REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 19
KESUVOS 16-19 - have been anonymously dedicated by a unique Ohev Torah and
Marbitz Torah living in Ramat Beit Shemesh, Israel.
(a) What reason does Rav Chisda suggest to explain why Rebbi Meir does not
believe the witnesses even when they claim 'Anusim Hayinu Machmas Nefashos'?
Which three things override Piku'ach Nefesh?
(b) How does Rava query Rav Chisda's contention?
(c) We ultimately establish Rebbi Meir like Rav Huna Amar Rav.
Rav Huna Amar Rav say regarding 'Modeh bi'Sh'tar she'Kosvo'?
(d) How does that help us to establish Rebbi Meir?
(a) On what grounds did Rav Nachman query Rav Huna (with regard to the Din
of 'Modeh bi'Sh'tar she'Kosvo')?
(b) Rav Huna responded by asking Rav Nachman for his opinion in this regard.
What was his reply?
(a) What is a 'Sh'tar Amanah'?
(b) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav rejects the claim of someone who states 'Sh'tar
Amanah Hu Zeh'.
On what grounds do we initially refute the contention that
that someone is ...
- ... the borrower?
- ... the creditor?
- ... the witnesses?
(a) According to Rava, Rav Yehudah Amar Rav here refers to the borrower, and
he is following his own reasoning above (with regard to 'Modeh bi'Sh'tar
she'Kosvo'). What is he then saying?
(b) Abaye establishes Rav Yehudah with regard to the creditor.
How does he
resolve the Kashya we asked earlier ('Tavo Alav B'rachah')?
(c) What does Rebbi Nasan learn from the Pasuk in Naso "ve'Nasan la'Asher
Asham Lo"? What would the Pasuk otherwise have written?
(a) Rav Ashi establishes Rav Huna Amar Rav by the witnesses - like Rav
Answers to questions
What does Rav Kahana learn from the Pasuk in Iyov 'Al Tashkein
(b) What does Rav Sheishes Brei de'Rav Idi extrapolate from Rav Kahana's
D'rashah, connecting it to our case?
(a) According to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, the Pasuk "Al Tashkein be'Ohalecha
Avlah" refers to a paid document. In Eretz Yisrael, they quoted Rav too, as
What does the Pasuk there "Im Ein be'Yadcha, Harchikeihu"
then refer to, according to them?
(b) Why did Rav Kahana establish the Pasuk "Al Tashkein ... " by a Sh'tar
Amanah, and not a Sh'tar Paru'a? What will he hold by a Sh'tar Paru'a?
(c) Rebbi Ami establishes the Pasuk with regard to an uncorrected
Sefer-Torah, Nevi'im or Kesuvim.
What is the maximum period that one may
retain such a Sefer?
(a) Everyone agrees that witnesses who state 'Amanah Hayu Devareinu' are not
believed. According to Rav Nachman, if they say 'Moda'a Hayu Devareinu'
(meaning that the debtor informed them that he was being forced to write the
document, even though no debt had taken place), they are not believed
(b) Mar bar Rav Ashi maintains that they are believed.
Why is that?
(c) Rav asked Rav Nachman whether witnesses who said 'T'nai Hayu Devareinu'
are believed or not.
Why might 'T'nai Hayu Devareinu' be better than
'Amanah Hayu Devareinu' or 'Moda'a Hayu Devareinu' (both of which are not
believed, according to Rav Nachman)?
(d) What did Rav Nachman reply? What would he instruct the parties to do
whenever the witnesses said 'T'nai Hayu Devareinu'?
(a) If one of the witnesses claims that there is a condition, and the other
one said that there is not, on what grounds does Rav Papa validate the
(b) And on what grounds does Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua disagree with
him? How does he derive that from the previous case, when both witnesses
agreed 'T'nai Hayu Devareinu'?
(c) So what does Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua rule?
(d) Like whom is the Halachah?
(a) According to the Tana of a Beraisa, when are witnesses who verify the
signatures of other witnesses who died, adding 'Anusim Hayu', 'Ketanim Hayu'
or 'P'sulei Eidus Hayu', believed, and when are they not believed?
(b) What problem do we have with the case where they are not believed, and
where the document remains Kasher?
(c) Rav Sheishes learns from here that 'Hakchashah Techilas Hazamah Hi'.
How does that answer the Kashya?
(d) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ve'Hu'ad bi'V'alav"?
(a) On what grounds does Rav Nachman (like whom we always rule in
money-matters) disagree with Rav Sheishes? Why might the second pair of
witnesses be believed not in the presence of the first pair, even though
they would not be, if they testified to make them Zomemin?
(b) What is the difference between 'Hakchashah' and 'Hazamah'?
(a) What does Rav Nachman rule in the previous case?
Answers to questions
(b) How do we reconcile this with the Beraisa, which explicitly said 'Ein
Eilu Ne'emanim'? If one cannot now claim with the Sh'tar, in which regard
are the second witnesses not believed?
(c) What are the implications of 'Uki Mamona be'Chezkas Marei', as regards
- ... a loan?
- ... a sale of land?