REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 8
(a) Rav Chisda too, establishes the middle case of the Beraisa ('Beinonis
ve'Ziburis, Nizakin u'Ba'al Chov be'Beinonis') when the borrower had Idis at
the time of the debt.
How do we attempt to prove this from a second
Beraisa 'Beinonis ve'Ziburis, Nizakin be'Beinonis, Ba'al Chov u'Kesuvas
Ishah be'Ziburis'? In which point do both Beraisos agree?
(b) How will we explain the discrepancy between the two Beraisos, if we
establish them both when ...
(c) And an alternative text to the final suggestion is that both Beraisos
speak when his Beinonis was on a par with the world's Idis. How will we
then explain the Machlokes between them?
- ... the borrower did not have Idis at the time of the debt?
- ... the borrower did not have Idis at the time of the debt, and in addition, his Beinonis was on a par with that of world?
(a) According to Ravina, the two Beraisos argue over Ula's Din.
Ula learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "ba'Chutz Ta'amod, ve'ha'Ish Asher
Atah Nosheh Bo Yotzi Eilecha es he'Avot"?
(b) What does Ula then add to that?
(c) How does Ravina now explain the Machlokes between the two Beraisos?
(a) What does the Tana of the Beraisa rule in the event that the debtor sold
his fields to one person, or to three people simultaneously?
(b) What will be the Din if he sold the three fields to three different
people on three different occasions?
(c) What is the reason for this?
(d) Why can the Reisha not be speaking when the debtor sold the purchaser
the three fields in one Sh'tar?
(a) What would be the Din in the previous case, had he purchased the Ziburis
(b) Then why does the Tana say 'Kulan Nichnesu Tachas ha'Ba'alim'?
(c) In that case, why can they not all claim from Idis?
(a) Would the purchaser be able to force the Nizak to take Beinonis using
the same argument of 'I Shaskas Shaskas ... '?
Answers to questions
(b) Then why does the Tana authorize the Nizak to take Idis? What difference
does it make whether the debtor is alive or not?
(c) In that case, back comes the Kashya, why can all three not claim from
Idis, seeing as that was the last field that he purchased?
(d) The right to forgo a Takanas Chachamim that is instituted for one's
benefit, is taught by Rava, who was referring to the case stated by Rav
Which case was that?
(a) What will be the Din if the man who bought all three fields (and the
Idis last) subsequently sold the Beinonis and the Ziburis? What do all three
(b) Abaye thought that, in the event that he sold Idis, leaving himself with
Beinonis and Ziburis, they would all claim from Idis.
What was Rava's
objection to this ruling?
(a) What did Rava rule in a case where Reuven sold all his fields to Shimon,
and Shimon then sold one field to Levi? From whom is Reuven's creditor
permitted to claim?
(b) How do we qualify Rava's ruling? In which case would Reuven's creditor
be forced to claim from Shimon?
(c) When would the same ruling apply even if he purchased Beinonis?
(a) Abaye rules that if Reuven sold Shimon a field with Acharayus (the
undertaking to reimburse him should his creditor claim it from him), Reuven
is permitted to appear in Beis-Din to assist Shimon to ward off his
creditor, should he indeed claim the field.
Answers to questions
Why might we have thought
(b) Then why is he permitted to do so?
(c) And on what grounds do others permit it even if he sold him the field