1)

(a)What did Rav Huna bar Avin send to the Beis-Hamedrash regarding Reuven who purchases a field from a Nochri, and Levi then comes and acquires it with a Kinyan Chazakah?

(b)And what did he quote Ravin, Rebbi Ila'a and all the Rabbis as saying?

(c)Ukvan bar Nechemyah taught Rabah three Halachos in the name of Shmuel. Who was Ukvan bar Nechemyah?

(d)The first Halachah was 'Diyna de'Malchusa Diyna', the second 'Arisusa de'Parsa'i ad Arba'in Sh'nin'. What might this mean (besides possibly, that the Persians extended the Chazakah of three years to forty)?

1)

(a)Rav Huna bar Avin sent to the Beis-Hamedrash - that if Reuven purchases a field from a Nochri, and Levi then comes and and acquires it with a Kinyan Chazamah, the field belongs to Levi.

(b)And what's more, he concluded - Ravin, Rebbi Ila'a and all the Rabbanan agree with this.

(c)Ukvan bar Nechemyah - the Resh Galusa (the exilarch)taught Rabah three Halachos in the name of Shmuel.

(d)The first Halachah was 'Diyna de'Malchusa Diyna', the second 'Arisusa de'Parsa'i ad Arba'in Sh'nin', which besides possibly, that the Persians extended the Chazakah of three years to forty, might mean - that once a Nochri owns a field for forty years, he becomes the established owner, and a Yisrael who purchases from him adopts that ownership (even without a Sh'tar). This is based on a royal decree.

2)

(a)Shmuel's third Halachah concerned the Zaharuri. Who were 'the Zaharuri'? What did they used to do?

(b)And what did Shmuel say about them?

(c)This ruling does not however, extend to fields whose owners had not paid their Karga (head tax). Why not?

(d)Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua disagrees with this last statement. What does he say about barley in a jar? Does this extend to Karka?

2)

(a)Shmuel's third Halachah concerned the Zaharuri - wealthy men, who would pay the King's men the Taska (land tax) for the fields that the latter had confiscated from the poor landowners who could not afford to pay it.

(b)Shmuel ruled - that the money the Zaharuri paid the king's men acquired the land on their behalf.

(c)This ruling does not however, extend to fields whose owners had not paid their Karga (head tax) - since Karga is purely a personal liability. Either the tax men will seize the culprit until he pays, or he manages to run away; either way, his fields do not become Meshubad (collateral).

(d)Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua disagrees with this last statement. According to him - even barley in a jar (that has already been detached from the ground [or any other Metaltelin]) is Meshubad towards paying the head tax.

3)

(a)Huna bar Nasan queried Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua's ruling from the inheritance of a B'chor (i.e. the extra portion that he inherits from his father). What special Halachah pertains to the inheritance of a B'chor?

(b)What is now the problem?

(c)What did Rav Ashi retort? What similar Kashya could he have asked withouit Rav Huna b'rei de'Rebbi Yehoshua?

(d)So how does Rav Ashi answer both Kashyos with one sweep?

3)

(a)Huna bar Nasan queried Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua's ruling from the inheritance of a B'chor (i.e. the extra portion that he inherits from his father) - which he is only entitled to take from property that his father had in his possession when he dies (not from property to which his father is entitled but has yet to claim).

(b)Seeing as whatever is Meshubad to the king is considered the king's, he asks, according to Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua - the Din of Yerushas B'chor will no longer apply to anyone living in Persian controlled areas, who dies without having paid his head tax (since everything he owns is Meshubad to the king).

(c)Rav Ashi retorted that he could have asked the same Kashya without Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua - from those who did not pay their land tax (whose property is Meshubad to the king according to all opinions).

(d)So he answers both Kashyos by establishing the inheritance of a B'chor - by those who have paid their respective taxes before their deaths, and whose property is therefore not Meshubad to the king.

4)

(a)Why is Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua's Kashya not really a Kashya anyway? How could we answer it very simply?

(b)What did Rav Ashi comment when Huna bar Nasan told Rav Ashi that Rava's Sofrim told him that the Halachah was like Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua?

(c)Then why did they say that?

4)

(a)Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua's Kashya is not really a Kashya anyway, because we could answer simply - by establishing the Din of Yerushas B'chor in those countries where Persian law is not practiced (since the Pasuk is not bound to any particular location, so where it applies, it applies, and where it doesn't, it doesn't).

(b)When Huna bar Nasan told Rav Ashi that Rava's Sofrim told him that the Halachah was like Rav Huna b'rei de'Rav Yehoshua, he commented - that it was not ...

(c)... and that they only said that because they had themselves purchased fields by paying the head taxes of poor people who had been unable to pay, and they now wanted to substantiate their purchases.

5)

(a)Rav Ashi says that a Pardeches is Chayav to pay whatever he can towards the sum total of taxes placed on the town. What is a 'Pardeches'?

(b)His obligation to participate however, is not absolute. When is he ...

1. ... Chayav? Which two conditions must be met?

2. ... Patur?

(c)Why is he Patur from paying anything in the latter case?

5)

(a)Rav Ashi rules that a Pardeches - (an idle man who neither works nor studies Torah) is Chayav to pay whatever he can towards the sum total of taxes placed on the town.

(b)His obligation to participate however, is not absolute. He is ...

1. ... Chayav only when two conditions are met: 1. that he has been charged more tax than he can possibly pay and the townspeople intervene on his behalf, and save him from having to pay; 2. that, seeing as the total sum is fixed, they now have to pay more as a result.

2. ... Patur - even if the second condition is fulfilled, there where it is not because the townspeople intervened on his behalf that he is absolved, but because the tax-collectors forgot him or took pity on him ...

(c)... in which case, he is Patur from paying anything - because it is his Mazel (min ha'Shamayim) that let him off the hook.

6)

(a)According to Rav Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan, a Meitzar and a Chatzav divide with regard to Nechsei ha'Ger, but not with regard to Pe'ah and Tum'ah. A Meitzar is a border. What is a Chatzav?

(b)What does Rav Asi mean when he says that they divide with regard to Nechsei ha'Ger.

(c)And what does he mean when he says that they do not divide with regard to ...

1. ... Pe'ah?

2. ... Tum'ah?

(d)When Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted Rebbi Yochanan differently. In which point did he argue with Rav Asi?

6)

(a)According to Rav Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan, a Meitzar and a Chatzav divide with regard to Nechsei ha'Ger, but not with regard to Pe'ah and Tum'ah. A Meitzar is a border, a Chatzav is - a tree or a plant (which Yehoshua used to divide Eretz Yisrael) whose roots grow straight down.

(b)When Rav Asi says that they divide with regard to Nechsei ha'Ger, he means - that if either of them divides two fields belonging to a Ger who died, whoever makes a Chazakah on one, does not acquire the other.

(c)And when he says that they do not divide with regard to ...

1. ... Pe'ah, he means - that should one of them divide between two fields, the owner is only Chayav to leave one corner of the combined fields as Pe'ah.

2. ... Tum'ah - we shall see shortly.

(d)When Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted Rebbi Yochanan as saying - that a Meitzar and a Chatzav divide a field even with regard to Pe'ah and Tum'ah as well.

55b----------------------------------------55b

7)

(a)To explain the earlier ruling regarding Pe'ah, we cite the Mishnah in Pe'ah that a Nachal, a Shelulis, a public and private road, and a public and private path divide. What is the definition of ...

1. ... 'a Nachal'?

2. ... 'a Shelulis'?

(b)What is the difference between ...

1. ... a public road and a private one?

2. ... a road (Derech) and a path (Sh'vil)?

(c)A private path divides between two fields if it is used in winter as well as in summer. What is the significance of the fact that it is used in winter, too?

(d)Seeing as the Tana has taught us that ...

1. ... a private path divides, why does he need to mention a public path?

2. ... a path divides, why does he then need to insert a private (and even a public) road?

7)

(a)To explain the earlier ruling regarding Pe'ah, we cite the Mishnah in Pe'ah that a Nachal, a Shelulis, a public and private road, and a public and private path divide with regard to Pe'ah. The definition of ...

1. ... 'a Nachal' is - a valley of hard virgin soil (like the Nachal Eisan in the Parshah of Eglah Arufah).

2. ... 'a Shelulis' is - a pool of rain water.

(b)A ...

1. ... public road is at least sixteen Amos wide - whereas a private one must be at least four Amos wide (otherwise, it is classified as a Sh'vil).

2. ... road (Derech) is meant for traffic - whereas a path (Sh'vil) is for walking.

(c)A private path divides between two fields if it is used in winter as well as in summer. The significance of the fact that it is used in winter too is - that people do not then tend to walk in the rest of the valley, because they will spoil the furrows or interfere with the seeds, they do however, walk on the paths.

(d)Despite the fact that the Tana has taught us that ...

1. ... a private path divides, he nevertheless mentions a public one - because of the principle 'Lo Zu, af Zu' (the subsequent case is a bigger Chidush than the previous one)

2. ... and it is for the same reason that he sees fit to insert a private (and even a public) road, despite the fact that he has already listed paths).

8)

(a)To explain the earlier ruling regarding Tum'ah, we cite the Mishnah in Taharos, which declares Tamei someone who, in the winter season, enters a field where there is a corpse, and he doesn't know whether he touched it or not. What is the significance of the fact that it is winter?

(b)What is then the reason for this ruling?

(c)Rebbi Eliezer rules there that if the field is situated in a valley, and the person is not even sure whether he entered that particular field, he is Tahor. Why is that?

(d)How do the Rabbanan counter that?

(e)What did Rav Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan then mean when he said that a Meitzar and a Chatzav do not divide with regard to Tum'ah? According to which Tana does he say that?

8)

(a)To explain the earlier ruling regarding Tum'ah, we cite the Mishnah in Taharos, which declares Tamei someone who, in the winter season - (seeing as people do not tend to walk in the fields in the winter [as we explained earlier]), enters a field where there is a corpse, and he doesn't know whether he touched it or not.

(b)Since the field now has the Din of a R'shus ha'Yachid - we apply the principle 'Safek Tum'ah bi'Reshus ha'Yachid, Tamei'.

