REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 129
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that as long as the Shechiv-Mera mentioned
Matanah either at the beginning, in the middle or at the end, his words are
From where do we know that 'Yerushah' applies to a private
(b) How does Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yochanan explain ...
(c) In which two ways does Rebbi Yochanan then qualify our Mishnah? When
would the Tana not extend the Lashon Matanah to where the Shechiv-Mera used
a Lashon Yerushah?
- ... 'at the beginning'?
- ... 'in the middle'?
- ... 'at the end'?
(d) What would the Din then be in that case?
(a) What does Rebbi Elazar say?
(b) According to Ravin, in a case where the Shechiv-Mera said 'Tinasen Sadeh
P'lonis li'Peloni ve'Yirash P'loni Sadeh P'lonis', Rebbi Yochanan says
'Kanah', and Rebbi Elazar, 'Lo Kanah'.
How do we resolve this with the
ruling of ...
(c) In light of the wording following Rebbi Elazar's earlier ruling 'Aval
bi'Shetei Sados u'Shenei B'nei Adam, Lo', how do we justify the Kashya that
we just asked from Rav Dimi's version of Resh Lakish on to that of Ravin?
- ... Rebbi Elazar that we just cited (according to Rav Dimi)?
- ... Rebbi Yochanan, according to Rav Dimi?
(a) Resh Lakish agrees in part with the previous ruling.
Why, according to
him, would Shimon not acquire the field if the father said 'Tinasen Sadeh
Pelonis li'Reuven, ve'Sadeh P'lonis le'Shimon ve'Yirashum'?
(b) What would the Shechiv-Mera need to say for Shimon to acquire the second
field, according to Resh Lakish?
(a) Given that none of the disputants that we are about to quote hold like
Resh Lakish, which of the above opinions conforms with that of ...
(b) Rav Sheishes supports his opinion with a Beraisa, which discusses a case
where a father says 'T'nu Shekel li'Banai le'Shabbos', assuming that they
require a Sela (two Shekalim). The Tana might be talking about a
Shechiv-Mera on his death-bed.
- ... Rav Hamnuna, who says 'Lo Shanu Ela Adam Echad ve'Sadeh Achas, Aval ... Lo'?
- ... Rav Nachman, who says 'Afilu Adam Echad u'Shetei Sados ... Aval Sh'tei Sados u'Shenei B'nei Adam, Lo'?
- ... Rav Sheishes, who says 'Afilu Sh'tei Sados u'Shenei B'nei Adam'?
Who else might he be referring to?
(c) What does the Tana rule there" How much do we actually give his children
each week out of his estate?
(d) Under which circumstances would we follow his instructions, in spite of
the fact that his sons really need more?
(a) In Kesuvos, we establish the author of this Beraisa as Rebbi Meir.
does Rebbi Meir say?
(b) Despite that, we conclude there that, irrespective of which Lashon the
father used, we give his sons their needs.
Why is that?
(c) What does the Tana of the Beraisa then rule in a case where the father
added 'Im Meisu, Yirshu P'loni u'Peloni Tachteihem'?
(d) What does Rav Sheishes now extrapolate from there?
(a) Like whom does Rav Sheishes himself establish the Beraisa, to refute his
own proof from there?
Answers to questions
(b) What is then the case?
(c) Why does he do that?
(d) How will we establish the Beraisa, according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi
Yishmael B'no shel Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah in Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah
(whose opinion we will cite on the following Daf)?
(a) Rav Ashi queries our Sugya from another Beraisa.
What does the Tana
rule in the case 'Nechasai Lach ve'Acharecha Yirash Peloni, ve'Acharei
Acharecha, Yirash P'loni' in the event that ...
(b) What does Rav Ashi prove from here?
- ... things follow that course?
- ... the second candidate (the first P'loni) dies before the first recipient?
(c) We are after all, talking about the same field.
On what grounds does
Rav Ashi compare it to two fields?
(a) How do we attempt to answer Rav Ashi's Kashya?
(b) We have a problem with this answer however, based on a statement by Rav
Acha B'rei de'Rav Ivya.
What did Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ivya say regarding
Rebbi Yochanan? How does that refute our attempted answer?
(c) What is the reason for this?
(d) So what is our conclusion?
(a) How do we know that the Beraisa cannot be a Kashya on Resh Lakish?
(b) Then how do we reconcile the Beraisa, which validates a Lashon Yerushah
after a Lashon Matanah even in a case of two fields and two people (even not
in the way prescribed by Resh Lakish) with Resh Lakish?
(c) Why can we not answer the Kashya on the other Amora'im in the same way?
How do we know that the Lashon Matanah does not effect the Lashon Yerushah
by two fields and two people, even when they are said 'Toch K'dei Dibur'
(according to them)?
(a) What ruling do we issue with regard to 'Toch K'dei Dibur'? In which two
cases is it not considered ke'Dibur?
Under what circumstances is 'Toch K'dei Dibur' not considered 'K'dei Dibur'
in all cases?
(b) What are the ramifications of this ruling with regard to ...
(c) What is now the Din when someone says two things 'Toch K'dei Dibur,
assuming that ...
- ... Avodas Kochavim?
- ... Kidushin?
(d) What is the common basis for all these Halachos? How do we view two
statements that are made 'Toch K'dei Dibur'?
- ... both of them are conceivable (such as 'Harei Zu Temuras Olah, Temuras Shelamim')?
- ... one of them can take effect, and the one cannot (such as Matanah and Yerushah, in our case)?
- ... the two statements contradict each other (such as ''Midah be'Chavel', 'Hein Chaser, Hein Yeser' that we learned in Perek Beis Kur)?
Answers to questions