Previous daf

1)

(a) In a case where Reuven asks a storekeeper for a Dinar's worth of fruit, and when the latter asks for the money, he claims that he already paid him and that he put the money in his purse - our Mishnah obligates Reuven to swear a Shevu'as Heses that he paid.
How does Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa qualify this ruling? Under which circumstances does he absolve Reuven from the Shevuah?

(b) Having taught us the basic Halachah in the case of the fruit, why does the Tana find it necessary to repeat the same Halachah with regard to the banker?

(c) Then why did he not just teach the case of the banker? Why did he find it necessary to present the case of fruit as well?

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that Yesomim may only claim with a Shevu'ah.
Why must this be referring to claiming from other Yesomim?

(b) How do Rav and Shmuel qualify this ruling? Why is that?

(c) They sent Rebbi Elazar a She'eilah, asking what this Shevu'ah was in aid of.
What was his reply?

(d) What was his response when they sent him the She'eilah again in the days of Rebbi Ami?

(a) Although Rebbi Elazar did not know any more about the Shevu'ah than he did the first time, he did however, cite them a statement by Rebbi Ami regarding 'Amad ba'Din u'Meis'.
What case was he referring to?

(b) What did he rule in the case of ...

1. ... 'Amad ba'Din u'Meis'?
2. ... 'Lo Amad ba'Din u'Meis'?

(c) How does Rebbi Ami's first ruling clash with that of Rav and Shmuel?

(d) What did Rav Nachman therefore comment?

(a) Based on the testimony of Rav bar Minyumi, what did Rav Nachman rule in a case of 'Sheneihen Chashudin' that came before him?

(b) This implies that he does not rule like Rav and Shmuel.
How do we reconcile that with his previous statement, where he seems to have a Safek whether to rule like them or not?

(a) How long after a man's death does the Mishnah in Kesuvos grant his wife (who is not claiming Mezonos) to claim her Kesuvah?

(b) Should she die during that time period, how long does the Beraisa allow her heirs to claim?

(c) What does Rebbi Oshaya ask from here on Rav and Shmuel, bearing in mind that the husband died first?

(d) How do we establish the Beraisa, to reconcile Rav and Shmuel with its ruling?

(a) And how does Rav Sh'mayah establish the Beraisa, which, with reference to the previous Beraisa, obligates her or her Yorshim (or whoever comes on account of her) to swear?

(b) Rav Nasan bar Hoshaya asks further from another Beraisa, which gives a son the edge over his father 'she'ha'Ben Govah bein bi'Shevu'ah bein she'Lo bi'Shevu'ah, ve'ha'Av Eino Govah Ela bi'Shevu'ah'.
What is the case?

(c) In which case does the son then claim ...

1. ... with a Shevu'ah?
2. ... without a Shevu'ah? According to which Tana does this go?

(d) To reconcile Rav and Shmuel with the Beraisa, we establish the author as Beis Shamai.
What do Beis Shamai say?

7)

(a) How did Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna greet Rav Nachman when he arrived in Sura?

(b) What was Rav Nachman's response to their suggestion?

(c) What did he however, suggest from his part?

(d) In fact, he had in mind to preclude a case which Rav Papa (who lived after Rav Nachman) ruled.
In which case did Rav Papa rule 'Yorshin Nishba'in Shevu'as Yorshin, ve'Notlin'?

(a) Why did Rav also try to add to the above, a case where Reuven lent Shimon money backed by a guarantor, and Shimon's subsequent death was followed by the death of Reuven?

(b) How did Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua prove him wrong?

(c) What did Rava say to Rami bar Chama, when the latter wanted to add to the list of exceptions a case where Reuven's brother, not his son, produced a Sh'tar against Shimon's heirs?

(a) With regard to the Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel on the one hand, and Rebbi Elazar on the other, what does Rav Chama finally rule?

(b) Rav Papa rules that if Reuven's Yesomim produce a Sh'tar against Shimon's, we neither tear it up nor do we allow them to claim with it.
What is the reason for this contradictory ruling?

(c) How did that Talmid-Chacham react to the Dayan, who ruled like Rebbi Elazar?

(d) Rebbi Chama eventually corroborated the Dayan's ruling.
What was the Dayan's response to the Talmid-Chacham's threat?

(a) We ask on our Mishnah 've'Eilu Nishba'in she'Lo be'Ta'anah, ha'Shutfin ve'ha'Arisin ... ', 'Atu be'Shofteni Askinan'.
What do we mean by that?

(b) What do we answer?

(c) If 'ben Bayis' mentioned in the same list does not mean any member of the household, then what does it mean?

(d) What is the reason for the Shevu'ah in all these cases?

(a) What problem do we have with Rav Minyumi Amar Rav Nachman's initial statement 've'Hu she'Yesh Ta'anah Beinaihu Sh'tei Kesef'?

(b) How do we therefore amend it?

(a) What does the Beraisa say about Shimon, who borrowed money from Reuven before the Sh'mitah-year and became his partner after it?

(b) What can we extrapolate from there?

(c) How do we know that the main Shevu'ah referred to here is a Shevu'as ha'Shomrim and not a Shevu'as Heses?

(a) What are we trying to prove from the above inference?

(b) How do we amend the inference from the Beraisa in order to refute this proof?

(c) Why is there no longer proof there that 'Gilgul Shevu'ah applies to a Shevu'ah de'Rabbanan?

(d) On what grounds do we reject this refutal however?

(e) So what is the outcome of the She'eilah?

(a) Rav Huna and Rav Chisda both agree that Gilgul Shevu'ah applies to all Shevuos de'Rabbanan except one. Which one?

(b) Rav Huna says 'la'Kol Megalgelin Chutz mi'Sachir'.
What does Rav Chisda say?

(c) What are the ramifications of their Machlokes?

(d) What does Rav Gidal Amar Rav learn from the Pasuk in Re'ei "ve'Zeh *D'var* ha'Shemitah"?

Next daf