1)

(a)We suggest that Rav agrees with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's ruling ('ha'Masneh al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah, Tena'o Batel'), but not with his reason (since the latter holds that, if the woman dies, her husband, who made the Tenai, 'Din u'Devarim ... ', inherits her, whereas he holds that he does not). Why not?

(b)What is wrong with this suggestion?

1)

(a)We suggest that Rav agrees with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's ruling ('ha'Masneh al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah, Tena'o Batel'), but not with his reason (since the latter holds that, if the woman dies, her husband, who made the Tenai, 'Din u'Devarim ... ', inherits her, whereas he holds that he does not) - because he holds 'Yerushas ha'Ba'al d'Rabanan', and the Rabanan did not strengthen their Takanos any more than the Torah.

(b)This cannot be correct however - because that would be disagreeing with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's ruling, but not with his reason, and not vice-versa.

2)

(a)So we propose that Rav disagrees with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's opinion, inasmuch as Raban Shimon ben Gamliel holds 'ha'Masneh ... bid'Oraisa, Tena'o Batel' (implying that bid'Rabanan, Tena'o Kayam), whereas he holds that even 'bid'Rabanan, Tena'o Batel. What would be the practical ramifications of their Machlokes?

(b)On what grounds do we reject this suggestion too?

(c)So how do we finally establish Rav?

2)

(a)So we propose that Rav disagrees with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's opinion, inasmuch as Raban Shimon ben Gamliel holds 'ha'Masneh ... bid'Oraisa, Tena'o Batel' (implying that bid'Rabanan, Tena'o Kayam), whereas he holds that even 'bid'Rabanan, Tena'o Batel - meaning that whereas, if Yerushas ha'Ba'al were d'Rabanan, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel would hold 'Tena'o Kayam', he holds that it is indeed mid'Rabanan, and yet 'Tena'o Batel'.

(b)We reject this suggestion too however - on the grounds that this would be agreeing both with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's ruling and with his reason, only adding another dimension to it.

(c)So we conclude - that Rav agrees with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's ruling that the husband inherits his wife, but not because of 'ha'Masneh ... Tena'o Batel', but because he holds Yerushas ha'Ba'al d'Rabanan, and the Chachamim strengthened their rulings just like the Torah.

3)

(a)We query Rav however, from a Mishnah in Bechoros, which discusses a husband who inherits his wife returning the inheritance to her family when the Yovel year arrives. What does Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah rule in this regard?

(b)Does an heir need to return his inheritance to the family of the deceased in the Yovel year?

(c)What is the problem with Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah's ruling, assuming that he holds 'Yerushas ha'Ba'al d'Rabanan'?

(d)So how does Rav establish his ruling? Why does the man need to return the inheritance, and what is the significance of the monetary deduction?

3)

(a)We query Rav however, from a Mishnah in Bechoros, where Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah rules - that a husband who inherits his wife must return the inheritance to her family when the Yovel year arrives, and deducts some of the money (which we assume to mean that he gives them back the inheritance against a small remuneration).

(b)An heir does not need to return his inheritance to the family of the deceased in the Yovel year.

(c)The problem with Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah's ruling, assuming that he holds 'Yerushas ha'Ba'al d'Rabanan' is - the significance of the money which they are required to give to him.

(d)Rav therefore establishes Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah's ruling specifically by a family sepulcher, which the husband is obligated to return due to the stigmatization of the family that such a sale causes. Otherwise, Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah holds 'Yerushas ha'Ba'al d'Oraisa'. The monetary deduction concerns the burial of his wife, which he is obligated to do, and for which the family is now obligated to compensate him.

4)

(a)This explanation is borne out by a Beraisa. What does the Beraisa say about someone who sells his family sepulcher together with the path that leads to it?

(b)But does Rav not hold that Yerushas ha'Ba'al is d'Rabanan?

4)

(a)This explanation is borne out by a Beraisa - which rules that if someone sells his family sepulcher together with the path that leads to it - they bury him there even against the will of the purchaser, to avoid the stigma that burying him elsewhere would cause.

(b)Rav does indeed hold that 'Yerushas ha'Ba'al is d'Rabanan'. He is however, explaining the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, - even though he does not rule like him.

5)

(a)Rebbi Tarfon, in our Mishnah, rules that if somebody dies, leaving a wife, creditors and heirs, any Pikadon (an object that is deposited with a third person), or money that is owed to him, is given to the 'weakest of them' (which will be explained later in the Sugya, not to the heirs). On what grounds ...

1. ... do we ignore the principle 'Metaltelei d'Yasmi Lo Mishtabdi l'Ba'al Chov'?

2. ... does Rebbi Akiva say that it is given to the heirs (rather than to the other claimants who now stand to lose their claims)?

(b)What does Rebbi Tarfon say about detached fruit in the same circumstances?

(c)What do Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva say in the previous case, in the event that the wife took more than the amount of her Kesubah or the creditor took more than the amount of his loan? What happens to the excess?

(d)Having told us the Din by a loan, why does the Tana find it necessary to add that the same applies to a Pikadon?

