REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Shevuos 47
(a) Having already taught us the Din of 'Nishba'in ve'Notlin' by 'Nigzal',
why does the Tana find it necessary to add the case of 'Mesachek be'Kuvya'?
What is a 'Mesachek be'Kuvya'?
(b) Why is he only Pasul mi'de'Rabbanan?
(c) When Rava asked Rav Nachman whether, in the case of 'Sheneihen
Chashudin', Rebbi Yossi holds 'Chazrah Shevu'ah li'Mekomah', and Rebbi Meir,
'Yachloku' (as it stands in our Mishnah), or vice-versa, he replied that he
did not know.
What did he reply when he asked him what the Halachah was?
(d) All the other opinions cited here, including Rav Yosef bar Minyumi
quoting Rav Nachman, invert the opinions in our Mishnah.
Again citing Rav
Yosef bar Minyumi, how did Rav Nachman actually rule in a case that came
(a) What does Rebbi Ami mean when he quotes Raboseinu she'ba'Bavel, who say
'Chazrah Shevu'ah le'Sinai'?
(b) What do Raboseinu she'be'Eretz Yisrael say?
(c) 'Raboseinu she'be'Eretz Yisrael' says Rav Papa, are Rav and Shmuel.
Who is 'Raboseinu she'be'Bavel'?
(a) When the Tana adds Yesomim to the list of 'Nishba'in ve'Notlin', why can
he not be referring to an ordinary debtor?
(b) Then to whom is he referring?
(a) Rav and Shmuel confine this Halachah exclusively to a case where the
creditor died in the lifetime of the debtor.
Why is that? What would have
been the Din if the debtor had died first?
(b) What is the reason for this principle?
(c) What is the practical application of this ruling? What would happen to
the claim in such a case?
(d) How does this prove that 'Raboseinu she'be'Bavel' are synonymous with
Rav and Shmuel?
(a) What did Rebbi Aba rule in the case (which we discussed in 'Shevu'as
ha'Eidus'') that came before Rebbi Ami, where Reuven grabbed a lump of
silver from Shimon in front of one witness, and claimed that it belonged to
(b) What do we prove from there?
(a) What did Rebbi Ami Darshen from the Pasuk "Shevu'as Hashem Tih'yeh Bein
Answers to questions
(b) Why can this not refer to a case where Reuven's heirs claim that their
father lent Shimon's father a Manah, and Shimon's heirs admit to fifty Zuz
and deny the other fifty?
(c) Then what is the case?
(d) How does this support Rebbi Aba's opinion?
(a) Rav and Shmuel Darshen the Pasuk "Shevu'as Hashem Tih'yeh Bein
Sheneihem" like Shimon ben Tarfon in a Beraisa.
How does he interpret it?
(b) Shimon ben Tarfon also learns from the Pasuk "Lo Tin'af" that 'Okef
Achar No'ef' is included in the La'av. What does 'Okef Achar No'ef' mean?
(c) How does he Darshen this from "Lo Tin'af"?
(a) And how does Shimon ben Tarfon explain the Pasuk in Devarim ...
(b) Why can we not understand the Pasuk literally?
- ... "Vateragnu be'Ohaleichem"?
- ... "ad ha'Nahar ha'Gadol Nehar P'ras"? Why does the Pasuk refer to the Euphrates as ''ha'Nahar ha'Gadol"?
(c) Shimon ben Tarfon extrapolates from here the adage 'K'rav Legabei Dehina
What does this mean?
(d) What similar adage does de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learn from it?
(a) What did Rebbi mean when he commented on the Tana Kama's ruling with
regard to Chenvani al Pinkaso, 'Torach Shevu'ah Zu Lamah'?
(b) Which of two statements might Rebbi have been making?
(c) Rebbi Chiya cites our S'tam Mishnah, where Rebbi explicitly learns
'Sheneihem Nishba'in ve'Notlin mi'Ba'al ha'Bayis'.
Why did he cite it?
(a) We ask whether Rebbi accepted Rebbi Chiya's observation or not. How do
we attempt to resolve the She'eilah from another Beraisa, where Rebbi says
'Po'alin Nishba'in le'Chenvani'?
(b) How do we explain this Beraisa to repudiate this suggestion?
(c) Why is that necessary?
(a) According to Rav Huna, if two pairs of witnesses contradict one another,
each one is permitted to testify independently.
What does he not allow
them to do?
(b) What does Rav Chisda say?
(c) With regard to the above, what do we comment about ...
(d) What do we mean when we say 'Sh'nei Malvin ve'Loveh Echad u'Shenei
Sh'taros, Haynu Masnisin'?
- ... two creditors, two debtors and two Sh'taros?
- ... 'Malveh ve'Loveh u'Shenei Sh'taros'?
(a) What She'eilah do we ask about a case of 'Sh'nei Lovin u'Malveh Echad
u'Shenei Sh'taros? Why according to Rav Huna, might we ...
(b) Why is this She'eilah confined to Rav Huna? What would Rav Chisda say?
- ... not accept either claim against the Loveh?
- ... accept both claims against him?
(c) What is the outcome of the She'eilah?
(a) Rav Huna bar Yehudah cites a Beraisa.
Answers to questions
What does the Tana rule in a
case where one witness gives the height of the new moon in the sky as ...
(b) How do we initially interpret the Tana's ruling 'u'Mitztarfin le'Eidus
- ... two ox-goads and the other, as three?
- ... three ox-goads and the other, as five?
(c) On whom is Rav Huna bar Yehudah asking?
(d) How does Rava therefore interpret the Beraisa, to reconcile Rav Chisda
with the Tana?
(e) What is the Tana's reasoning?