1)

(a)We ask what the Din will be if there is no Meitzar or Chaztav. What exactly is the She'eilah?

(b)Why do we not simply give the Shiur as two rows of furrows, like Rav Papa explained earlier according to Rav?

(c)What Shiur does Rebbi Merinus give in the name of Rebbi Yochanan (in answer to our She'eilah [that one will acquire with one strike of the spade])?

(d)How does Rav Papa define this further?

1)

(a)We ask what the Din will be if there is no Meitzar or Chaztav - what Shiur is required to acquire Nechsei ha'Ger that has no borders, according to Rebbi Yochanan who said 'ha'Meitzar ve'ha'Chatzav Mafsikin be'Nechsei ha'Ger', ,.

(b)We could have simply given the Shiur as two rows of furrows, like Rav Papa explained earlier according to Rav, only we know that Rebbi Yochanan has a different Shiur (see also Ritva [it is unclear though, what our Sugya, which seems to be speaking about a field with borders, has to do with the ruling of Rav Papa]. See also Tosfos).

(c)The Shiur Rebbi Merinus gives in the name of Rebbi Yochanan (that one will acquire with one strike of the spade) is - an area that people refer to as so-and-so's field (and not fields).

(d)Rav Papa defines this further as - an area that the Ger would water in one go from his water-pit.

2)

(a)We already learned that Yehoshua used the Chatzav to divide Eretz Yisrael. What sort of division are we talking about?

(b)Why did he use specifically the Chatzav for this purpose?

2)

(a)We already learned that Yehoshua used the Chatzav to divide Eretz Yisrael - in order to divide both one tribe from the other, and one individual property-owner from another.

(b)He specifically used the Chatzav for this purpose - because it grows directly downwards and does not nurture from the sides.

3)

(a)What did Rav Yehudah Amar Rav (who also made the previous statement) say about ...

1. ... the cities that Yehoshua listed in his Seifer? How does he categorize them?

2. ... the Keini, Kenizi and Kadmoni? What does he derive from the Pasuk in ve'Zos ha'Berachah "Zos ha'Aretz asher Nishba'ati"?

(b)According to Rebbi Meir, these three nations are equivalent to Naftucha, Arva'ah and Shalma'ah; and according to Rebbi Shimon, they are Ardiskis, Asya and Aspamya (Spain). What does Rebbi Yehudah say?

(c)The exemption of these three countries from Ma'asros might refer to any of them that were captured after the death of Yehoshua. What else might it refer to?

(d)Why does Rav not also preclude the Refa'im, who like the Keini, Kenizi and Kadmoni, are mentioned in connection with the promise given to Avraham Avinu?

3)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Rav (who also made the previous statement) said that ...

1. ... the cities that Yehoshua listed in his Seifer were all border cities.

2. ... the Keini, Kenizi and Kadmoni are not subject to Ma'aser, and he derives this from the Pasuk "Zos ha'Aretz asher Nishba'ati" (incorporating the borders specified there).

(b)According to Rebbi Meir, these three nations are equivalent to Naftucha, Arva'ah and Shalma'ah; and according to Rebbi Shimon, they are Ardiskis, Asya and Aspamya (Spain). Rebbi Yehudah lists them as Se'ir, Amon and Mo'av.

(c)The exemption of these three countries from Ma'asros might refer to any of them that were captured after the death of Yehoshua. Alternatively, it refers to - the time of Mashi'ach, when they will be given to us anyway, as Hash-m promised Avraham.

(d)Rav does not also preclude the Refa'im, who like the Keini, Kenizi and Kadmoni, are mentioned in connection with the promise given to Avraham Avinu - because the Refa'im are equivalent to the Chivi, whose land is therefore subject to Ma'asros, and which Moshe actually captured (See Rashi in Mishpatim 23:28, and the Torah Temimah there).

4)

(a)What does our Mishnah say about two witnesses who testify that Reuven established a Chazakah by eating the Peiros of Shimon's field, who then became Zom'min?

(b)And what happens in a case where three pairs of witnesses testify the same thing, one each year, and then become Zom'min?

(c)What does the Tana mean when he says that three brothers who testify on the three years of Reuven's Chazakah, each of whom is paired by a second witness ...

1. ... 'Harei eilu Shalosh Iduyos'?

2. ... 've'Hein Eidus Achas le'Hazamah'?

4)

(a)Our Mishnah states that if two witnesses testify that Reuven established a Chazakah by eating the Peiros of Shimon's field, and then became Zom'min (by two others claiming that they were with them in a different location during that time, and could therefore not have witnessed what they claimed they did) they must pay Shimon the value of the field (which he takes back from Reuven anyway) between them.

(b)And in a case where three pairs of witnesses testify the same thing, one each year, and then become Zom'min, each pair must pay one third of the cost of the field.

(c)When the Tana says that three brothers who testify on the three years of Reuven's Chazakah, each of whom is paired by a second witness ...

1. ... 'Harei eilu Shalosh Iduyos', he means that since each brother testified on a different year, they do not disqualify each other's testimony (i.e. as if they were testifying in different lawsuits) as they would if they were to all testify on the same year.

2. ... 've'Hein Eidus Achas le'Hazamah', he means that the Din of Hazamah will only apply if they all become Zom'min, and that when they do, they pay the K'nas (the fine) between them.

56b----------------------------------------56b

5)

(a)What did Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri reply, when Rebbi Chalafta asked him what the Din will be if three pairs of witnesses testify that Reuven ate the fruits of Shimon's field (thereby establishing a Chazakah) for three consecutive years (one pair per year)?

(b)What did Rebbi Chalafta (some reverse the names) reply (citing Rebbi Akiva)?

(c)What do we extrapolate from here with regard to the authorship of our Mishnah?

(d)Of which famous Tana was Rebbi Chalafta the father?

5)

(a)When Rebbi Chalafta asked Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri what the Din will be if three pairs of witnesses testify that Reuven ate the fruits of Shimon's field (thereby establishing a Chazakah) for three consecutive years (one pair per year) he replied that - Reuven's Chazakah was established (like the Tana of our Mishnah).

(b)Rebbi Chalafta (some reverse the names [citing Rebbi Akiva]) replied that - although he agreed with this ruling in principle, Rebbi Akiva disqualified their testimony, based on the Pasuk in Shoftim "al-Pi Sh'nei Eidim ... Yakum Davar", from which we Darshen 'Davar ve'Lo Chatzi Davar', meaning that witnesses must give the full testimony, and not just part of it (which necessitates additional witnesses).

(c)We extrapolate from here that - the author of our Mishnah cannot be Rebbi Akiva.

(d)Rebbi Chalafta was the father of - Rebbi Yossi.

6)

(a)We initially suggest that the Rabbanan learn from 'Davar ve'Lo Chatzi Davar' to disqualify witnesses one of whom testifies to one hair on a girl's back, and the other to one on her stomach (see Sugya Nidah 52b). What are the witnesses trying to prove?

(b)On what grounds do we refute this explanation?

(c)So what *do* the Rabbanan learn from 'Davar'?

(d)Why does this case fall under the category of 'Chatzi Eidus' more than the case in our Mishnah (which Rebbi Akiva disputes)?

(e)On what grounds then, do we not combine the testimony of one pair of witnesses who saw a hair on her back the day before (which fell out and is no longer there), and a second pair who saw one hair on her stomach today?

6)

(a)We initially suggest that the Rabbanan learn from "Davar", 've'Lo Chatzi Davar' to disqualify witnesses one of whom testifies to one hair on a girl's back, and the other to one on her stomach (see Sugya Nidah 52b). The witnesses are trying to prove that - the girl is a Na'arah (with regard to punishments and various other issues).

(b)We refute this suggestion however, on the grounds that - since only one witness testifies on each hair, this is not only Chatzi Davar, but Chatzi Eidus too, and, having already written (in Shoftim) "Lo Yakum Eid Echad be'Ish", the Torah does not need a second D'rashah to preclude Chatzi Eidus.

(c)The Rabbanan therefore learn from 'Davar' that - if one pair of witnesses testifies that she has one hair on her back, and the other, that she a hair on her stomach, their testimony is disqualified.

(d)This case falls under the category of 'Chatzi Eidus' more than the case in our Mishnah (which Rebbi Akiva disputes) because - the fact that (unlike the case in our Mishnah) each pair, who testify about the same moment, saw only half of what they could have seen at the time.

(e)Nevertheless, we will not combine the testimony of one pair of witnesses who saw a hair on her back the day before (but which fell out), and a second pair who saw one hair on her stomach today - because when a hair falls out before puberty, we consider it retroactively to have been part of a wart, and not a pubic hair.

7)

(a)What does Rav Yehudah say in a case where one witness testifies that Reuven ate wheat for three years, and another, that he ate barley?

(b)Rav Nachman queries this from a case where one witness testifyy on the first, third and fifth years, and a second, on the second, fourth and sixth. Why does this not constitute a Chazakah?

(c)Why not? In what way does this case differ from that of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korcha, who ruled earlier that even if two witnesses testify on two different days, their testimonies nevertheless combine (even though they are testifying on two different coins)?

7)

(a)In a case where one witness testifies that Reuven ate wheat for three years, and another, that he ate barley, Rav Yehudah rules that - Reuven has established a Chazakah.

(b)Rav Nachman queries this from a case where one witness testifies on the first, third and fifth years, and a second witness, on the second, fourth and sixth, which does not constitute a Chazakah - since neither witness is testifying on a Chazakah.

(c)This case differs from that of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korcha, who ruled earlier that even if two witnesses testify on two different days, their testimonies nevertheless combine (even though they are testifying on two different coins) inasmuch as - there at least, each witness testifies that a transaction relating to a Manah has taken place (whereas here, neither witness is testifying on a Chazakah).

8)

(a)What is then Rav Nachman's Kashya on Rav Yehudah? How did he understand the case?

(b)What is the basis of Rav Nachman's misunderstanding?

(c)What did Rav Yehudah reply? What did he really mean when he spoke about one witness testifying that the Machzik ate wheat, and the second witness, barley?

8)

(a)Rav Nachman's Kashya on Rav Yehudah is based on his understanding that - Rav Yehudah is speaking where the one witness testifies that Reuven ate wheat in the first, third and fifth years, and the second witness, in the second, fourth and sixth years (like the case from which he queried him) ...

(b)... and this misunderstanding in turn, is based on the fact that - this was indeed what the farmers used to do, to avoid having to leave the land fallow every third year, as was otherwise customary.

(c)Rav Yehudah replied however, that when he spoke about one witness testifying that the Machzik ate wheat, and the second witness, barley he was referring to - where they were testifying about the same three years, and the reason that they are believed is because we assume that one of them is not conversant with the distinction between wheat and barley.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF