Previous daf

1)

(a) How does Rava qualify the Din in our Mishnah that renders a hundred witnesses like two? When will each pair be considered a separate entity?

(b) What time-span constitutes 'Toch K'dei Dibur'?

(c) Rav Acha from Difti asked Ravina how a hundred witnesses can possibly testify within such a short space of time.
What did he answer?

(a) Rav Papa asks Abaye that according to our Mishnah, why does the murdered man not save the murderer from the death-sentence.
On which Tana is he asking?

(b) What did Abaye answer ...

1. ... Rav Papa?
2. ... him when he asked him why a man who has been raped does not save the ding to our Mishnah, why does the murdered man not save the rapist from the death-sentence?

(c) On what basis would the murderer and the rapist otherwise be Patur?

(a) Abaye was stymied however, when Rav Papa asked him why the murderer and the rapist do not save themselves from the death-sentence.
Why should they?

(b) How did Rava answer this Kashya (as well as the previous Kashyos)?

(c) According to Rebbi, Pasul witnesses only negate the testimony if they are party to the warning. How do Beis-Din know whether they are or are not?

(d) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules like Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah.
Like whom does Rav Nachman rule?

4)

(a) In a case where one pair of Eidim witness a murder from one window, another pair witness it from another window, and a fifth person warns the murderer in the middle, under what condition do the two pairs combine to form one testimony?

(b) What are the ramifications of this ruling assuming that ...

1. ... both pairs can see each other or the person in the middle?
2. ... they cannot see each other?

(c) Rebbi Yossi disagrees.
What does he learn from the Pasuk in Shoftim "al-Pi Shenayim Eidim ... "?

(d) What do the Chachamim learn from this Pasuk?

(a) Rav Zutra bar Tuvya learns from the continuation of the previous Pasuk "Lo Yumas al-Pi Eid Echad" that Eidus Meyuchedes is Pasul.
What is Eidus Meyuchedes?

(b) Why can we not take the Pasuk literally to mean one witness?

(a) What case of two individual witnesses does the Beraisa (which corroborates the ruling of Rav Zutra bar Tuvya) add to that of Eidus Meyuchedes, where their testimony is also Pasul?

(b) Rav Papa asks Abaye that the Tana need not have mentioned that case. Why not?

(c) What does Abaye answer? How does he establish the Beraisa so that both witnesses witness a full sin?

(a) Rava presents a case where Eidus Meyuchedes is Kasher.
How is that possible?

(b) He also validates a warning that is issued by the victim himself.

Which even stranger case does he validate?

(c) Rav Nachman validates Eidus Meyuchedes by Dinei Mamonos.
How does he derive his ruling from the Pasuk "Lo Yumas al-Pi Eid Echad"?

(d) What did Rav Zutra ask on this from our Mishnah 'Lefichach ... Hu ve'Hein Neheragin'?

(e) What do we answer?

(a) What was the problem with Rava using an interpreter when a case involving foreign witnesses came before him?

(b) How do we resolve it?

(c) What Rav Papa initially think when Ila'a and Tuvya, relations of the guarantor, testified in a case involving a loan?

(d) what objection did Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua raise?

Next daf