1)

(a)In the current Beraisa, which discusses the Machlokes between Rebbi and the Rabanan, the Tana states 'Yarshu Shtar Chov, Bechor Notel Pi Shenayim'. Who is the author of this statement?

(b)Why does Rebbi confine this ruling to a Shtar Chov? Why will it not apply to an oral debt?

(c)And what does the Tana say about a case where someone produced a Shtar Chov against them?

(d)Who is the author of this statement? Is it a continuation of the previous one>

1)

(a)In the current Beraisa, which discusses the Machlokes between Rebbi and the Rabanan, the Tana states 'Yarshu Shtar Chov, Bechor Notel Pi Shenayim'. The author of this statement is Rebbi (See Maharsha).

(b)Rebbi confines this ruling to a Shtar Chov because it is based on the fact that the heirs are Muchzak in the Shtar. An oral debt is certainly considered Ra'uy, even according to him, and the Bechor will not receive a double portion.

(c)In a case where someone produced a Shtar Chov against them the Tana obligates the Bechor to pay extra, in proportion to what he received.

(d)This statement, which is unconnected with the previous one, goes even according to the Chachamim.

2)

(a)What does the Tana mean when he adds 've'Im Amar Eini Nosen ve'Eini Notel, Rashai'?

(b)Seeing as the creditor claims the land anyway, what practical difference does the Bechor's withdrawal make?

(c)Why can an heir not withdraw from his inheritance, nor a Bechor from his Chelek Pashut?

2)

(a)When the Tana adds 've'Im Amar Eini Nosen ve'Eini Notel Rashai', he means that if the Bechor wishes to withdraw from his rights to the extra portion and not have to pay extra, then he is entitled to do so.

(b)The practical difference that the Bechor's withdrawal makes will be in a case where the creditor is, for some reason or other, unable to claim it from his brothers or if, when he comes to claim it from them, they are overseas.

(c)An heir cannot withdraw from his inheritance, nor a Bechor from his Chelek Pashut because it is not possible to withdraw from something that one owns (and a Yoresh automatically becomes the owner with the death of one's Morish).

3)

(a)What do the Rabanan learn from the words "Laseis lo* (in the Pasuk Pi Shenayim")?

(b)Does Rebbi agree with this Derashah on principle? What does he learn from it?

(c)Then why does he not extend it to preclude inheriting 'Shevach she'Shavchu Nechasim le'Achar Misah' (like the Rabanan)?

(d)What do the Rabanan then learn from "Pi Shenayim"?

(e)How will this work practically?

3)

(a)The Rabanan learn from the words "Laseis lo* (in the Pasuk Pi Shenayim") that the Chelek Bechorah is a Matanah, and that consequently (besides the fact that he is able to withdraw from it), he will not receive anything that is Ra'uy (as we just learned).

(b)Rebbi agrees with this Derashah on principle only he confines it to the fact that the Bechor is able to withdraw from the Chelek Bechorah.

(c)The reason that he does not extend it to preclude inheriting 'Shevach she'Shavchu Nechasim le'Achar Misah' (like the Rabanan) is because the "Laseis lo Pi Shenayim", implies that the Torah is comparing the Chelek Bechorah to the Chelek Pashut in this regard.

(d)The Rabanan learn from "Pi Shenayim" that the Bechor is entitled to receive his two portions next to each other ...

(e)... which means for example that in a case where there are only two brothers and three adjoining fields, they draw lots in a way that the Bechor must receive the middle field together with one of the two outer ones).

4)

(a)What does Rav Papa say about a date-palm which grew thicker and land that threw up a layer of slime after the heirs inherited it, thereby fertilizing and improving the quality of the soil?

(b)The Chachamim argue with Rebbi, he says, in a case of 'Chafurah va'Havah Shuvli' and 'Sheluf'fi va'Havah Tamri'. What is ...

1. ... 'Chafurah va'Havah Shuvli'?

2. ... 'Sheluf'fi va'Havah Tamri'?

(c)What makes this worse than the previous case, according to the Chachamim?

(d)On what grounds does Rebbi argue?

4)

(a)Rav Papa states that if a date-palm grew thicker or land threw up a layer of slime after the heirs inherited it, thereby fertilizing and improving the quality of the soil even the Rabanan will concede that the Bechor will receive an extra portion.

(b)The Chachamim argue with Rebbi, he says, in a case of ...

1. ... 'Chafurah va'Havah Shuvli', meaning Shachas (crops that have only grown to the stage that they are fit for animals), which then ripened into wheat.

2. ... 'Sheluf'fi va'Havah Tamri', meaning dates in their early stages of growth that ripened into dates.

(c)What makes this worse than the previous case is the fact that here, the original Yerushah does not only improve, but changes its name too, rendering it 'Ra'uy'.

(d)Rebbi argues on the grounds that nevertheless, seeing as it is the original Yerushah that changed, the Bechor inherits it.

124b----------------------------------------124b

5)

(a)'Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Chiya "Asah ke'Divrei Rebbi Asah, Asah ke'Divrei Chachamim Asah" '. Why is that? What is he uncertain about?

(b)Rav Nachman Amar Rav 'Asur La'asos ke'Divrei Rebbi'. What does Rav Nachman himself say? What is the basis of their Machlokes?

(c)Why did Rav say 'Asur La'asos ke'Divrei Rebbi' (and not 'Ein Halachah ke'Rebbi')?

(d)Rava holds like Rav, only he adds 've'Im Asah, Asuy'. Why is that?

5)

(a)'Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Chiya "Asah ke'Divrei Rebbi Asah, Asah ke'Divrei Chachamim Asah" ', because, he is uncertain whether the principle 'Halachah ke'Rebbi me'Chavero' extends to 'Chaverav' (even when he argues against a majority) or not.

(b)Rav Nachman Amar Rav 'Asur La'asos ke'Divrei Rebbi' because he holds 'Halachah ke'Rebbi me'Chavero, ve'Lo me'Chaverav'; whereas Rav Nachman himself says 'Mutar La'asos ke'Divrei Rebbi, because he holds 'Halachah ke'Rebbi me'Chavero, va'Afilu me'Chaverav'.

(c)Rav said 'Ein Halachah ke'Rebbi' (and not 'Ein Halachah ke'Rebbi') to counter Rebbi Chiya, who said 'Asah ke'Divrei Rebbi Asuy'.

(d)Rava holds like Rav, only he adds 've'Im Asah, Asuy' because, according to him, the ruling in the Beis-Hamedrash was 'Matin Acharei Chachamim' (which means Lechatchilah, but that b'Di'eved, if one ruled like Rebbi, the ruling is valid).

6)

(a)Tani Rav Nachman be'Sha'ar Sifrei d'Vei Rav ... '. What is the difference between 'Sifra (d'Vei Rav)' and 'Sha'ar Sifri (d'Vei Rav)'?

(b)If 'Stam Mishnah is Rebbi Meir' and 'Stam Sifra, Rebbi Yehudah', who is the author of ...

1. ... the Sifri?

2. ... Seder Olam?

3. ... Tosefta?

(c)Who was the Rebbe of them all?

6)

(a)Tani Rav Nachman be'Sha'ar Sifrei d'Vei Rav ... '. 'Sifra (d'Vei Rav)' is the Medrash on Sefer Vayikra, whereas 'Sha'ar Sifri (d'Vei Rav)' is the Medrash on the Halachic section of Bamidbar and Devarim as well as the Mechilta on Shemos (from "ha'Chodesh ha'Zeh Lachem" and onwards).

(b)'Stam Mishnah is Rebbi Meir', 'Stam Sifra, Rebbi Yehudah', whereas the author of ...

1. ... the Sifri is Rebbi Shimon.

2. ... Seder Olam is Rebbi Yosi.

3. ... Tosefta is Rebbi Nechemyah.

(c)The Rebbe of them all was Rebbi Akiva.

7)

(a)Rav Nachman be'Sha'ar Sifrei d'Vei Rav learns from the Pasuk in Ki Setzei "be'Chol Asher Yimatzei lo" that a Bechor does not receive a double portion which the heirs improved ('Shevach she'Hishbichu Nechasim') after their father died. What additional ruling does the Tana learn from there according to Rami bar Chama?

(b)Who is then author of the Beraisa?

(c)What does the Tana say about 'Shevach she'Shavchu Nechasim ... '), according to Rav Nachman?

(d)Then who is the author of the Beraisa?

7)

(a)Rav Nachman be'Sha'ar Sifrei d'Vei Rav learns from the Pasuk in Ki Setzei "be'Chol asher Yimatzei lo" that a Bechor does not receive a double portion which the heirs improved ('Shevach she'Hishbichu Nechasim'). According to Rami bar Chama, (c) According to Rami bar Chama quoting the Sifri the Pasuk comes to preclude even 'Shevach she'Shavchu Nechasim ... ', and certainly 'Shevach she'Hishbichu Yorshin ...' ...

(b)... and the author of the Beraisa is the Rabanan).

(c)But according to Rav Nachman the Bechor does inherit 'Shevach she'Shavchu Nechasim ... ' ...

(d)... and the author is Rebbi.

8)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel states 'Ein Bechor Notel Pi Shenayim be'Milveh'. Why do we initially think that Shmuel must follow the opinion of Rebbi and not the Rabanan?

(b)Is Rav Yehudah talking about an oral loan or even a Milveh bi'Shtar?

(c)What problem does this create with the Beraisa 'Yarshu Shtar-Chov, Bechor Notel Pi Shenayim, Bein be'Milveh Bein be'Ribis'?

(d)We therefore establish Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's statement according to the Rabanan? What will be the Chidush, even according to them?

(e)What does the Tana mean when he refers to a Shtar with Ribis? Since when is such a Shtar Kasher?

8)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel states 'Ein Bechor Notel Pi Shenayim be'Milveh'. We initially think that Shmuel must follow the opinion of Rebbi and not the Rabanan, because, since according to the latter the Bechor does not even receive the Chelek Bechorah from property that is in the heir's possession, it is obvious that he will not receive property that isn't.

(b)Rav Yehudah is talking even about a Milveh bi'Shtar since in effect, it is no no more than a piece of worthless paper.

(c)The problem this creates with the Beraisa 'Yarshu Shtar-Chov, Bechor Notel Pi Shenayim, Bein be'Milveh Bein be'Ribis' is that if, as we just established, Rebbi denies the Bechor the right to claim the Chelek Bechorah from a Milveh, then who is the author of this Beraisa?

(d)We therefore establish Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's statement according to the Rabanan and the Chidush is that since the heirs are holding a Shtar-Chov, we do not consider them Muchzak, as if they had already claimed the debt and had it in their possession.

(e)When the Tana refers to a Shtar with Ribis he is referring to a debtor who is a Nochri (from whom one is permitted to take Ribis).

9)

(a)They sent from Eretz Yisrael (Shalchu mi'Tam) 'Bechor Notel Pi Shenayim be'Milveh Aval Lo be'Ribis'. Why can the Shalchu mi'Tam not hold like Rebbi?

(b)We therefore conclude, they hold like the Rabanan. How do we reconcile the fact that the Bechor does double from the actual loan, with the Rabanan's earlier ruling that the Bechor does not even receive 'Shevach she'Shavchu Nechasim' (such as Shachas that grew into wheat), how much more so a Milveh, where the heirs initially own nothing but a piece of paper?

(c)Why does this Sevara work for the loan itself, but not for the Ribis?

(d)Why can we not reconcile this with Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel?

9)

(a)They sent from Eretz Yisrael (Shalchu mi'Tam) 'Bechor Notel Pi Shenayim be'Milveh Aval Lo be'Ribis'. This opinion cannot hold like Rebbi because in another Beraisa, Rebbi specifically rules that the Bechor takes from the Ribis as well.

(b)We therefore conclude that they hold like the Rabanan. The reason that, despite the Rabanan's earlier ruling that the Bechor does not even receive 'Shevach she'Shavchu Nechasim' (such as Shachas that grew into wheat), he does receive double from the actual loan is because they consider the loan itself, as if it was already claimed (despite the fact that the heirs initially own nothing but a piece of paper).

(c)This Sevara works for the loan itself is money that their father already owned (and the Shtar takes the place of a security, which renders the creditor Muchzak on the loan) but not for the Ribis which is a new acquisition.

(d)We cannot reconcile this with Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel however who definitely argues with Shalchu mi'Tam on this point (and who holds that he is not even Muchzak in the Milveh either, according to the Rabanan).

10)

(a)Rav Acha bar Rava told Ravina that Ameimar arrived in their place and ruled like Shalchu mi'Tam. Based on the fact that Ameimar was from Neharda'a, what did Ravina comment?

(b)What did Rav Nachman mean when he said 'Gavu Karka Ein lo, Gavu Ma'os Yesh lo'?

(c)What is his reason for this?

(d)And what is the reasoning of Rabah, who holds the reverse?

10)

(a)Rav Acha bar Rava told Ravina that Ameimar arrived in their place and ruled like Shalchu mi'Tam. Based on the fact that Ameimar was from Neharda'a, Ravina commented 'Neharda'a le'Ta'amaihu' (the Neherda'i follow their own reasoning).

(b)When Rav Nachman said 'Gavu Karka Ein lo, Gavu Ma'os Yesh lo', he meant that the Bechor receives an extra portion only if the heirs claimed money, but not if they claimed land.

(c)The reason for this is because it is money that the debtor borrowed from their father and not land. Consequently, it is his money in which their father is Muchzak and not his land.

(d)And the reasoning of Rabah, who holds the reverse is because, due to the principle 'Milveh le'Hotza'ah Nitnah' (a loan is meant to be spent) the money that a creditor claims from a debtor is not the same money that he borrowed. His Karka, on the other hand, is Meshubad to him from the outset, and so he is considered Muchzak in it.

11)

(a)Seeing as Ameimar does not appear in the previous Machlokes, what did Ravina mean when he said ' Nehardai le'Ta'amaihu'?

(b)Does that mean that Ameimar holds like Rav Nachman and not like Rabah?

(c)Then why did Ravina say that Ameimar holds like the Nehardai?

11)

(a)Despite the fact that Ameimar does not appear in the previous Machlokes, Ravina said 'Neharda'a le'Ta'amaihu' because Rav Nachman too, came from Neharda'a, and it is logical to say that Ameimar holds like him.

(b)Nevertheless it does not follow that Ameimar holds like Rav Nachman and not like Rabah, since he too, holds like Shalchu mi'Tam. And he Ameimar. Does not differentiate between Gavu Ma'os or Gavu Karka (see also Tosfos DH 'Neharda'a').

(c)What Ravina meant was that Ameimar holds like Rav Nachman and not like Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, who explained that, according to the Rabanan, the Bechor does not receive double from a Milveh at all (not like the Shalchu mi'Tam).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF