Previous daf

1)

(a) We just established that Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Akiva argue in a case where the security is worth less than the loan, and the basis of their Machlokes is over Shmuel's Din. Alternatively, they argue even in a case where the security is equivalent to the loan, and they argue over Rebbi Yitzchak's Din.
What does Rebbi Yitzchak say about a Ba'al-Chov (a creditor) and a Mashkon (a security)?

(b) How does he extrapolate this from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei (in connection with the Din of returning a Mashkon [daily or nightly]) "u'Lecha Tih'yeh Tzedakah"?

(c) How do we now propose to explain the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer?

(a) What problem do we have with this, based on the fact that Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Akiva are talking about a 'Mashkon be'Sha'as Halva'ah'?

(b) What is the S'vara behind this distinction? Why is a Mashkon she'Lo be'Sha'as Halva'ah Koneh, whilst a Mashkon be'Sha'as Halva'ah is not?

(c) In fact we conclude, everyone holds like Rebbi Yitzchak, and they argue over a Shomer Aveidah.
What would then be the basis of their Machlokes?

3)

(a) This is also a Machlokes between Rabah, who says 'Shomer Aveidah ke'Shomer Chinam', and Rav Yosef ... 'ke'Shomer Sachar'.
What makes a Shomer Aveidah, a Shomer Sachar, according to Rav Yosef?

(b) Why do we then establish Rebbi Akiva like Rav Yosef? What is the connection between a Mashkon and a lost article?

(c) We know at the outset that Rabah cannot hold like Rebbi Akiva (who certainly considers a Shomer Mashkon [and a Shomer Aveidah] a Shomer Sachar).
How do we establish Rav Yosef even like Rebbi Eliezer? Why might Rebbi Eliezer confine his Din to a Mashkon, but concede to Rebbi Akiva by a Shomer Aveidah?

(a) We attempt to base the Machlokes Tana'im in the following Beraisa on Shmuel's Din ('Avad Kata de'Magla, Avad Alfa Zuzi'). 'ha'Malveh es Chavero al ha'Mashkon ve'Nichnesah Sh'mitah, af-al-Pi she'Eino Shaveh Ela Palga, Eino Meshamet, Divrei Raban Shimon ben Gamliel'.
What does Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi say?

(b) Why, on principle, does Sh'mitah not cancel a debt on which there is a Mashkon?

(c) Why do we initially establish Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's ruling on the half of the loan that is in excess of the Mashkon? Why not on the half that it does cover?

(d) What will then be the basis of their Machlokes?

(a) We conclude however, that they are arguing over the half that the Mashkon covers. The Tana Kama holds that at least the half that is covered by the Mashkon is not cancelled by the Sh'mitah.
What does Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi say? What is then the purpose of the Mashkon, as we asked earlier?

(b) Which Tana will now conform with Shmuel's opinion?

6)

(a) What do 'Sachir', 'Nigzal' and 'Nechbal' have in common?

(b) Our Mishnah adds two more cases to the list. One of them is 'she'Kenegdo Chashud al ha'Shevu'ah'. What is the other?

(c) What is the case of ...

1. ... 'Sachir'?
2. ... 'Nigzal'?
3. ... 'Nechbal'?
4. ... 'she'Kenegdo Chashud al ha'Shevu'ah'? To which three areas of Shevu'ah does this pertain?

(d) Why does the Tana say 'va'Afilu Shevu'as Shav'? Why might we have thought that Shevu'as Shav is different?

(a) What does Rebbi Yehudah say about the previous cases?

(b) What is his reasoning?

(c) With which of the four cases does he not argue?

Next daf