Previous daf

1)

(a) Which three tithes was one obligated to separate from crops or wine that one purchased from Kutim?

(b) Why does the Tana mention specifically the Kutim?

(c) On what grounds does the Tana of this Mishnah in Demai permit the wine of Kutim in the first place? Did Chazal not decree on Kutim, declaring them to be like non-Jews?

(a) According to Rebbi Meir, how would someone who purchased a hundred Lugin of wine from the Kutim (shortly before Shabbos, or if he did not have any Tahor vessels into which to place the tithes) declare the Terumos and Ma'asros?

(b) What is Rebbi Meir's underlying principle?

(c) Rebbi Yehudah, Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon disagree; they forbid separating the Ma'asros in advance.
What reason do we initially give for this?

(d) What problem does this create for Abaye, who established one Mishnah in Gitin like Rebbi Meir, and the other, like Rebbi Yehudah?

(a) To conform with Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah's opinions (with regard to using an animal for a Sukah), we invert Abaye's answer, to establish the Mishnah in Gitin which *is* concerned that the husband may have died, like Rebbi Meir, and the Mishnah which is *not*, like Rebbi Yehudah.
Why then, is Rebbi Meir not worried that the flask may break?

(b) And if Rebbi Yehudah is not concerned that the Kohen may have died, then why does he not permit taking tithes from the wine that one bought from the Kutim, in advance?

(c) On the other hand, if Rebbi Yehudah is not worried that the flask may break, then why did he use that as an argument when querying Rebbi Meir?

(d) And if he is not concerned about the Kohen dying, why does he require the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur to prepare another wife, in case his wife dies?

(a) We learned above, that Rebbi Meir disqualifies an animal from being used as a Mechitzah, because we are afraid that either it might die. or it might run away.
What is the problem with both of those reasons from the Mishnah in Eruvin, which precludes an animal from the Din of a Golel (the cover of a grave)?

(b) We explain the Gemara's decision to ask this Kashya from the *Mishnah* in Eruvin rather than from the *Beraisa* which sparked off the whole Sugya, because it prefers to ask from a Mishnah than from a Beraisa.
What is the alternative explanation for this decision?

(c) Finally, we explain that Rebbi Meir disqualifies an animal from serving as a Mechitzah *mi'd'Oraysa*, due to the fact that anything that only stands through air (and not under its own steam) is not called a Mechitzah (since air is an abstract entity).
What is the Gemara's alternative explanation?

(d) What is the difference between the two opinions?

5)

(a) What does Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei ...

1. ... "*ve'Kasav* Lah Sefer Kerisus"?
2. ... "Sefer"?

(b) Why do the Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Yossi Hagelili?

(c) How do they Darshen the word "Sefer"?

(d) From "ve'Kasav", they learn that a woman can only be divorced through a Get, but not with money.
Why would we have thought otherwise?

(a) What does Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learn from "Sefer Kerisus"?

(b) What do the Rabbanan learn from "Sefer Kerisus"?

(c) Is the woman divorced if her husband gives her a Get on the condition that she does not drink wine or go to her father's house for thirty days?

(d) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learns that too, from the plural of "Kares/Kerisus".
What do the Rabbanan do with "Kares/Kerisus"?

(a) The Mishnah validates a Sukah whose walls consist of trees.
How do we reconcile this with Rav Acha bar Ya'akov, who invalidates any wall that flaps around in a regular wind?

(b) What about the branches?

(c) What is the Chidush of this Mishnah?
Why do we need a Mishnah to teach us that such a Sukah is Kasher?

(a) Is a tree eligible to serve as a Deyumad (by Pasei Bira'os)?

(b) The same condition applies to carrying under a large tree on Shabbos, whose wide-spread branches sag to within three Tefachim from the ground. Seeing as the Mechitzah is now man-made, why is it not considered 'Hukaf le'Dirah' (to permit carrying underneath it, even if it covers an area of more than a Beis Sasayim (5,000 square Amos)?

(a) If, when Shabbos enters, a traveler finds himself beside a mound of earth ten Tefachim high (or a pit ten Tefachim deep), that covers an area which is more than four by four Amos and less than a Beis Sasayim, how far is he permitted to walk?

(b) Why does the Tana mention specifically more than four Amos?

(c) The third case mentioned in the Beraisa, is when a person finds himself in an area where the crops have been cut, and which is surrounded by standing corn when Shabbos enters.
What is the problem with this on Rav Acha bar Ya'akov?

(d) How do we resolve the problem?