis did the administrator argue that Abaye should permit the Yesomim to retain the field?

(b) Abaye conceded that he was right, based on a statement by Rebbi Yochanan.
What did Rebbi Yochanan say?

(c) What did Abaye then instruct the administrator to give the Machzik?

(d) The administrator managed to convince Abaye that the father would have presented an argument that would have given him the entire field, including the furrow. Again Abaye conceded that he was right, based on a statement by Rebbi Yochanan.
What did Rebbi Yochanan say?

9)

(a) According to Admon, if someone goes overseas and returns, to find that his neighbors have taken over the path to his field, and he doesn't know exactly where it is, he may force them to give him the shortest route to his field.
What do the Chachamim say?

(b) If it is only *one* of his neighbors who now surrounds him on all four sides, Admon is obviously right.
On what grounds do we reject the contention that he is surrounded by *four* neighbors?

(c) Rava concludes that if four neighbors surround him, each one can push him away to the others.
Does it make any difference whether the four originally surrounded him, or whether they bought the paths from one neighbor?

(a) Then in which case do Admon and the Chachamim argue?

(b) Admon's reason is because 'mi'Mah Nafshach' one of the paths belongs to him, in which case he can demand one of the paths to the field.
What is the reason of the Chachamim?

(a) What did Rav Yosef think when a man left in his will that his daughter should give a date-palm from his estate, and the brothers subsequently distributed their father's estate, without giving their sister a date-palm?

(b) What did Abaye have to say about Rav Yosef's ruling?

(c) So what did Abaye rule?

(a) In another case, a man left in his will that they should give a date-palm to his daughter.
What did the brothers want to give her?

(b) Rav Ashi wasn't sure whether a person calls two half palms a date-palm or not.
What did Rav Mordechai quote Avimi from Hagrunya in the name of Rava in this regard?

(c) Why can the daughter not claim that she prefers a *whole* date-palm rather than two *half*-ones?

Next daf