5)

(a)Rebbi Tarfon, in our Mishnah, rules that if somebody dies, leaving a wife, creditors and heirs, any Pikadon (an object that is deposited with a third person), or money that is owed to him, is given to the 'weakest of them' (which will be explained later in the Sugya, but not to the heirs). The reason that ...

1. ... we ignore the principle 'Metaltelei d'Yasmi Lo Mishtabdi l'Ba'al Chov' is - because the money or the objects did not yet enter the domain of the heirs.

2. ... according to Rebbi Akiva, it is given to the heirs (rather than to the other claimants who now stand to lose their claims) is - because the other claimants require a Shevu'ah before they are permitted to take them, whereas the heirs do not (which automatically places the property in their possession).

(b)If the deceased man left detached fruit, Rebbi Tarfon holds that - whoever takes it first may retain it.

(c)In the event that the wife took more than the amount of her Kesubah or the creditors more than the amount of their loan - they hold exactly the same as they said earlier: according to Rebbi Tarfon, it goes to the weaker one (one of those with the document), whereas according to Rebbi Akiva, it goes to the heirs.

(d)Having told us the Din by a loan, the Tana nevertheless finds it necessary to add that the same applies to a Pikadon - because whereas a loan is in the possession of the borrower (who borrowed the money in order to spend it), a Pikadon remains in the possession of the original owner, in which case, we might well have thought that Rebbi Tarfon will agree with Rebbi Akiva, that it remains in the possession of the heirs.

6)

(a)What does Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina mean when he interprets 'the weakest' in our Mishnah, to mean the one with the weakest proof?

(b)Why does Rebbi Yochanan interpret it as 'the woman, who is claiming her Kesubah'? What makes her the weakest?

(c)Then why does she receive the property?

6)

(a)When Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina interprets 'the weakest' in our Mishnah as the one with the weakest proof, he means - the one whose document has the later date (since he has the disadvantage of being unable to claim from the purchasers who preceded him).

(b)Rebbi Yochanan interprets it as the woman, who is claiming her Kesubah' - because a woman does not generally get as involved as a man to discover the whereabouts of the deceased's property.

(c)And the reason that she receives the property is because of 'China' (to encourage women to get married in the first place, which they will be hesitant to do if they are afraid that they will lose their rights too easily).

7)

(a)Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva argue in the Seifa regarding the excess fruit which the woman or the creditors claimed. What does Rebbi Akiva hold with regard to the initial amount that is owed to them?

(b)Then why does he mention specifically the excess?

(c)What does Rava Amar Rav Nachman say about Rebbi Akiva's opinion with regard to Tefisah (taking the object of doubt into one's possession)? Does he not hold of it at all?

7)

(a)Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva argue in the Seifa regarding the excess fruit which the woman or the creditors claimed. Rebbi Akiva holds - that the initial amount owing also goes to the heirs ...

(b)... and he only mentions the excess - because that is what Rebbi Tarfon, his disputant, is talking about.

(c)Rava Amar Rav Nachman explains that Rebbi Akiva holds of Tefisah (taking the object of doubt into one's possession) - provided it is done in the lifetime of the original owner (see Tosfos Amud 2. DH 'v'Hu').

84b----------------------------------------84b

8)

(a)According to Rav and Shmuel, Rebbi Tarfon permits Tefisah even after the death of the original owner, only if the objects are lying in the street. What would be the Din if they were lying in a Simta, according to them?

(b)What do Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish say?

(c)What did Rebbi Yochanan say when Resh Lakish forced the Dayanim who ruled like Rebbi Tarfon to rescind their ruling?

(d)Based on the principle 'Halachah k'Rebbi Akiva me'Chavero', how do we initially explain their Machlokes?

8)

(a)According to Rav and Shmuel, Rebbi Tarfon permits Tefisah even after the death of the original owner, only if the objects are lying in the street. If they are lying in a Simta - they are considered to be in the possession of the heirs, and Tefisah will not help (even according to Rebbi Tarfon).

(b)According to Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish - Rebbi Tarfon will validate Tefisah even from a Simta.

(c)When Resh Lakish forced the Dayanim who ruled like Rebbi Tarfon to rescind their ruling - Rebbi Yochanan asked him whether he considered Rebbi Akiva's words as being 'Halachah l'Moshe mi'Sinai'.

(d)Based on the principle 'Halachah k'Rebbi Akiva me'Chavero', we initially explain their Machlokes whether 'Ta'ah bi'Devar Mishnah, Chozer' (Resh Lakish) or 'Eino Chozer' (Rebbi Yochanan).

9)

(a)Is the principle 'Ta'ah bi'Devar Mishnah, Chozer' confined to an error in a Mishnah?

(b)Alternatively, we contend, both Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish agree that 'Ta'ah bi'Devar Mishnah, Chozer', but, assuming that Rebbi Tarfon was Rebbi Akiva's Rebbe, they argue whether the Halachah is like Rebbi Akiva even when he argues with his Rebbe. What is the alternative to this explanation?

(c)What might be the basis of Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish's Machlokes, even assuming that Rebbi Tarfon was Rebbi Akiva's colleague, and not his Rebbe?

9)

(a)The principle 'Ta'ah bi'Devar Mishnah, Chozer' is not confined to an error in a Mishnah, as the wording suggests - but extends even to someone who overlooks the rulings of prominent Amora'im, such as Rav and Shmuel.

(b)Alternatively, we contend, both Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish agree that 'Ta'ah bi'Devar Mishnah, Chozer', but, assuming that Rebbi Tarfon was Rebbi Akiva's Rebbe, they argue whether the Halachah is like Rebbi Akiva even when he argues with his Rebbe - or perhaps, they are arguing over whether Rebbi Tarfon was Rebbi Akiva's Rebbe (Rebbi Yochanan) or his colleague (Resh Lakish).

(c)Even assuming that Rebbi Tarfon was Rebbi Akiva's colleague, and not his Rebbe - they might be arguing over whether the principle reads 'Halachah k'Rebbi Akiva me'Chavero' (even b'Di'eved), or 'Matin k'Rebbi Akiva ... ' (l'Chatchilah but not b'Di'eved).

10)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan vindicated his relatives, who took possession of a cow belonging to an orphan (whose deceased father owed them money) that was standing in a Simta (like Rebbi Tarfon). What did Resh Lakish say?

(b)How did Rebbi Yochanan react when he heard what Resh Lakish had ruled?

(c)A certain creditor claimed that he had taken possession of an ox from the orphans' shepherd before their father's death, whilst the shepherd countered that he had taken it after his death. On what basis did Rav Nachman believe the creditor?

(d)How do we reconcile this with Resh Lakish, who says that a Chazakah (proof of ownership from the fact that they are in one's domain) is not acceptable with regard to animals, who may have wandered into one's field by themselves?

10)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan vindicated his relatives, who took possession of the cow belonging to an orphan that was standing in a Simta (like Rebbi Tarfon) - Resh Lakish ordered them to return it (like Rebbi Akiva).

(b)When Rebbi Yochanan heard what Resh Lakish had ruled - he declared that there was nothing he could do about it, seeing as Resh Lakish was his equal.

(c)A certain creditor claimed that he had taken possession of an ox from the orphans' shepherd before their father's death, whilst the shepherd countered that he had taken it after his death. Rav Nachman believe the creditor - on the basis of a 'Migo', because, once he had ascertained that there were no witnesses who saw him taking possession of it, he pointed out that the creditor could have argued that he had bought the ox (seeing as it was in his domain).

(d)The Chazakah here will help, in spite of Resh Lakish, who says that a Chazakah (proof of ownership from the fact that they are in one's domain) does not apply to animals, who may have wandered into one's field by themselves - because Resh Lakish is not talking about oxen, which one tends to hand over to a cowhand (who ensures that they do not stray).

11)

(a)What did Rebbi Aba comment, when the family of the exilarch took possession of a maidservant belonging to orphans, from a Simta (like Rebbi Tarfon, according to Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish's interpretation), and various Amora'im vindicated their action?

(b)When Yeimar bar Chashu's debtor died, Yeimar sent his Shaliach to take possession of a boat that he had left. Rav Papa and Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua objected, based on a statement by Rebbi Yochanan. Which statement?

11)

(a)When the family of the exilarch took possession of a maidservant belonging to orphans from a Simta (like Rebbi Tarfon, according to Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish's interpretation), and various Amora'im vindicated their action - Rebbi Aba commented that it was not correct to flatter the exilarch. He reminded them how the Dayanim had ruled like Rebbi Tarfon, but Resh Lakish had forced them to rescind their ruling.

(b)When Yeimar bar Chashu's debtor died, Yeimar sent his Shaliach to take possession of a boat that he had left. Rav Papa and Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua objected, based on a statement by Rebbi Yochanan, who said that - if a Shaliach takes possession of an object on behalf of a creditor where there are other creditors, that creditor does not acquire the object.

12)

(a)What is the significance of the fact that Rav Papa proceeded to row the boat in the above episode, whilst Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua steered it? What claim did they have on the boat anyway?

(b)What did they retort, when Rav Pinchas bar Ami cited the opinion of Rav and Shmuel, who hold that Tefisah from a Simta is not effective?

(c)When they eventually came before Rava, what disappointing news did he have for them?

12)

(a)The fact that Rav Papa proceeded to row the boat in the above episode, whilst Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua steered it - gave rise to their dispute over which one of them acquired the boat (seeing as they were 'the other creditors' to whom they had previously referred).

(b)When Rav Pinchas bar Ami (believing that the boat had been beside the river bank when they boarded it) cited the opinion of Rav and Shmuel, who hold that Tefisah from a Simta is not effective - they replied that as a matter of fact, they had boarded it in the middle of the river.

(c)When they eventually came before Rava - he cited Rav Nachman, who had finally ruled like Rebbi Akiva (that Tefisah is only effective if it is performed in the life-time of the owner).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF