REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 18
KESUVOS 16-19 - have been anonymously dedicated by a unique Ohev
Torah and Marbitz Torah living in Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.
(a) Rebbi Yehoshua's concession to Raban Gamliel in a case of 'ha'Peh
she'Asar' is confined to property that belonged to his friend's father,
because he is speaking about land. We ask why he does not speak about a case
of movable goods, in which case he could establish it by the friend himself.
What is the case?
(b) We answer, like we answered earlier, that we would then have a problem
with the Seifa (when there are witnesses).
What would then be the problem?
What do we rule with regard to someone who borrows money with witnesses?
(a) We then suggest that the Tana could have chosen another case of 'ha'Peh
she'Asar ... ' Manah le'Avicha be'Yadi ve'He'echaltiv P'ras'.
be the Chidush that would give this case the edge over the case in our
(b) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov and the Rabbanan dispute this case in a
Beraisa. Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov says 'Pe'amim Adam Nishba al Ta'anas
What do the Rabbanan say?
(c) We reject the suggestion that the Tana ought to have presented this
case, on the grounds that Rebbi Yehoshua would then not hold like either
Why would he not hold ...
- ... like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov?
- ... like the Rabbanan?
(a) What Takanah did the Chachamim enact regarding a Meishiv Aveidah? Why
did they do that?
(b) This poses a difficulty with Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, who obligates a
Shevu'ah in the previous case.
On what grounds do we reject the suggestion
that he calls it Ta'anas Atzmo because it speaks when a child is claiming
(c) And on what grounds do we reject the suggestion that it speaks when it
is a Gadol who is claiming?
(d) And what is wrong with explaining that it is Ta'anas Acheirim ve'Hoda'as
(a) We conclude that Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov and the Rabbanan argue over
Rabah, who explains why the Torah obligates a Modeh be'Miktzas (someone who
admits to part of a claim) to take an oath. Why does a Modeh be'Miktzas not
deny the claim completely?
Answers to questions
(b) So why does he not then admit to the entire claim?
(c) What is now the case that Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov and the Chachamim
(d) What is the basis of their dispute? Why, according to ...
- ... Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, is it not considered 'Meishiv Aveidah'?
- ... the Rabbanan, is it considered 'Meishiv Aveidah?
(a) Witnesses who verify their signatures on a document are nevertheless
believed to invalidate it, when they add 'Anusim Hayinu'.
Why is that?
(b) Which other two arguments might they present to invalidate the document?
(c) If there are other witnesses however, who recognize their signatures,
then they are not believed.
Under which other circumstances are they not
(a) Rami bar Chama (according to our initial understanding) restricts
'Anusim Hayinu' in the *Seifa* of our Mishnah (where they are not believed)
to when they said 'Anusim Hayinu *Machmas Mamon*', but had they said 'Anusim
Hayinu *Machmas Nefashos*', they would be believed.
Why is the former not
believed, whereas the latter, is?
(b) On what grounds do we reject this explanation? What do we learn from the
Pasuk in Vayikra "Im Lo Yagid"?
(c) Based on the Lashon Hagadah ("Im Lo Yagid"), we try to restrict 'Keivan
she'Higid to verbal testimony, establishing Rami bar Chama's explanation by
testimony that is written.
What principle does Resh Lakish teach us that
negates such a contention?
(a) We therefore amend Rami bar Chama's statement, connecting it with the
What does he now say?
(b) Why are they not believed in the Reisha, in spite of 'ha'Peh she'Asar'?
(c) What will be the Din in the Seifa?
(a) In the Reisha, we believe the witnesses, even if they claim that they
are P'sulei Eidus.
Answers to questions
Why will that not automatically invalidate them in the
same way as it invalidate 'Anusim Hayinu Machmas Mamon'?
(b) Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, is more stringent than the Tana of our Mishnah.
What does he say?
(c) The only real problem with Rebbi Meir is from the case of 'Anusim Hayinu
(Machmas Nefashos)', where there is no apparent reason not to believe the
witnesses on account of 'ha'Peh she'Asar', but not from the other two cases.
Why is there no problem from ...
- ... P'sulei Eidus?
- ... Ketanim?