REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 169
(a) We already quoted Rav Safra wo says 'Ein Kosvin Sh'nei Sh'taros al Sadeh
To what was Rav Safra referring when he made this statement?
(b) Seeing as the purchaser has already paid the creditor who claimed the
field from him, on what basis would he be able to claim again from other
purchasers, even if the Sofer did write Acharayus in the Sh'tar?
(a) We have a problem however, with the fact that the creditor is able to
claim again later, from Rav Nachman's statement concerning a Tirfa that
fails to record that the Sh'tar concerned was torn by Beis-Din, or an
Adrachta that fails to record that the Tirfa was torn by Beis-Din.
(b) And he says the same about a Shuma that fails to record that the
Adrachta was torn by Beis-Din.
- ... a 'Tirfa'?
- ... an 'Adrachta'?
What is a 'Shuma'?
(c) What did Rav Nachman say about them?
(d) What is then the problem?
(a) If the Beraisa (and Rav Safra) is not concerned about a creditor
claiming from the *purchaser* twice, then what is concerned about?
What did the Rabbanan in the presence of Rav Papa (or Rav Ashi) extrapolate
from the previous Kashya? What major ruling did they learn from this Sugya?
(b) Rav Acha from Difti asks Ravina why the purchaser needs to ask the
creditor to postpone his claim.
What is he really asking him?
(c) What does Ravina reply?
(d) On what grounds do we query even Ravina's explanation? How would it be
possible to block the purchaser's second claim?
(a) Rav Papa (or Rav Ashi) disagrees. He holds that as a rule, 'Kosvin
Answers to questions
Then why do we not write one here? What are we afraid of?
(b) What do we mean when we add 'I Nami, le'Loke'ach she'Lo be'Acharayus'?
(c) Then why do we write a receipt in the case of a loan? Why are we not
worried there too that the borrower paid and the creditor will subsequently
from the purchasers who do not have a receipt?
(d) Why do we not say the same here, in the case of a purchaser?
(a) We learned in the Beraisa that if someone claims that he lost a Sh'tar
Mekach u'Memkar, they write him a new one 'Chutz min ha'Acharayus'.
does Rav Nachman explain this? What exactly does he have to write?
(b) What principle does Rafram extrapolate from there?
(c) Rav Ashi however, argues disagrees with Rav Nachman (and Rafram).
does he interpret the Beraisa?
(a) In a case where a woman gave a man money to purchase a field on her
behalf, what did he go and do?
(b) What did the woman claim?
(c) So what did Rav Nachman rule?
(a) We already cited the Beraisa in which Raban Shimon ben Gamliel holds
that when a Sh'tar Matanah is returned, the Matanah goes back with it.
Answers to questions
What objection does Rabah raise to Rav Asi's explanation that when Reuven
gives Shimon a gift together with a Sh'tar, it is as if he stipulated that
the gift is his only as long as he has the Sh'tar?
(b) In fact, says Rabah, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbanan argue
over whether 'Osiyos Niknos bi'Mesirah' or not, as we explained.
Machlokes also extend to the Sh'tar of a sale?
(c) Rabeinu Chananel rules like the Chachamim, based on the principle
'Yachid ve'Rabim, Halachah ke'Rabim'.
Why might the Halachah nevertheless
be like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel?
(d) What is Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's Chidush? On what basis do the
Chachamim argue with him?