(c)Rebbi Eliezer rules there that if the field is situated in a valley, and the person is not even sure whether he entered that particular field, he is Tahor - because of a 'S'fek S'feika': a. Maybe he did not even enter the field that contained the corpse, and b. even if he did, maybe he didn't touch the corpse.

(d)The Rabbanan counter - that entering and touching are one Safek. Consequently, he is Tamei.

(e)When Rav Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan said that a Meitzar and a Chatzav do not divide with regard to Tum'ah - he meant that it is considered one field, in which case, the person will be Tamei, even according to Rebbi Eliezer.

9)

(a)Although Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan said earlier that a Meitzar and a Chatzav divide with regard to Pe'ah and Tum'ah, he concedes however, that they do not divide with regard to one area of Halachah. Which area is that?

(b)What does the Tana Kama there say in a Beraisa about someone who carries half a G'rogeres (a dried fig) into a R'shus ha'Rabim, and then carries out another half-G'rogeres ...

1. ... in one He'elam (without remembering in the middle that it was Shabbos)?

2. ... in two Ha'alamos?

(c)What is the significance of a G'rogeres in this regard?

(d)Rebbi Yossi disagrees. Under which circumstances does he render one Patur for carrying out two half-G'rogeres in one He'elam?

9)

(a)Although Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan said earlier that a Meitzar and a Chatzav divide with regard to Pe'ah and Tum'ah, he concedes however, that they do not divide with regard to - Shabbos, as we shall now see.

(b)The Tana Kama states in a Beraisa that someone who carries out half a G'rogeres (a dried fig) into a R'shus ha'Rabim, and then carries out another half-G'rogeres ...

1. ... in one He'elam (without remembering in the middle that it was Shabbos) - he is Chayav a Chatas.

2. ... in two Ha'alamos - he is Patur.

(c)A G'rogeres is - the Shi'ur for which one is Chayav on Shabbos for performing any of the Melachos with regard to food.

(d)Rebbi Yossi disagrees. According to him, one will even be Patur for carrying out the two half-G'rogeres in one He'elam - if he carries them into two different R'shus ha'Rabims (because Rebbi Yossi holds that Reshuyos, like Ha'alamos, divide the Melachah).

10)

(a)According to Rabah, Rebbi Yossi only considers the divided R'shus ha'Rabim to be two Reshuyos if they are divided by a Chiyuv Chatas. What does he mean by that?

(b)Abaye maintains that a Karm'lis (such as an open valley) will suffice, but not a Pisla. What might a Pisla be (besides a piece of wood or a post that is neither ten Tefachim high nor four by four Tefachim on top (that extends across the field)?

(c)What is the basic difference between it and a Karm'lis?

(d)What does Rava say regarding the previous ruling?

10)

(a)According to Rabah, Rebbi Yossi only considers the divided R'shus ha'Rabim to be two Reshuyos if they are divided by a Chiyuv Chatas - by which he means that a R'shus ha'Yachid separates them.

(b)Abaye maintains that a Karm'lis (such as an open valley) will suffice, but not a Pisla, which is either a piece of wood or a post that is neither ten Tefachim high nor four by four Tefachim on top - or one that is ten Tefachim tall but not four by four Tefachim wide (that extends across the field).

(c)The basic difference between it and a Karm'lis is that - unlike a Karm'lis (from which one may not carry into another R'shus mi'de'Rabbanan) - from a Pisla (which is a 'Makom P'tur), one may.

(d)Rava however, maintains - that even a Pisla will suffice to exempt from a Chatas in the current case, according to Rebbi Yossi (since it is no worse than a Meitzar or Chatzav, which we will discuss shortly).

11)

(a)We conclude 'Rava le'Ta'ameih', because he says 'R'shus Shabbos ki'Reshus Gitin'. To which Halachah in Hilchos Gitin is Rava referring?

(b)Why is his wife not divorced, if the Get lands on a Pisla?

(c)In keeping with his latest statement, Rava (disagreeing with Ravin Amar Yochanan [whom we quoted earlier]), rules that a Meitzar and a Chatzav divide even with regard to Shabbos as well. In which case (and according to which Tana) are they then arguing?

11)

(a)We conclude 'Rava le'Ta'ameih', because he says 'R'shus Shabbos ki'Reshus Gitin' - with reference to a man who lends his wife his Chatzer in order to receive her Get, and when he throws her the Get, it lands on a Pisla in the Chatzer.

(b)His wife is not divorced - because, since Rava considers a Pisla a R'shus, we apply the principle that a man who lends someone one R'shus, does not automatically lend him a second one (even though it is situated inside the first one).

(c)In keeping with his latest statement, Rava (disagreeing with Ravin Amar Yochanan [whom we quoted earlier]), rules that a Meitzar and a Chatzav divide even with regard to Shabbos as well. They are arguing over - whether Rebbi Yossi will consider a R'shus ha'Rabim divided by a Meitzar or a Chatzav two Reshuyos, to render Patur someone who carries two half-Shiurim in one He'elam into either side of the Meitzar or Chatzav (Rava), or not (Ravin Amar Yochanan).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF