Previous daf

1)

(a) We ask from where we know that Gilgul Shevu'ah will obligate even a Safek to swear.
What is the case of Gilgul Shevu'ah ...

1. ... (besides that of Karka) by a Vaday Shevu'ah, that we know already?
2. ... by a Safek that we are currently discussing?

(b) Why we can not learn Safek Mamon from Safek Isur from the same 'Kal va'Chomer' as we learned Vaday?

(c) Why did the Rabbanan nevertheless obligate a partner and a share-cropper to swear, even though the claim is a Safek?

3)

(a) To explain the extent of 'Gilgul Shevu'ah', Rav Yehudah Amar Rav states the case of 'Hishava Li she'Ein Avdi Atah'.
What sort of Eved do we initially think he is referring to?

(b) What objection do we then raise to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's statement?

(c) What does the Beraisa say about someone who calls his fellow-Jew ...

1. ... a Mamzer?
2. ... a Rasha?

(a) What objection do we then raise to Rava's explanation of Rav, when he claimed that the man had been sold to him as an Eved Ivri?

(b) We overrule this objection based on another statement of Rava.
What does Rava say about the Kinyan of an Eved Ivri?

(c) If, as we just concluded, the Eved Ivri is Karka, then what is Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's Chidush, seeing as our Mishnah has already taught us that Metaltelin obligate a Shevu'ah on Karka with a Gilgul Shevu'ah?

(a) What is the simple explanation of our Mishnah 'Kol ha'Na'aseh Damim be'Acher, Keivan she'Zachah Zeh, Nischayav Zeh ba'Chalipav'? What is the Tana's Chidush?

(b) What example does the Tana give as an illustration?

(c) What does the Tana mean when he says 'Nischayav Zeh ba'Chalipav'?

(d) What Kashya will we later ask from the Seifa on the Reisha?

(a) What basic problem do we have with the simple explanation of our Mishnah?

(b) Rav Yehudah explains that what the Tana means is 'Kol ha'Nishum Damim be'Acher ... '.
What does he mean by that?

(c) What is the Tana then coming to teach us?

(d) How does he go on to prove this from the Seifa?

7)

(a) We just proved from the Seifa that, when the Tana said in the Reisha 'Kol ha'Nishum Damim be'Acher ... ', he meant that whatever needs to be assessed when used as payment, is eligible for Chalipin. How will we explain the Seifa, according to the simple explanation of the Reisha that we first adopted? What do we add to the case of Damim in the Reisha?

(b) What does 'Peiros' incorporate?

(c) Why do we change here from 'Hichlif Shor be'Parah' to 'Hichlif B'sar Shor be'Parah'? Does this mean that if he exchanged an ox for a cow that the transaction would not be valid?

(d) This interpretation of the Mishnah is acceptable according to Rav Sheishes, but not according to Rav Nachman.
Why is that? What does Rav Nachman say?

(a) Does Rav Nachman accept Rav Yehudah's interpretation of the Mishnah ('Kol ha'Nishum Damim be'Acher')?

(b) In that case, how will he explain 'Kol ha'Na'aseh Damim be'Acher'? If it does not refer to Chalipin, then what *does* it refer to?

(c) What is the case?

(d) In view of the principle that money cannot acquire, this case can only be an exception, due to the fact that Rav Nachman holds like Rebbi Yochanan.
What does Rebbi Yochanan say?

(a) On what grounds did the Rabbanan negate Kinyan Kesef?

(b) What makes the case in our Mishnah different, according to Rav Nachman?

(c) What does Resh Lakish hold? Why can he not possibly explain the Mishnah like Rav Nachman?

(d) Why must Resh Lakish then follow the opinion of Rav Sheishes, who holds that Peiros are eligible for Chalipin?

1. ... 'Reshus ha'Gavohah be'Kesef'?
2. ... 'u'Reshus Hedyot ba'Chazakah'?
3. ... 'Amiraso li'Gevohah ki'Mesiraso le'Hedyot'?

Next daf