REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 14
BAVA METZIA 11-17 - This study material has been produced with the help of
the Israeli ministry of religious affairs.
(a) Having just asked one Kashya on Rebbi Elazar from the Beraisa, we ask an
additional Kashya on Shmuel (who, like Rebbi Elazar, establishes the Beraisa
when the debtor denies the Sh'tar's validity, as we explained above).
does Shmuel rule in a case where someone finds a Sh'tarei Hakna'ah in the
(b) How does this clash with the Beraisa 'af-al-Pi she'Sh'neihem Modim Lo
Yachzir Lo la'Zeh ve'Lo la'Zeh'? Why is it a 'Kol she'Kein'?
(a) What reason does Shmuel give for the Rabbanan, who rule that one may
claim from Meshubadim even with a Sh'tar that does contain Ach'rayus?
(b) What did Shmuel say about 'Sh'vach, Sh'far ve'Shibud'?
(c) What is ...
- ... 'Sh'vach'?
- ... 'Sh'far'?
(a) How did Rav Idi bar Avin reconcile the seeming discrepancy in Shmuel
without turning it into a Machlokes Amora'im?
(b) What is the reason for this distinction? Why do a loan and a purchase
differ in this regard?
(c) We cite an incident in support of this distinction.
What happened when
Avuhah bar Ihi purchased an attic from his sister? What did Shmuel rule?
(d) How did Shmuel justify his ruling there, in view of his earlier ruling
'Ach'rayus Ta'us Sofer Hu'?
(a) Abaye rules that if Reuven sold Shimon a field with Ach'rayus, he is
permitted to appear in Beis-Din on Shimon's behalf, should the creditor
claim the field.
Why might we have thought otherwise?
(b) Then why is he permitted to do so?
(c) What might he argue besides claiming that he already paid the debt?
(d) And on what grounds do others permit it even if he sold him the field
(a) If Reuven sells a field to Shimon without Ach'rayus, and someone claims
that it is his, Shimon may retract, according to Abaye, as long as he has
not made a Chazakah.
Answers to questions
What is considered a Chazakah in this regard (see
Tosfos DH 'Ad')?
(b) Why can he no longer retract, once he has made a Chazakah? What is a
(c) What will be the Din if Shimon purchased the field with Ach'rayus?
(d) Others disagree.
On what grounds do they hold that even then, having
made a Chazakah, he may no longer retract?
(a) According to Rav, if Reuven sells Shimon a field which is then
discovered to have been stolen from Levi, he is obligated to reimburse him,
not only for the cost of the field, but also for any improvements for which
he was responsible.
Why is Levi (who after all, is the one to benefit from
the improvements) not the one to pay for them?
(b) What does Shmuel say?
(c) They asked Rav Huna what Shmuel would hold if the Sh'vach was
specifically included together with the Ach'rayus in the Sh'tar.
might he nevertheless not be permitted to claim it?
(d) Rav Huna wasn't too sure. First he said 'Yes', then he said 'No'.
did Rav Nachman quote Shmuel on this point?
(a) The Mishnah rules in Gitin that one cannot claim Achilas Peiros, Sh'vach
Karka'os or Mazon ha'Ishah ve'ha'Banos from Meshubadim.
Why can 'Achilas Peiros' in the Mishnah in Gitin not refer to a case of
Why not? What do
they all have in common?
(b) Based on the inference (that they *can* claim from B'nei Chorin), what
did Rava ask Rav Nachman from this Mishnah. How did he (Rava) establish the
case of 'Sh'vach Karka'os'?
(c) What made him learn 'Sh'vach Karka'os' that way?
(d) How did Rav Nachman reply?
(a) In a Beraisa which comes to explain the above Mishnah, the Tana,
explaining 'Sh'vach Karka'os', writes that when the field is reclaimed from
the Gazlan, he claims the Keren from Meshubadim, and the Sh'vach from B'nei
What forces us to amend the Beraisa to refer to a case when the
Gazlan sold it and it is the purchaser who improved it?
(b) In any event, we see that the Mishnah is speaking about a case of a
Gazlan and not of a Ba'al-Chov, as Rav Nachman explained earlier.
Rav Nachman reconcile his own opinion with the Mishnah?
(a) We ask further on Rav Nachman from the above-mentioned Beraisa, which
explains 'Achilas Peiros' to mean that when the owner reclaims his field
from the Gazlan 'he claims the field from Meshubadim and the Peiros from
B'nei-Chorin. Here too, we amend the Beraisa for the same reason that we
amended the previous quotation from the same Beraisa.
How do we amend it?
(b) This again poses a Kashya on Rav Nachman, according to whom the
purchaser from a Gazlan does not receive Peiros. To answer the Kashya, Rava
reinstates the original wording of the Beraisa.
Who is now the claimant?
Why does he not just take the field as it is?
(a) Rabah bar Rav Huna establishes the Beraisa when Nochrim robbed the
Gazlan of his stolen field.
Who is now claiming from whom? What is the
ruling of the Mishnah?
(b) And on what grounds do we then obligate him to pay the owner?
(c) Both Rava and Rabah bar Rav Huna base their respective opinions on the
Lashon 've'Harei Hi Yotzei mi'Tachas Yado'.
Why does ...
- ... Rava decline to learn like Rabah bar Rav Huna?
- ... Rabah bar Rav Huna decline to learn like Rava?
(a) Rav Ashi explains the Beraisa 'li'Tzedadin'.
Answers to questions
What does he mean by
(b) What is then the case?
(c) Who claims ...
(d) What does Rav Ashi gain by explaining the Beraisa in this way?
- ... the field (from Meshubadim)?
- ... the Peiros (from B'nei Chorin)?