REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 70
(a) According to the Neherda'a, one is not permitted to write an Urch'sa on
What is an 'Urch'sa'?
(b) Ameimar explained to Rav Ashi that the reason for this is a statement
issued by Rebbi Yochanan.
(c) What are the ramifications of the Neherdai's ruling?
(d) The second Lashon qualifies the statement, limiting it to Metaltelin
which the guardian denied.
What is then the reason for the ruling?
(a) The Neherda'a also insist that an Urch'sa must contain the statement
'Zil Don ve'Zachi ve'Apich Lenafshech'.
Why is that?
(b) Abaye validates the Urch'sa even if the owner restricted this to a half,
a third or a quarter.
Why is that?
(c) According to Ameimar, if he seized the article, he is permitted to
retain it. This appears to pertain to the Sheli'ach who claimed the article
on behalf of the owner, even though the owner had failed to add the required
wording on the Sh'tar.
What is the preferred explanation however?
(d) Rav Ashi disagrees with Ameimar in this point.
What does he say?
(a) According to others, the owner makes him a partner.
What are the
ramifications of this ruling?
(b) What is the Halachah?
(a) A Ganav who Shechts or sells a sheep or an ox pays Daled ve'Hey. Will
it make any difference whether the witnesses who testify that he Shechted or
sold the animal are the same ones who testified that he stole it, or
(b) What does our Mishnah say about ...
(c) According to the Tana Kama, the Ganav is also obligated to pay Daled
ve'Hey in the following cases 'Ganav ve'Tavach li'Refu'ah O li'Kelavim',
'ha'Shochet ve'Nimtza'as T'reifah' and 'ha'Shochet Chulin ba'Azarah'.
- ... 'Ganav u'Machar be'Shabbos', 'Ganav u'Machar la'Avodah-Zarah', Ganav mi'shel Aviv ve'Tavach u'Machar, ve'Achar-Kach Meis Aviv'? What do all of these have in common?
- ... 'Ganav ve'Tavach, ve'Achar-Kach Hikdish'?
does Rebbi Shimon say with regard to this list?
(d) What is the basis for the Halachic distinction between the first two
cases in the list and the last two?
(a) Who was Aba Chalafta?
Answers to questions
(b) When Aba Chalafta went to learn by Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri, or
vice-versa, what did they unanimously agree with regard to someone who ate
one year's produce in a field (on which he was making a three-year Chazakah)
in front of one set of witnesses, a second year's produce in front of a
second set and a third year's produce in front of a third set?
(c) He quoted Rebbi Akiva, who disagreed? On what grounds should this not
constitute a Chazakah?
(d) How does this prompt us to suggest that the author of our Mishnah cannot
be Rebbi Akiva? With which section of our Mishnah would Rebbi Akiva appear
to be arguing?
(a) We answer the previous Kashya by citing a case where one set of
witnesses testify that a woman is betrothed and a second set, that she sis
Why do we take for granted that Rebbi Akiva will agree that this
case is not one of Chatzi Eidus?
(b) On what basis do we compare our case (of Eidei Geneivah) to that case?
(c) Initially, we try to say that Aba Chalafta and Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri
use "Davar" to preclude where one witness testifies that a girl has one
hair on the back of her hand, and another, that she has one on her stomach.
On what basis do we refute this suggestion?
(a) Then what *do* the Rabbanan learn from "Davar"?
(b) What makes this case worse than that of Chazakah?
(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Ganav u'Machar be'Shabbos, Chayav Daled
How does Rami bar Chama reconcile this with a Beraisa which
exempts him? How must the Beraisa be speaking?
(b) On what grounds do we initially reject his explanation?
(a) Rav Papa establishes the Beraisa when the buyer instructed the Ganav to
throw the stolen article into his Chatzer on Shabbos.
Why is this case
better than the previous one? Why is the sale now valid?
(b) We try to establish the Beraisa like Rebbi Akiva.
What does Rebbi
Akiva say about 'K'lutah'? What is 'K'lutah'?
(c) What is the problem with establishing the Beraisa like the Rabbanan of
Rebbi Akiva? What would they say in the case of the Beraisa?
(d) How do we finally establish the Beraisa even like the Rabbanan?
(a) Rava concurs with Rami bar Chama, and he answers the Kashya we asked
(from the fact that the sale is not valid anyway) by saying 'Esnan Asrah
Torah, va'Afilu Ba Al Imo'.
Answers to questions
What does he mean by that?
(b) How does he consider our case similar to that of Esnan? On what grounds
will the purchaser be Chayav Daled ve'Hey, even if the sale came into effect
by his picking a fig on Shabbos, where the sale is invalid?