REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 13
BAVA METZIA 11-17 - This study material has been produced with the help of
the Israeli ministry of religious affairs.
(a) Rav Asi just concluded that it is forbidden to write a Sh'tar without
the creditor being present, unless it is a Sh'tar Hakna'ah. What problem
do we have with this, based on our Mishnah, which we just established when
the debtor admits that the Sh'tar is valid and that he owes the money, yet
if it contains Acharayus, it may not be returned to the creditor, because we
are afraid that the Sh'tar was written before the loan took place?
(b) How does Rav Asi resolve this problem? Why, in our Mishnah, do we
nevertheless suspect that it was written before the loan took place?
(c) Abaye disagrees. According to him, if writing a Sh'tar for the debtor
without the creditor being present were prohibited, we would not suspect the
Sofer of contravening the prohibition (even though the Sh'tar was lost).
In that case, why does Abaye permit writing such a Sh'tar, even when the
creditor is not present. Why is the Sh'tar not then 'Mukdam' and therefore
(a) What does the Mishnah in Gitin say about a case where someone found
Gitei Nashim, Shichrurei Avadim, Dayteki, Matanah or Shovrin?
(b) What is ...
(c) According to Abaye, why do we not return them, on the basis of 'Eidav
ba'Chasumav Zachin Lo'?
- ... 'Dayteki'?
- ... 'Shovrin'?
(d) According to Abaye, in which cases is a Sh'tar 'Mukdam' and Pasul?
(a) According to Rav Asi, we established our Mishnah 'Matza Sh'tarei-Chov Im
Yesh Bahen Acharayos Nechasim, Lo Yachzir' by Sh'taros that are not Sh'tarei
Why may the finder not return them, according to Abaye?
(b) Why do the Rabbanan then prohibit even the return of Sh'taros which do
not contain Acharayus (see Tosfos DH 'Haynu')?
(a) Why does Shmuel not suspect that a Sh'tar-Chov has been paid? Does he
differentiate between a case where the debtor admits that he is Chayav and
one where he doesn't?
(b) Shmuel might hold like Rav Asi, and establish our Mishnah by Sh'taros
that are not Sh'tarei Hakna'ah.
How will he explain the Mishnah, assuming
he holds like Abaye?
(c) Why do we not permit the return of the Sh'tar, and substantiate it
through its signatories?
(d) If Shmuel holds like Abaye, as we just suggested, why does he confine
the return of found Sh'taros to Sh'tarei Hakna'ah (see 14a), seeing as Abaye
does not differentiate between the two types of Sh'tar?
(a) If our Mishnah is speaking when the debtor claims that the Sh'tar is
forged, as we just explained according to Shmuel, why does Rebbi Meir permit
the return of a Sh'tar which does not contain Acharayus? Why is he not
afraid that, even though the creditor cannot claim from Meshubadim, he will
claim from B'nei Chorin?
Answers to questions
(b) What is then the point of returning the Sh'tar to the creditor? Is it to
use as a bottle-stopper?
(c) Then why return it to the creditor and not to the debtor?
(d) And why do the Rabbanan forbid returning the Sh'tar?
(a) According to Rebbi Elazar, Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim will agree that
once the debtor concedes the vaidity of the Sh'tar, the finder is obligated
to return the Sh'tar, and we are not worried about collusion. Bearing in
mind then, that they are arguing over a Sh'tar which does not contain
Acharayus, what is the basis of their Machlokes?
(b) This conforms with the opinion of Shmuel (assuming that he holds like
According to Rebbi Elazar and Shmuel, what status would this
Sh'tar have had, had it not got lost, according to ...
- ... Rebbi Meir?
- ... the Chachamim?
(a) Rebbi Yochanan establishes the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the
Chachamim when the debtor admits that the Sh'tar is valid.
Answers to questions
Then what is
the basis of their Machlokes? Why does Rebbi Meir say 'Yachzir', and the
Rabbanan 'Lo Yachzir'?
(b) And why will even Rebbi Meir concede 'Lo Yachzir', if the debtor
(c) We cite a Beraisa, which establishes the Machlokes when the debtor
admits that the Sh'tar is valid, like Rebbi Yochanan, leaving us with a
Kashya on Rebbi Elazar.
What does the Tana say concerning ...
(d) Seeing as Rebbi Elazar holds a. that Rebbi Meir completely invalidates a
Sh'tar which does not contain Acharayus, and b. that neither Tana suspects
collusion (clashing with the Beraisa in both issues), why does the Tana
consider this to be only one Kashya and not two?
- ... a Sh'tar which does not contain Acharayus according to Rebbi Meir?
- ... a found Sh'tar which contains Acharayus which the debtor himself validates, according to both Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim?