1)

(a)The Mishnah in Shekalim discusses a case where someone declares his property (Nechasav) Hekdesh. According to Rebbi Eliezer, what must he do with animals that are fit to go on the Mizbe'ach if they are ...

1. ... male?

2. ... female?

(b)And what must he do with wine, oil and birds that are fit to go on the Mizbe'ach?

(c)What do we prove from these two Halachos?

(d)And what does the Mishnah there say about the Makdish's Tefilin? What does this prove?

1)

(a)The Mishnah in Shekalim discusses a case where someone declares his property (Nechasav) Hekdesh. According to Rebbi Eliezer, animals that are fit to go on the Mizbe'ach ...

1. ... must be sold as Olos (burnt-offerings) if they are male, and Olos must be purchased with the proceeds.

2. ... must be sold as Shelamim (peace-offerings) if they are female, and Olos must be purchased with the proceeds.

(b)Wine, oil and birds have the same Din as the previous cases they must be sold for what they are fit, and with the proceeds, burnt-offerings must be purchased that are brought on the Mizbe'ach.

(c)We prove from these two Halachos that animals and birds are also included in 'Nechasim'.

(d)And the Mishnah there says that if the property includes Tefilin, they must be assessed and the Makdish must pay that amount to Hekdesh Bedek ha'Bayis, a proof that Tefilin too, are included in Nechasim.

2)

(a)Bearing in mind that one is not generally permitted to sell a Sefer-Torah. Why may it nevertheless be included in Nechasim?

(b)According to other texts, a Sefer-Torah is not included in Nechasim is because it is a Mitzvah. In that case, why are Tefilin considered Nechasim?

(c)What is the outcome of this She'eilah?

(d)Why did the mother of Rav Zutra bar Tuvya write all her property to her son? What did she say when she did that?

(e)What did Rav Bibi bar Abaye rule when, after becoming divorced, she claimed her property back from her son?

2)

(a)Despite the fact that one is not generally permitted to sell a Sefer-Torah, it might nevertheless be included in 'Nechasav' because one may sell it in order to learn Torah or to get married.

(b)The outcome of this She'eilah is 'Teiku'.

(c)According to other texts, a Sefer-Torah is not included in Nechasim is because it is a Mitzvah, and the reason that Tefilin are is because one wears them, in which case they are considered a garment.

(d)The mother of Rav Zutra bar Tuvya wrote all her property to her son in order that Rav Zvid, whom she was about to marry, should not inherit it, a fact which she specifically stated at the time.

(e)When, after she was divorced, she reclaimed her property from her son Rav Bibi bar Abaye ruled that, since she stipulated that she was giving it to him on condition that she got married, which she did, her son had acquired it, and she had no further claim to it.

3)

(a)What did Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua have to say about Rav Bibi bar Abaye?

(b)When he said 'even those who hold that 'Mavrachas' acquires, will agree here that Rav Zutra bar Tuvya did not, to whom was he referring?

(c)Why can he not have been referring to the case of Rav Shmuel bar Aba from Akronya in Perek ha'Chovel, where they ruled that the purchaser of the property that the wife sold him was entitled to keep it?

(d)On what grounds did Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua then refute Rav Bibi bar Abaye's ruling? What is the difference between this case and that of the Rabanan of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel?

3)

(a)Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua asked whether it was because Rav Bibi descended from 'Mulai (the name of the town from which Eli ha'Kohen's descendants lived [though others say that it means 'blemished', see Rashi Eruvin 25b], because Abaye's family descended from the family of Eli) that he issued 'blemished' rulings.

(b)When he said 'even those who hold that 'Mavrachas' acquires, will agree here that Rav Zutra bar Tuvya did not he was referring to the Rabanan of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who say that the beneficiary can have a good laugh and keep the gift.

(c)He cannot have been referring to the case of the mother of Rav Shmuel bar Aba from Akronya in Perek ha'Chovel, where they ruled that the purchaser of the property that the wife sold him was entitled to keep it because the case there concerned a woman who sold her Nichsei Melug to her son during her lifetime to inherit after her death, and has nothing to do with our case.

(d)Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua refuted Rav Bibi bar Abaye's ruling on the grounds that (unlike the case of the Rabanan of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel) the mother of Rav Zutra bar Tuvya had clearly indicated her intentions (that she only gave her property to her son because of her marriage to Rav Zvid), and that we are obligated to follow her stated intentions.

4)

(a)In the evening, the mother of Rami bar Chama wrote her property to her son Rami and in the morning she wrote it to her other son Rav Ukva (though others reverse the times). What did Rav Nachman do (after Rav Sheshes had placed the property in the domain of Rami bar Chama), that caused Rav Sheshes to object?

(b)Rav Nachman justified his ruling, despite the fact that the mother had died, by citing Shmuel. What principle did Shmuel teach concerning a Shechiv-Mera retracting?

(c)What did Rav Nachman reply when Rav Sheshes suggested that this was confined to where the Shiyur was for the benefit of the Shechiv-Mera himself, but not when it was for the benefit of a third person?

4)

(a)In the evening, the mother of Rami bar Chama wrote her property to her son Rami and in the morning she wrote it to her other son Rav Ukva (though others reverse the times). After Rav Sheshes had placed the property in the domain of Rami bar Chama Rav Nachman transferred it to the domain of Rav Ukva (sparking off Rav Sheshes' objection).

(b)Rav Nachman justified his ruling however, despite the fact that the mother had died, by citing Shmuel, who said -that as long as a Shechiv-Mera can retract if he recovers, he can retract even if he doesn't.

(c)When Rav Sheshes suggested that this was confined to where the Shiyur was for Shechiv-Mera himself, but not when it was for the benefit of the benefit of a third person, Rav Nachman replied that Shmuel had specifically said that there was no difference.

5)

(a)In a similar case cited in Kesuvos involving the same characters, Rav Sheshes and Rav Nachman issued the same rulings. The outcome of the Sugya there however, is 'Shuda de'Dayna. What is 'Shuda de'Dayna'?

(b)Why does the ruling there differ from the ruling here?

(c)What is the reason for that ruling? Why did they give it to the first beneficiary?

5)

(a)In a similar case cited in Kesuvos involving the same characters, Rav Sheshes and Rav Nachman issued the same rulings. The outcome of the Sugya however, is 'Shuda de'Dayna', which means that Beis-Din assesses to whom the owner would have wanted to give the gift, or just to give it to whoever they see fit.

(b)The ruling there differs from the ruling here because it involved the case of a Matnas Bari ...

(c)... and the reason that they did not give it to the first beneficiary was because the two gifts were given on the same day (and there was no distinction on the Shtar as to which one the owner gave it first).

6)

(a)Before the mother of Rav Amram Chasida died, she stated that a Melugma di'Shetara should go to her son. What is a 'Melugma di'Shetara'?

(b)What did Rav Nachman reply when Rav Amram's brother complained, and after it was ascertained that Rav Amram had not made a Meshichah to acquire the Shtaros?

(c)In the morning, Rav Achdevoy bar Masna's sister declared that her property to him; in the evening, a second brother came to plead with her. What did he say?

(d)How did she react to that?

(e)What did Rav Nachman subsequently rule?

6)

(a)Before the mother of Rav Amram Chasida died, she stated that a Melugma di'Shetara (a bundle or a bag-full of Shtaros). should go to her son.

(b)When Rav Amram's brother complained, and it was ascertained that Rav Amram had not made a Meshichah to acquire the Shtaros, Rav Nachman replied with the principle 'Divrei Shechiv-Mera ki'Chesuvin ve'chi'Mesurin Dami' (the words of a Shechiv-Mera acquire without a Kinyan), and that no Kinyan is therefore required.

(c)In the morning, Rav Achdevu'i bar Masna's sister declared that her property to him; in the evening, a second brother came to plead with her on the grounds that people would now say that their brother was a Talmid-Chacham, but he was not.

(d)She reacted to that by promptly declaring the property in the domain of the latter.

(e)Rav Nachman cited Shmuel's principle 'as long as a Shechiv-Mera can retract if he recovers, he can retract even if he doesn't'.

151b----------------------------------------151b

7)

(a)What did Rav Dimi bar Yosef's sister used to do with her piece of vineyard whenever when she fell ill?

(b)What else did she own?

(c)Why did he eventually refuse to accept the gift?

7)

(a)Whenever Rav Dimi bar Yosef's sister she fell ill she would give her piece of vineyard to her brother.

(b)She did not own anything else rendering her gift a Matnas Shechiv-Mera be'Kulo'.

(c)Eventually, he refused to accept the gift because each time she recovered, she retracted from the gift. leaving him with nothing.

8)

(a)Under what condition did he ultimately accept her next offer and acquire the piece of vineyard?

(b)What happened following Rav Dimi's sister's recovery

(c)What did Rav Nachman threaten to do, when, Rav Dimi refused to appear before Beis-Din?

(d)On what grounds did Rav Nachman substantiate the sister's claim, in spite of Rav Dimi's precautions?

8)

(a)He ultimately accepted her next offer and acquired the piece of vineyard on condition that she retained part of the vineyard for herself (thereby transforming it into a Matnas Shechiv-Mera be'Miktzas).

(b)Following Rav Dimi's sister's recovery, she again reclaimed the piece of property in the Beis-Din of Rav Nachman.

(c)When Rav Dimi refused to appear before Beis-Din Rav Nachman threatened to prick him with a thorn that does not draw blood (another term for placing a person in Niduy).

(d)Rav Nachman substantiated the sister's claim, in spite of Rav Dimi's precautions on the grounds of the witnesses' testimony that, whilst her brother was acquiring the property, she was moaning about her imminent death (thus rendering it a case of Metzaveh Machmas Misah, from which she was able to retract).

9)

(a)What did Mar Zutra the son of Rav Nachman say in his father's name about a Matnas Shechiv-Mera be'Miktzas? In what way does it resemble ...

1. ... a Matnas Bari?

2. ... a Matnas Shechiv-Mera?

(b)What did Rava have to say about the fact that Mar Zutra quoted the above Halachah in the name of his father?

(c)So how did Rava amend the ruling? What had Rav Nachman really said?

(d)Is there any difference regarding a Matnas Shechiv-Mera be'Miktzas, between whether the Shechiv-Mera recovered or died?

9)

(a)Mar Zutra the son of Rav Nachman said in his father's name that a Matnas Shechiv-Mera be'Miktzas resembles ...

1. ... a Matnas Bari inasmuch as, should he recover, he is not permitted to retract.

2. ... a Matnas Shechiv-Mera inasmuch as it does not require a Kinyan.

(b)Rava reminded Mar Zutra that he had told him before not to misquote his father.

(c)According to Rava, what Rav Nachman had really said was that a Matnas Shechiv-Mera be'Miktzas resembles a Matnas Bari even regarding the need for a Kinyan, too.

(d)There is no difference regarding a Matnas Shechiv-Mera be'Miktzas, between whether the Shechiv-Mera recovered or died either way, if a Kinyan was made, the gift is final, whereas if it was not, it is invalid.

10)

(a)How did Rav Nachman then explain our Mishnah 'Shiyer Karka Kol-she'Hu Matanaso Matanah', from which Rava queried him?

(b)To answer Rava's Kashya from the Seifa 'Lo Shiyer Karka Kol-she'Hu, Ein Matanaso Kayemes', which seems hard to understand if the Tana is talking about a Shechiv-Mera who made a Kinyan, Rav Nachman cites Shmuel. What did Shmuel say in this regard?

10)

(a)Rav Nachman explained our Mishnah 'Shiyer Karka Kol-she'Hu Matanaso Matanah', from which Rava queried him by establishing it where he made a Kinyan.

(b)To answer Rava's Kashya from the Seifa 'Lo Shiyer Karka Kol-she'Hu, Ein Matanaso Kayemes', which seems hard to understand if the Tana is talking about a Shechiv-Mera who made a Kinyan, Rav Nachman cites Shmuel, who said that a Shechiv-Mera who gives away all his property can always retract (even if he made a Kinyan).

11)

(a)Rav Mesharshiya queried Rava from the Beraisa concerning the mother of the sons of Rachel, who bequeathed her brooch worth twelve Manah to her daughter. What did the Rabanan rule there?

(b)How do we know that no Kinyan had taken place?

(c)Then what was Rav Mesharshiya's Kashya?

(d)And what did Rava reply?

11)

(a)Rav Mesharshiya queried Rava from the Beraisa concerning the mother of the sons of Rachel, who bequeathed her brooch worth twelve Manah to her daughter, and where the Rabanan validated the gift.

(b)We know that no Kinyan had taken place because the Beraisa says that the Chachamim carried out her words, implying 'words' without Kinyan.

(c)Rav Mesharshiya's Kashya was why, having just concluded that a Matnas Shechiv-Mera be'Miktzas is not Koneh without a Kinyan, the daughter acquired the brooch, which was certainly only a Matnas Shechiv-Mera be'Miktzas.

(d)To which Rava replied that this was different, because it speaks when the woman moaned about her death when she gave her daughter the brooch (Metzaveh Machmas Misah, as we explained earlier).

12)

(a)Ravina queried Rava from a Beraisa. What does the Tana there say about a case where someone died after saying ...

1. ... 'Tenu Get Zeh le'Ishti, u'Shtar Shichrur Zeh le'Avdi'? What is the reason for this ruling?

2. ... 'Tenu Manah li'Peloni'?

(b)How do we know that the Seifa is speaking where no Kinyan was made?

(c)Then how did Rava answer Ravina, when he asked him from the ruling in the Seifa, bearing in mind that 'Matnas Shechiv-Mera be'Miktzas without a Kinyan does not acquire?

(d)Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua disagrees. If, as he explains, even Metzaveh Machmas Misah requires a Kinyan, how will he explain the Beraisa's ruling?

12)

(a)Ravina queried Rava from a Beraisa which rules that if someone died after saying ...

1. ... 'Tenu Get Zeh le'Ishti, u'Shtar Shichrur Zeh le'Avdi' they should not carry out his instructions, because a Get cannot become valid after the husband's death.

2. ... 'Tenu Manah li'Peloni' they should.

(b)We know that the Seifa is speaking where no Kinyan was made because of the Reisha, where, had a Kinyan taken place, there seems to be no reason for the Get not to be valid.

(c)Rava answers Ravina's Kashya from the Seifa, despite the fact that a Matnas Shechiv-Mera be'Miktzas without a Kinyan is not Koneh like we answered the previous Kashya (of Rav Mesharshiya), by establishing the case by Metzaveh Machmas Misah.

(d)Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua disagrees. In his opinion, even Metzaveh Machmas Misah requires a Kinyan and the Beraisa must be speaking where the Shechiv-Mera was in the process of distributing all his property (which does not require a Kinyan).

13)

(a)We finally rule like Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua regarding Matnas Shechiv-Mera be'Miktzas. What do we rule with regard to Metzaveh Machmas Misah ...

1. ... if the Shechiv-Mera died?

2. ... if he recovered?

13)

(a)We finally rule like Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua regarding Matnas Shechiv-Mera be'Miktzas. Metzaveh Machmas Misah ...

1. ... if the Shechiv-Mera died acquires even without a Kinyan.

2. ... if he recovered he is permitted to retract even if a Kinyan did take place.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF