Previous daf

1)

(a) What relations does "Avos u'Vanim" automatically disqualify?

(b) How do we know that brothers are disqualified too?

(c) What do we learn from the fact that the Torah writes "Banim" in the plural?

(d) Rami bar Chama initially learns from a Beraisa that two relatives cannot testify for a stranger.
What does the Tana there say about witnesses becoming Eidim Zomemin? How does Rami bar then extrapolate his ruling from there?

(a) What does the Mishnah in Bava Basra 'Sheloshah Achin ve'Echad Mitztaref Imahen ... ' conclude?

(b) How does Rava refute Rami bar Chama's source from that Mishnah?

(c) What makes them Zomemin, according to Rava, if not their co-witnesses' testimony?

(d) So from where does Rava learn Rami bar Chama's Din?

(a) What do we learn from the second ...

1. ... "Banim" ("u'Vanim Lo Yumsu al Avosam") via 'Im Eino Inyan'?
2. ... "Yumsu" (when it could have written "u'Vanim al Avosam")?

(b) And what do we learn from the Pasuk in Emor "Mishpat Echad Yih'yeh Lachem"?

(a) To what are we referring when we say that our Mishnah ...

1. ... disqualifies 'Sheini be'Rishon and Sheini be'Sheini'?
2. ... does not disqualify 'Shelishi be'Rishon'?

(b) What does Rav say about 'Achi Aba, Hu u'Beno ve'Chasno ... Ani u'Beni ve'Chasni ... '?

(c) How do we reinterpret 'Achi Aviv Hu u'Beno ve'Chasno' to reconcile Rav with our Mishnah?

(d) In that case, why did the Tana not simply present the case of 'Ben B'no'?

(a) What does Rebbi Chiya mean when he says that our Mishnah lists eight Avos which are twenty-four?

(b) How does this disprove Rav's earlier statement?

(c) If 'Chasno' does not mean Chasan B'no, then why does Rav refer to him as Chasan B'no'?

(d) What might we then have asked on the Mishnah's ruling that forbids one's son-in-law to testify for his own father's brother?

(a) How do we disprove Rav completely from the Mishnah's ruling forbidding one's father's brother's son-in-law from testifying on his behalf?

(b) So we finally establish Rav like Rebbi Elazar.
What does Rebbi Elazar say in a Beraisa about a Shelishi be'Sheini ('ben Achi Aba Li')?

(c) What does Rav extrapolate from there?

(d) How does Rav derive this from the Pasuk "Lo Yumsu Avos al Banim *u'Vanim*"?

(a) How does Rebbi Elazar extend the D'rashah of Rav?

(b) Like whom is the Halachah?

(c) What does Rav Nachman say about the brother of a person's mother-in-law, the latter's son and his sister's son? What do all three have in common?

(d) How do we prove it from our Mishnah?

(e) What does 've'Tana Tuna' mean?

8)

(a) What had Rav come to sell when they asked him whether a person may testify on behalf of his stepson's wife, if her Nechsei Milug were being disputed?

(b) Why did they not ask him the same She'eilah about the wives of other relatives?

(c) In Sura they replied 'Ba'al ke'Ishto'.
What did they say in Pumbedisa'? What is the difference between the two answers?

(d) What does Rav Huna Amar Rav learn from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "Ervas Achi Avicha Lo Segaleh, el Ishto Lo Sikrav, Dodascha Hi"?

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'u'Ba'al Imo Hu u'Beno ... '. How does Rebbi Yirmiyah explain the latter so as not to be synonymous with 'Achiv'?

(b) Rav Chisda disagreed with this ruling. According to him, the Kashya that we just asked remains.
How does he answer it?

(c) What does Rav Chisda say about the father of a Chasan and the father of the Kalah testifying on each other's behalf? Why does he compare them to a barrel and its lid (see Mesores ha'Shas)?

(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah permits a man to testify in a case involving his betrothed wife.
How does Ravina qualify this ruling?

(b) Ravina probably proves this from a statement of Rav Chiya bar Ami in the name of Ula.
What does Ula say about the Din of Onan, burial, and inheritance with regard to an Arusah? What does 'Onan' mean?

(c) Under which circumstances does he allow her to claim her Kesuvah in the event that her husband dies?

(d) How do we reject the proof from there? Why would the Din of testifying not be connected with the above issues?

(a) One Beraisa states 'Chorgo Levado. Rebbi Yossi Omer Giyso'.
Bearing in mind that it is Rebbi Yehudah who argues with Rebbi Yossi, what does another Beraisa say?

(b) Why can Rebbi Yossi not possibly permit the son of Giyso to testify?

(c) Then why does he say 'Giyso Levado'?

(d) How do we know that Rebbi Yossi is not referring to the son of Giyso but from a different wife (to solve the above problem)?

(a) Why can both Tana'im not be saying that neither the son nor the son-in-law may testify on behalf of either Chorgo or Giyso (in which case, each one will be making a different statement, even though they both agree ['Mar Amar Chada, u'Mar Amar Chada, e'Lo Peligi'])?

(b) And why can the Tana Kama of the first Beraisa not hold 'Chorgo Levado, Aval Giyso, Hu u'Veno ve'Chasno', and Rebbi Yossi, the reverse? What will then be the problem with Rebbi Chiya's Beraisa (that we quoted earlier) 'Shemoneh Avos she'Hein Esrim ve'Arba'ah'?

(a) How will both the Mishnah and the Beraisa be served if we explain the Beraisa 'Chorgo Levado, Aval Giyso, Hu, u'Veno ve'Chasno. Rebbi Yossi Omer Giyso Levado, ve'Kol she'Kein Chorgo' (and that is how we will the second Beraisa, too)?

(b) Like whom does Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rule?

(c) Rav Yosef wanted to validate a Sh'tar Matanah on which two brothers-in-law had signed.
How did he interpret Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's previous ruling? Which Rebbi Yossi did he think Rav Yehudah was referring to?

(d) On what grounds did Abaye therefore query Rav Yosef's ruling?

(a) We repudiate Abaye's Kashya however, on the basis of Shmuel, who with regard to Rebbi Yossi's ruling in the Beraisa declared 'K'gon Ana u'Pinchas'.
What was special about Shmuel and Pinchas? What does this prove?

(b) How do we reject this proof? Why might Shmuel concede that all brothers-in-law being disqualified?

(c) What did Abaye counter when Rav Yosef advised the recipient of the Sh'tar Matanah to claim with the Sh'tar by means of Eidei Mesirah (like Rebbi Elazar, who holds 'Eidei Mesirah Karsi', even when there are no Eidei Chasimah)?

(d) What did Rav Yosef reluctantly instruct the recipient of the Matanah to do?

(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, even if a man's daughter dies, and she leaves over children, his son-in-law is still considered a relation with regard to testifying on his behalf. Rebbi Tanchum ... Amar Rav rules like Rebbi Yehudah. What does Rava Amar Rav Nachman (as well as Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan) say?

(b) Others quote the latter's ruling in connection with Rebbi Yossi Hagelili.
How does Rebbi Yossi Hagelili in a Beraisa explain the Pasuk in Shoftim "u'Vasa el ha'Kohanim Asher Yih'yeh ba'Yamim ha'Heim" (which otherwise appears meaningless)?

(c) How did Mar Ukva's brothers-in-law react when he refused to accept their lawsuit?

(d) What did he answer them?

Next daf