REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
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.
(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.
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.
Answers to questions
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?
(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 ...
- ... the man to remain with a Safek Eishes Ish?
- ... 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
(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
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?
(b) Rebbi Yehudah rules 'Ein Ma'alin li'Kehunah al-Pi Eid Echad'.
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?
Answers to questions