(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Bava Basra 31

BAVA BASRA 31 & 32 - these Dafim have been dedicated anonymously l'Iluy Nishmas Tzirel Nechamah bas Tuvya Yehudah.


(a) In a case where Reuven and Shimon both claimed that a certain field had belonged to their respective fathers and where Reuven brought witnesses to that effect, whereas Shimon brought witnesses that he had been working in the field for three years, why did Rabah believe the latter?

(b) On what grounds did Abaye disagree with him?

(c) What did Shimon subsequently claim? Why did he then initially claim that it had belonged to his own father?

(d) Ula accepted his second argument.
What did the Neherda'i say?

(a) Had Shimon originally added that the field had belonged to his father *and not to Reuven's*, Ula would not have accepted his second claim.
Why this distinction?

(b) Why, in the earlier case, did Ula not require Shimon to bring a proof that his father had owned the field at least for one day, like a Yoresh who proved that he had worked in the field that he (claimed to have) inherited from his father for three years?

(c) Why would Ula have also conceded that Shimon is not believed, had he left the courtroom before returning and amending his original statement?

(a) What would Shimon have had to claim (in his second statement) for the Neherda'i to have accepted it?

(b) And why would they have also accepted Shimon's second statement if his first statement had been made outside Beis-Din? Would this extend even to where his second claim completely contradicted his first one?

(c) In which case would this not apply? Under which circumstances would he not be able to retract from what he said outside Beis-Din?

(d) Bearing in mind that Ameimar supports Ula in the latter's Machlokes with the Neherda'i, it is hardly surprising that the Halachah is like Ula.
What is strange about Ameimar's ruling?

(a) In a case where Reuven and Shimon both claimed that the field belonged to their respective fathers, Reuven brought witnesses that he had worked in the field for three years, and so did Shimon, only Shimon's witnesses also bore out his original claim.
On what grounds would Rav Nachman have placed the field in Shimon Reshus?

(b) What was Rava's objection to Rav Nachman's ruling?

(c) How did Rav Nachman counter Rava's argument?

Answers to questions



(a) In a case where two pairs of witnesses contradict each other, Rav Huna authorises each pair to testify in other lawsuits.
What is the case?

(b) In which case then, does the Torah believe the latter pair of witnesses and declare the former pair 'Eidim Zomemin'?

(c) Rav Huna does not however, permit one witness from each pair to testify as one pair in other lawsuits.
Why not? What is the difference?

(d) What does Rav Chisda say?

(a) How do we reconcile Rava (who discounts the testimony of witnesses who have been contradicted completely) with Rav Huna?

(b) How do we reconcile Rav Nachman (who validates that part of the witnesses' testimony that was not contradicted) with Rav Chisda?

(a) What did Rav Nachman rule when Reuven (whose witnesses had only testified on his Chazakah) subsequently brought witnesses that the field had belonged to his father?

(b) Rava (or Rebbi Zeira query Rav Nachman from a Beraisa). What does the Tana Kama rule in a case where two witnesses testified that Reuven had died and two other witnesses testified that he was still alive, or the same two pairs of witnesses argue over whether his wife is divorced or not? May his wife marry or not?

(c) What are the two ramifications of the latter case?

(d) In the former case, seeing as their marriage involves a Safek Kareis, which carries with it an Asham Taluy, how can we permit ...

  1. ... the man to remain with a Safek Eishes Ish?
  2. ... the woman to remain married?
(a) Rebbi Menachem b'Rebbi Yossi rules that even if they are already married, she must leave her husband.
How does he qualify his own ruling?

(b) What is his reason for this concession?

(c) How did this Kashya initially affect Rav Nachman's imminent ruling previous ruling?

(d) What strange thing did Rav Nachman then do? How did the Chachamim interpret his strange ruling?

(a) If Rav Nachman did not make a mistake, then why did he go ahead with his original plan?

(b) Rebbi Yehudah rules 'Ein Ma'alin li'Kehunah al-Pi Eid Echad'.
Besides not eating Terumah and not serving in the Beis-ha'Mikdash, what other ramifications does this statement have?

(c) Rebbi Elazar confines Rebbi Yehudah's ruling to where there are Orerin; otherwise, he holds 'Ma'alin li'Kehunah ... '.
What are 'Orerin'?

(d) What does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel quoting Rebbi Shimon ben ha'Segan say that seems to duplicate Rebbi Elazar's ruling?

10) Why can we not establish the Machlokes (between Raban Shimon ben Gamliel quoting Rebbi Shimon ben ha'Segan and Rebbi Elazar) in a case when the 'Orerin' of Rebbi Elazar consists of only one witness, which Rebbi Elazar accepts, and Raban Shimon be Gamliel discounts?

Answers to questions

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,