REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Gitin 50
GITIN 49 & 50 - Sponsored by Rabbi Dr. Eli Turkel and his wife, Jeri Turkel.
May Hashem bless them with many years of Simcha, health and fulfillment, and
may they see all of their children and grandchildren follow them in the ways
of Torah and Yir'as Shamayim!
(a) Everyone agrees that the regular Areiv of a Kesuvah is not obligated to
What do they say by an Areiv Kablan of a debt?
(b) What is the dual basis of this distinction?
(c) Amora'im argue whether a S'tam Areiv of a debt or an Areiv Kablan of a
Kesuvah obligates himself or not. Under which circumstances do they argue?
(d) We rule that in all cases, the Areiv is obligated to pay except for the
the Areiv of a Kesuvah (who is not an Areiv Kablan).
Why is he not
obligated (even if the husband has property)?
(a) Ravina asks one last Kashya on Mar Zutra who restricted the Din of
'Kesuvas Ishah be'Ziburis' to when she claimed from the Yesomim. What reason
does the Beraisa give for the Takanah confining a woman's claim to Ziburis?
How does that pose a Kashya on Mar Zutra?
(b) What do we answer?
(a) What does Mar Zutra Brei de'Rav Nachman quoting his father, say about a
Sh'tar Chov that is produced against Yesomim on the condition that the
creditor may claim Idis?
(b) Who wrote the Sh'tar?
(c) How does Abaye attempt to prove this from the Din of a Ba'al-Chov?
(a) What does Ula learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "be'Chutz Ta'amod,
ve'ha'Ish Asher Atah Nosheh Bo Yavi Eilecha ... "?
(b) Then why did Chazal extend his claim to Beinonis?
(c) How do these facts refute Abaye's proof?
(d) Why does Rava refer to Mar Zutra's case as Torah-law? What is the source
(a) How will Rava, who maintains that one only claims from the Ziburis of
Yesomim in cases which min ha'Torah, everyone claims from Ziburis, explain
the Beraisa cited by Avram Chuza'ah, that even Nizakin may only claim from
the Ziburis of the Yesomim? Who will then be the author?
(b) How do we initially explain the Beraisa cited by Rebbi Eliezer Nivsa'ah
'Ein Nifra'in mi'Nechsei Yesomim Ela min ha'Ziburis, va'Afilu Hein Idis'?
How does this pose a Kashya on Rava?
(c) Rava however, establishes the Beraisa by 'Shapa'i Idis'.
(d) What did Rava say in a case of ...
- ... Hizik Ziburis?
- ... Hizik Shapa'i Idis?
(a) Rav Achdevu'i bar Ami asks whether the restriction of claiming from
Yesomim to Ziburis applies only to Yesomim Ketanim, or whether it extends to
Gedolim as well. If it (reverting to Torah-law by Yesomim) is merely a
Takanas Chachamim, it will only apply to Ketanim, basically because Gedolim
can look after themselves.
Answers to questions
What is the other Tzad of the She'eilah?
(b) Why can we not resolve Rav Achdevu'i bar Ami's She'eilah from the
Beraisa cited by Abaye Keshisha 'Yesomim she'Amru Gedolim, ve'Ein Tzarich
Lomar Ketanim'? What might the Tana be referring to, other than from which
quality fields the creditor may claim?
(c) What is the final ruling on this matter?
Rav Achdevu'i bar Ami asked whether the restriction of claiming from
Meshuba'dim when there are B'nei Chorin available extends to a gift. It
might not apply there, because the beneficiary of the gift does not lose
anything (and the purpose of the Takanah is to safeguard the purchaser, who
paid for the fields).
What is the other Tzad of the She'eilah? Why might
it nevertheless apply?
(a) What does the Tana of the Beraisa say about a Shechiv-Mera who left
instructions to give two hundred Zuz to Reuven, three hundred, to Shimon and
four hundred, to Levi? In what proportion would they be obligated to pay, if
the donor's creditor produced a Sh'tar that the donor owed him a Manah?
(b) When would they be obligated to pay according to the order they received
their gift (i.e. the last one first, the second last, second ... .)?
(c) Based on the fact that the Shechiv-Mera said 'T'nu', what do we
extrapolate from here that would appear to resolve our She'eilah?
(d) How do we first refute this proof? What might 'T'nu' mean?
(a) In the previous case, why does the date on their respective Sh'taros not
determine the order in which they pay?
(b) Then what does 'Kol ha'Kodem bi'Sh'tar mean (See Tosfos DH 've'Ha')?
(c) We refute the initial proof in two additional ways, even if the Tana is
referring to Matanah.
What do we mean when we say ...
- ... 'Mai Govah min ha'Acharon, Ein Nifsad Ela Acharon'?
- ... 'de'Shavu Kulhu Lehadadi'?
(a) Ula Amar Resh Lakish explains that the purchaser cannot claim the Peiros
from the thief's Meshuba'dim because they were not written. So what if they
What alternative answer does Rebbi Chanina give to explain why one cannot
claim Achilas Peiros from Meshu'badim?
(b) In fact, the thief had stated that he would reimburse the Sh'vach and
So what does Ula mean when he says that they were not written?
(c) Rebbi Zeira asked Rebbi Asi from 'Mazon ha'Ishah ve'ha'Banos', which are
considered as if they are written, even though they are not, yet they are
not authorized to claim from Meshuba'dim.
What did he mean when he said
'they are considered as if are written'?
(d) How did Rebbi Asi answer Rebbi Zeira?
Answers to questions