REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Shevuos 45
(a) What does our Mishnah say about a case where the defending litigant is a
gambler, lends on interest, indulges in pigeon-racing or does business with
(b) According to Rebbi Yossi, if both litigants are suspect of making false
oaths, the Shevu'ah returns to its place (which will be explained in the
What does Rebbi Meir say?
(c) 'Chenvani al Pinkaso' does not refer to a case where the storekeeper
cites his ledger in which it is recorded that Reuven owes him two hundred
Zuz, who subsequently claims that he paid.
(a) What is then the case of 'Chenvani al Pinkaso'?
(b) What does the Tana Kama rule there?
(c) On what grounds does ben Na'nes object to the Tana Kama's ruling? What
does he therefore rule?
(d) Does Rebbi Yehudah argue with the Tana Kama in this case?
(a) What does the Tana say about a case where Reuven asks a storekeeper for
a Dinar's worth of fruit, and when the latter asks for the money, he claims
that he already paid him and that he put the money in his purse? What sort
of Shevu'ah is the Tana referring to?
(b) And what does he rule in a case where Reuven paid the storekeeper, and
when he subsequently asks for the fruit, the store-keeper claims that he
gave them to him and that he took them home?
(c) According to Rebbi Yehudah, whoever has the fruit has the upper hand.
In which case does he argue?
(d) What is Rebbi Yehudah's reasoning?
(a) What does the Tana Kama rule in a case where Reuven asks a banker for a
Dinar's worth of small coins ...
(b) What does Rebbi Yehudah say? With which ruling does he disagree?
- ... and when the latter asks for the Dinar, he claims that he already gave it to him and that he put it in his purse?
- ... and first hands him the Dinar. Then, when he asks for the coins, the banker claims that he already handed them over?
(c) Our Mishnah compares Yesomim who claim a debt with a Sh'tar to 'Pogemes
Kesuvasah', 'Eid Echad Me'idah she'Hi Peru'ah', and to someone who claims
from Nechasim Meshubadim or from the property of Yesomim.
What do all of
these have in common?
(a) Before the Yesomim can claim, they must make a triple Shevu'ah. They
swear that their father did not inform them either at the time of his death
or at any time prior to that, that the debt was paid.
Which third point do
they add to the Shevu'ah?
(b) What does Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah say about a son who is born after
his father died?
(c) And what does Rebbi Shimon ben Gamliel say about a case where witnesses
testify that, before the father died, he admitted that the Sh'tar had not
(a) What does our Mishnah say about Shutfin, Arisin, Apotropsin, and a woman
whose husband appointed to manage his estate, or a son who is managing his
deceased father's estate?
(b) What does 'Apotropsin' mean in this context?
(c) Once Shutfin and Arisin have divided the property or the goods, they are
no longer obligated to swear.
Under which circumstances could one
nevertheless impose a Shevu'ah on the other?
(d) What does the Tana say about Sh'mitah?
(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Mishpatim (in connection with a
Shevu'as ha'Shomrim) "ve'Lakach Be'alav ve'Yeshalem"?
(b) What problem do we have with Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, who, in reply to
the question why we rule 'Nishba'in ve'Notlin' regarding a Sachir, replies
(c) How does Rav Nachman finally quote Shmuel?
- ... (initially) 'Halachos Gedolos Shanu Ka'an'?
- ... (in answer to the problem) 'Takanos Gedolos Shanu Ka'an'?
(d) What problem do we have with the suggestion that ...
- ... the basis of this Takanah is for the sake of the employer's Parnasah?
- ... because the employer will gladly agree with the Takanah, since it enables him to find workers more easily?
- ... the previous point is no problem, since the employer out of necessity, will employ him anyway?
(a) So we finally ascribe the reason for placing the Shevu'ah with the
employee to the fact that the employer is too busy to remember whether he
paid him or not.
Answers to questions
Then why should he not claim without a Shevu'ah?
(b) Why did Chazal not institute that the employee...
(c) What does the Beraisa rule in a case where the employee claims that the
employer promised him two Zuz, and the employer claims that they agreed on
- ... gets paid in front of witnesses (to avoid swearing unnecessarily)?
- ... receives his wages before commencing work?
(d) Why do we not apply the S'vara there 'that an employer is too busy to
(a) What does the Beraisa rule in a case where the employee claims his wages
after the time limit prescribed by the Torah has expired?
(b) We initially ascribe this ruling to a Chazakah? Which Chazakah?
(c) How do we resolve this with what we just learned (that an employer is
too busy to remember these things)?
(d) How do we finally resolve the problem after pointing out that the
employee too, has a Chazakah that he would not transgress the La'av of 'Bal
Tigzol' (also in Kedoshim)?
(a) How does Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel qualify our Mishnah? What does he say
about the case of Sachir where the employer hired the employee not in front
(b) Why is that?
(c) Rebbi Yitzchak commented 'Yeyasher'.
What did he quote Rebbi Yochanan
(d) Does this mean that Resh Lakish disagreed with Rebbi Yochanan?
(a) Rav Menashya bar Z'vid quoting Rav conforms with Shmuel's ruling.
what grounds does Rava disagree with Rami bar Chama, who praised this
opinion? What problem did Rava have with it, based on the Shevu'as Shomrin
of a Shomer Sachar?
(b) How do we initially refute Rava's proof? In which case will a Shomer
Sachar not have a 'Migu' of Ne'ensu' because he could have denied having
been appointed as a Shomer?
(c) And in which case will the Shomer Sachar not be believed because he
could have claimed that he returned the article?
(d) What can we extrapolate from here regarding distinguishing between
someone who deposits with witnesses and someone who deposits with a Sh'tar?
Why is that?
(a) What did Rami bar Chama mean when, with reference to Rav Sheishes (whom
we are about to cite), he quoted the Pasuk in Shmuel "Vayasem David es
ha'Devarim he'Eileh be'Libo"?
How does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak refute Rav Sheishes' proof? If the Reisha
also requires a proof, why did the Tana not say so?
(b) When Rav Sheishes asked Rabah bar Shmuel what he had learned regarding
Sachir, he cited him the Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a, 'Sachir bi'Zemano Nishba
ve'Notel'. How did he qualify that statement? In which case will the Tana
(c) What does Rav Sheishes extrapolate from the Seifa of that Mishnah that
sheds light on the Reisha?
(d) What does he try to prove with that?
Answers to questions