REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 132
(a) Rava asks whether Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's Din ('ha'Kosev Kol Nechasav
ls'Ishto ... ') will extend to a Bari too.
What are the two sides of the
She'eilah? Why might it ...
(b) What does the Beraisa say with regard to a woman claiming her Kesuvah,
in a case where her husband gives her a gift consisting of ...
- ... not apply to a Bari?
- ... nevertheless apply to a Bari too?
(c) The Beraisa then discusses a case where, after the husband wrote all his
property to his wife, a creditor produces a Sh'tar-Chov on him.
- ... the Peiros of his estate?
- ... part of the land itself?
the Sh'tar dated?
(d) Rebbi Eliezer says 'Tikara Matanasah, ve'Ta'amod al Kesuvasah'.
(a) The Chachamim of Rebbi Eliezer say 'Tikara Kesuvasah, ve'Ta'amod al
What does 'Tikara Kesuvasah' mean?
(b) Why can it not be understood literally?
(c) From where do we know that a woman has a right to property that her
husband purchases after their marriage
(d) What are the ramifications of this ruling?
(a) What is the Chachamim's reason?
(b) Why is this not Mechilah be'Ta'us?
(c) What did Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nachtom testify about his daughter-in-law?
(d) We extrapolate from the Beraisa 'Ha Lo Yatza Alav Sh'tar-Chov Kanya'?
How do we try to use this to resolve Rava's She'eilah 'be'Bari He'ach'?
(a) We refute this proof however, by establishing the Beraisa in the case of
a Shechiv-Mera. How do we then circumvent the Kashya on Shmuel?
(b) What do we mean to include when we add that according to Rav Avira, we
might also establish it by 'Kulhu'?
(a) The Tana Kama in another Beraisa rules that, in a case where Reuven
heard that his son, who had gone overseas, had died, and after he had
written his property to someone else, his son returned alive and well, his
gift is nevertheless valid.
What does Rebbi Shimon ben Menasyah say?
(b) Rav Nachman there rules like Rebbi Shimon ben Menasyah.
What is the
logic behind this ruling?
(c) How do we then reconcile this ruling with Rav Yosef bar Minyumi Amar Rav
Nachman, who rules like the Chachamim 'Tikara Kesuvasah, ve'Ta'amod al
Matanasah'? Why do we not go after 'Umdena' there as well (like Rebbi
Elazar, as we explained above)?
(a) What does the Mishnah in Pe'ah say about someone who writes his property
to his sons and gives a little to his wife, too?
(b) What problem do we have with this Mishnah?
(c) Rav answers by establishing the Mishnah 'bi'Mezakeh Lahen al-Yadah'.
What does he mean by that (see Rabeinu Gershom)? How does that answer the
(d) According to Shmuel, even if she had not assisted in the distribution of
the property, she would lose her Shibud on the Karka, by virtue of her
having been present when it was distributed and remaining silent.
case, why will the same not apply even when her husband does not give her
(a) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina has a third answer.
Answers to questions
What does he say?
(b) What do we mean when we say 'u'mi'Kulei Kesuvah Shanu Ka'an? To which of
the above answers does this pertain?
(c) Why are the Rabbanan lenient (with the husband, regarding the way he
pays his wife's Kesuvah)?
(d) What would be the Din in an equivalent case of Mamon not connected with
(a) The Mishnah in Pe'ah continues 'Rebbi Yossi Omer, Im Kiblah Alehah,
Af-al-Pi she'Lo Kasav Lah, Avdah Kesuvasah'.
What do we extrapolate from
this regarding the opinion of the Tana Kama?
(b) How do we know that ...
(c) What would our Mishnah have held had Rebbi Yossi been the sole author?
- ... the Rabbanan require both Kesivah and Kabalah, and not only Kesivah?
- ... the author of the entire Mishnah is not Rebbi Yossi (and that there is no Tana Kama)?
(d) We just established that if according to the Tana Kama, Kiblah Alehah
ve'Lo Haysah Sham, Lo Avdah Kesuvasah'.
(a) What problem does this create?
(b) What do we answer?
(c) What did Rav Nachman reply, when Rava asked him, in light of the three
respective interpretations of Rav, Shmuel and Rebbi Chanina b'Rebbi Yossi,
what he held?
(d) According to Rashi, 'Keyvan she'As'ah Shutaf Bein ha'Banim' reflects the
opinion of Shmuel, Rav Nachman's Rebbe.
But did we not just prove Shmuel
(a) Here too, Rava asks 'be'Bari He'ach', like he asked on the previous
Sugyos, and this time, we remain with 'Teiku'.
What is the basis of his
She'eilah? Why might a Bari be different than a Shechiv-Mera in this regard?
(b) Some commentaries explain that Rava was asking whether she had not even
lost the right to claim the property that her husband will purchase later.
Why is this explanation unacceptable?
(a) Rav Nachman asked Rav Chisda in Sura about a case where a man left half
of his property to each of two daughters.
What did he leave his wife?
(b) In reply, Rav Chisda quoted Shmuel.
What did Shmuel say? Would it make
any difference if as yet, no fruit has grown on the tree (according to the
Rabbanan of Rebbi Meir, who hold 'Ein Adam Makneh Davar she'Lo Ba le'Olam')?
(c) Rav Nachman pointed out that his case was not similar to Rav Chisda's
What had Rav Chisda misunderstood?
(d) Assuming that the woman is allowed to claim her Kesuvah from the
daughters, what exactly, is she entitled to claim?
(a) In a case where a man left a third of his property to each of his two
daughters, and the remaining third to his wife, one of his daughters died.
Answers to questions
What did Rav Papi think that his wife ought to receive?
(b) Why is that?
(c) On what grounds did Rav Kahana correct him?