1)

(a)Based on which principle does the Tana Kama of our Mishnah rule 'Lo Amar K'lum' in a case where someone says 'Ish Ploni Yirshani' where he has a daughter, or 'Biti Tirshani' where he also has a son?

(b)What does Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah say?

(c)What can we extrapolate from the words of the Tana Kama? In which case would his words been effective?

(d)What problem do we have with this from the Seifa of the Mishnah?

1)

(a)In a case where someone says 'Ish Ploni Yirshani' when he has a daughter, or 'Biti Tirshani' when he has a son, our Mishnah rules 'Lo Amar K'lum' on the basis of the principle 'Kol ha'Masneh al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah, Tena'o Bateil'.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah says Im Amar al Mi she'Ra'uy le'Yorsho, Devarav Kayamin ... '.

(c)We can extrapolate from the words of the Tana Kama that if he would have bequeathed his property to 'Ben Bein ha'Banim', his words would have taken effect.

(d)The problem with this is that it seems to tally with what Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah says in the Seifa, so what are they arguing about?

2)

(a)We suggest that when Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah says 'Ra'uy le'Yorsho', he means 'Acher', and that this is the basis of their Machlokes. What does 'Acher' mean in the case where he has sons? Only daughters?

(b)We refute this suggestion however, on the basis of a Beraisa. How does Rebbi Yishmael Beno Shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah define the Machlokes between his father and the Chachamim?

(c)And what will the disputants then say in the case of 'Acher'?

(d)In view of Rebbi Yishmael Beno Shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah's statement, how do we establish the Machlokes in our Mishnah? Who argues with Rebbi Yishmael Beno Shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah?

2)

(a)We object to the answer that when Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah says 'Ra'uy le'Yorsho', he means 'Acher' (Ach) be'Makom Bas' and 'Bas be'Makom Bein' (and not Ben Bein ha'Banim) on the basis of a Beraisa in which Rebbi Yishmael Beno Shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah comments that his father and the Chachamim argue over Ben Bein ha'Banim and Bas Bein ha'Banos, but not over Acher be'Makom Bas and Bas be'Makom Banim (because there, his father concedes to the Chachamim).

(b)In view of Rebbi Yishmael Beno Shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, we initially establish the Machlokes in our Mishnah as we suggested, on the grounds that the Chachamim of Rebbi Yishmael Beno Shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah disagree with him (and according to them, Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah argues by 'Acher be'Makom Ben, and Bas be'Makom Banim as well).

(c)We could explain that in the previous Mishnah, the Tana presents the case of Ben Bein ha'Banim, and in this Mishnah, that of Bas be'Makom ha'Ben ... , in keeping with the principle 'Zu ve'Ein Tzrich Lomar Zu'. Alternatively (and preferably) we can explain that in the previous Mishnah, the Tana taught us the extent of the Tana Kama (that even Ben Bein ha'Banim does not acquire), and in this Mishnah, that of Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah (that even Bas be'Makom Ben does).

(d)In a case where someone bequeaths his property to his uncle, there where he has a daughter and a brother, Rebbi Yochanan will concede to the Chachamim that his words are invalid (and they are only valid when he bequeaths the one who directly follows the next of kin.

3)

(a)We could explain that in the previous Mishnah (' ... ve'Im Amar Mishum yerushah, Lo Amar K'lum'), the Tana presents the case of Ben bein ha'Banim, and in this Mishnah, that of Acher be'Makom Bas ... , in keeping with the principle 'Zu ve'Ein Tzrich Lomar Zu'. What is an alternative (and better) way of explaining it? According to the current explanation, what will Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah rule in a case where someone bequeaths his property to his uncle, there where he has a daughter and a brother? What is the alternative interpretation of our Mishnah? How is it possible to establish it, even on the assumption that the Rabanan do not argue with Rebbi Yishmael Beno Shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah's interpretation of the Machlokes? What does Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah now hold?

3)

(a)Alternatively, we can amend our Mishnah so that the Reisha too, goes according to Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, and the Seifa merely explains the implication from the Reisha.

4)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules like Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah. What does Rava say?

(b)How do we know that this ruling is confined to Ben Bein ha'Banim, but does not extend to Bas be'Makom Ben?

(c)Does it make any difference whether a man bequeaths half his property to one of his sons ...

1. ... or all of it?

2. ... orally or in writing?

(d)How do we reconcile this ruling with Shmuel, who will rule later, that someone who writes all his property to his wife or to one of his sons, he merely appoints them as an Apotropos? Why the difference?

4)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules like Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah. Rava agrees.

(b)This ruling is confined to Ben Bein ha'Banim, and does not extend to Bas be'Makom Ben (as is evident from our final version of the Mishnah a little earlier) as well as from Shmuel himself, who ought otherwise to given an indication to that effect, and from Abaye earlier, who explicitly equates the Din of Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah with 'Ben Bein ha'Banim'.

(c)Nor does it make any difference whether he bequeaths half his property to one of his sons ...

1. ... or all of it either way, his words are valid.

2. ... orally or in writing either way, his words are valid.

(d)We reconcile this ruling with Shmuel, who will rule later, that someone who writes all his property to his wife or to one of his sons, he merely appoints them as an Apotropos by establishing the latter when the father (or husband) gave the property as a Matanah (since the position of Apotropos is also a gift), but we are speaking when he bequeathed it as a Yerushah (which we cannot construe the position of Apotropos as being).

5)

(a)What does Rava learn from the Pasuk "ve'Hayah be'Yom Hanchilo es Banav"?

(b)Abaye queries Rava, because he learns it from the Pasuk "Lo Yuchal Levaker". How does he learn Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah's Din from there?

5)

(a)Rava learns from the Pasuk "ve'Hayah be'Yom Hanchilo es Banav" that a father may bequeath to any one of his sons (of the next of kin, whoever they may be), like Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah.

(b)Abaye queries Rava, because he learns it from the Pasuk "Lo Yuchal Le'vaker" implying that a father cannot deprive the Bechor of his Chelek Bechorah, but a Pashut of his Chelek Pashut, he may.

6)

(a)Rava answers Abaye by quoting Aba Chanan Mishum Rebbi Eliezer in a Beraisa. What does Aba Chanan learn from "Lo Yuchal Levaker"? What would we have otherwise learned from "va'Hayah be'Yom Hanchilo es Banav"?

(b)Why would we have thought otherwise? What would we have learned from "va'Hayah be'Yom Hanchilo es Banav"?

(c)Which 'Kal va'Chomer' is the Tana talking about?

(d)How have we now refuted Abaye's Kashya?

6)

(a)Rava answers by quoting a Beraisa, where Aba Chanan Mishum Rebbi Eliezer learns from "Lo Yuchal Le'vaker" that the father cannot deprive the Bechor of his Chelek Bechorah.

(b)We have thought otherwise because we would have learned from a Pashut (in which connection we Darshen "va'Hayah be'Yom Hanchilo es Banav", as we just explained) from a 'Kal va'Chomer, that if a father can deprive a Pashut of his Chelek Pashut, 'Kal va'Chomer' a Bechor of his Chelek Bechorah.

(c)The 'Kal va'Chomer' of Bechor from Pashut is from the fact that a Pashut inherits from his father even what is Ra'uy, whereas a Bechor does not (as we have learned above), giving the Chelek Pashut an advantage over the Chelek Bechorah.

(d)We have now refuted Abaye's Kashya because we see from the Beraisa that "Lo Yuchal Le'vaker" is needed for itself, to preclude a Bechor from the 'Kal va'Chomer', in which case, we cannot Darshen anything from it.

130b----------------------------------------130b

7)

(a)The Beraisa asks that now that the Torah has written "Lo Yuchal Levaker", why does it need to add "Vehayah be'Yom Hanchilo es Banav"? What is the Kashya?

(b)What does the Tana answer?

7)

(a)Now that the Torah has written "Lo Yuchal Le'vaker" the Beraisa asks, why does it need to add "ve'Hayah be'Yom Hanchilo es Banav"? meaning why can we not simply extrapolate from the Pasuk which forbids a father to deprive a Bechor of his Chelek Bechorah, that he is permitted to deprive him or any of his other sons of their Chelek Pashut.

(b)The Tana answers that if not for "ve'Hayah be'Yom Hanchilo es Banav", we would rather have learned a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Bechor (who does not inherit Ra'uy) on to Pashut (who does), than preclude it from an inference.

8)

(a)Rebbi Zerika ... Amar Rebbi ruled like Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah. What did Rebbi Aba mean when he commented on this 'Horeh Itmar'?

(b)What is the basis of their Machlokes?

(c)The Beraisa says 'Ein Lemeidin Halachah Lo mi'Pi Limud ve'Lo mi'Pi Ma'aseh', incorporating the two cases that we just discussed. On what sort of ruling can one then rely?

(d)The Beraisa actually states two cases 'Ad she'Yomru lo Halachah le'Ma'aseh; Sha'al ve'Amru lo Halachah le'Ma'aseh, Yeilech ve'Ya'aseh Ma'aseh'. What is the difference between them?

8)

(a)Rebbi Zerika ... Amar Rebbi, Halachah k'Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah. Rebbi Aba comments on this that Rebbi did not just rule theoretically like Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, but he did so practically in a case that was brought to him.

(b)The basis of their Machlokes is which of the two is stronger, Halachah (because by Horeh, one can never be sure that one understands the circumstances of the ruling), or Horeh (because based on the principle 'Ma'aseh Rav', one never knows for sure that a theoretical ruling is not confined to one's learning, but that if a practical case occurred, the Rebbe might rule differently).

(c)The Beraisa says 'Ein Lemeidin Halachah Lo mi'Pi Limud ve'Lo mi'Pi Ma'aseh', incorporating the two cases that we just discussed. One can only rely on a ruling where the Rebbe specifically states that his ruling is 'le'Ma'aseh' (to act upon).

(d)The Beraisa actually states two cases 'Ad she'Yomru Lo Halachah le'Ma'aseh; Sha'al ve'Amru Lo Halachah le'Ma'aseh, Yeilech ve'Ya'aseh Ma'aseh'. The difference between them is that whereas in the former case, the Rebbe needs to specifically authorize the Talmid to act on his ruling, in the latter this is not necessary because it is obvious.

9)

(a)What is the difference between 'Halachah' in a Mishnah or Beraisa (which we have basically been discussing until now), and 'Halachah' in the Gemara?

(b)What is the reason for this distinction?

(c)What did Rebbi Yochanan reply when Rebbi Asi asked him whether they could learn from his theoretical rulings?

(d)Why would this fall away after his death?

9)

(a)In a Mishnah or Beraisa (which we have basically been discussing until now) 'Halachah' is not the last word, and therefore requires the Gemara's backing before it can be accepted; whereas 'Halachah' in the Gemara is final.

(b)The reason for this distinction is due to the fact that firstly a ruling in the former is often subject to further Machlokes, whereas the rulings of Rav Ashi in the Gemara were meant to be the last word for all times.

(c)When Rebbi Asi asked Rebbi Yochanan whether they could learn from his theoretical rulings, he replied that they should not do so until he told them that it was Halachah le'Ma'aseh.

(d)This would fall away after his death because the reason for his ruling (that he might change his mind) was no longer applicable then.

10)

(a)When the Tana then continues 'u'Vilevad she'Lo Yedameh', why can he not be generalizing?

(b)To which area of Halachah does Rav Ashi therefore ascribe it?

(c)What reason does the Beraisa give for this?

10)

(a)When the Tana then continues 'u'Vilevad she'Lo Yedameh', he cannot be generalizing because that is the way Torah is learned (applying the Halachah from one case to another, which requires the attribute of 'Binah').

(b)Rav Ashi therefore ascribes it to the area of Tereifos, where only those Tereifos listed by Chazal are forbidden ...

(c)... because, as the Beraisa explains, there are limbs (such as the junction of nerves) which render the animal Tereifah, if they are severed at a certain point, but Kosher if they are cut to the bone a little higher up (even though more of the limb has been cut off).

11)

(a)What did Rava instruct Rav Papa and Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua to do in the event that they found an error in a ruling of his ...

1. ... during his lifetime? Why is that?

2. ... after his death? Why is that?

(b)What sort of ruling was he referring to? How come that it was in writing?

(c)Why, when Rebbi changed his ruling from the night to the morning, did he exclaim that maybe he had erred? Why was it not obvious that he had?

(d)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim "ve'Imachem bi'Devar ha'Mishpat"?

11)

(a)Rava instructed Rav Papa and Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua, in the event that they found an error in a ruling of his ...

1. ... during his lifetime not to tear it up but to bring it to him, and he would either resolve their problem or concede that they were right.

2. ... after his death neither to tear it up (in case he was right), nor to abide by his ruling (because a Dayan can only go by what he sees ['Ein le'Dayan Ela Mah she'Einav Ro'os']).

(b)He was referring to a ruling that he had written and handed to a litigant, who asked for a written proof of the ruling. Otherwise, the oral Torah was not transcribed.

(c)When Rebbi changed his ruling from the night to the morning, he exclaimed that maybe he had erred. It was not obvious that he had because in matters that depend on Shikul ha'Da'as (human judgment), there are sometimes two sides to the coin, either of which may be right.

(d)We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Imachem bi'Devar ha'Mishpat" the principle 'Ein le'Dayan Ela Mah she'Einav Ro'os'.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF