REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 110
(a) According to Admon, if Reuven produces a Sh'tar Chov on Shimon and
Shimon produces a Sh'tar, dated later, which states that Reuven sold him a
field, Shimon can say 'You should not have sold me your field before
claiming your debt'. So what are practical ramifications of Admon's
(b) What do the Chachamim say?
(c) Even the Chachamim agree with Admon in a case where it is customary to
pay for a field before writing the Sht'ar.
Why is that?
(d) So they must argue in a place where it is customary to write the Sh'tar
first and to pay later. What is then the basis of their Machlokes?
(a) According to Admon, if two people produce a Sh'tar Chov on one another,
the one can say to the other, 'If I owed you money, how could you then
borrow money from me'? What are the practical ramifications of Admon's
(b) What do the Chachamim say?
(a) Rav Nachman holds that if two people claim the same sum of money from
one another, each one may claim.
What does Rav Sheishes say?
(b) In which case does Rav Nachman agree with Rav Sheishes?
(c) So we try to establish the Machlokes when one of them has Beinonis
(middle quality fields), and the other one Ziburis (poor quality fields).
Given that a creditor normally claims Beinonis, what is then the basis of
(d) Rav Sheishes holds that the Ba'al Ziburis will claim his debtor's
Beinonis, who will then claim it back.
What does Rav Nachman hold?
(a) We query the above explanation however, because it assumes that the
owner of the Ziburis claimed first.
What would be the problem if the owner
of the Beinonis claimed first, according to Rav Nachman?
(b) So we establish their Machlokes when they both claimed at the same time
(in which case, either could stake his claim first) and it speaks when the
one had Idis and Beinonis, and the other one, Ziburis, and they argue over
the same point as in the previous answer.
Why, according to Rav Nachman,
is it not Hafuchei Matrasa? Why will the Ba'al Ziburis stand to gain
whichever one puts in his claim first?
(c) How does Rav Nachman establish the Chachamim in our Mishnah to reconcile
Rav Sheishes opinion with them?
(d) Why must it have been the *first* loan that was for five years and the
second one that was for ten (and not vice-versa)?
(a) In any event, there is a problem whether the five-year time period has
expired or not.
What is the problem according to ...
(b) So we establish their Machlokes on the last day of the five-year period.
What is then the basis of their Machlokes?
- ... the Rabbanan, if the five-year time period has expired?
- ... Admon, if it has not?
(c) Rami bar Chama reconciles Rav Sheishes with our Mishnah by establishing
the Mishnah when one of the two claimants is a Yasom. Now a Yasom may claim
Metaltelin from the debtor, but one cannot claim from the Metaltelin of
Yesomim. Consequently, 'Zeh Govah, ve'Zeh Govah' really mean 'Zeh Govah
ve'Zeh Ra'uy Ligvos'. Rava asks from the Lashon of the Mishnah, which says
've'Zeh Govah' and not 've'Zeh Ra'uy Ligvos'.
What else does he ask on
Rami bar Chama?
(d) Rava bases his Kashya on Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah.
Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah say about Yesomim who claimed land for
their father's debt?
(a) What sort of fields may one claim from Yesomim? Does this ruling hold
water even according to the opinion of Rav Sheishes, who holds 'be'Shel Kol
Adam Hein Shamin'?
(b) Based on that premise, we suggest that our Mishnah might be speaking
about a case where the Yesomim have Ziburis and the other Ba'al Chov has
Idis and Beinonis? How would the Chachamim's statement 'Zeh Govah ... ve'Zeh
Govah ... ' then work?
(c) On what grounds do we reject this answer too?
(a) What are the three lands for Nisu'in? What is their significance in this
Answers to questions
(b) Can a man force his wife to move from ...
(c) According to the Tana Kama, a man or a woman can force his spouse to
move from a less comfortable area to a more comfortable one.
- ... a town in one of the lands to a town in one of the other lands?
- ... one town or city in one of the lands to another?
Raban Shimon ben Gamliel say? What statement would Shmuel later make that
would explain Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's opinion?
(d) What are the advantages of living in ...
- ... a city (which is larger than a town on account of its shopping facilities) over living in a town?
- ... a town over living in a city?
(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Nechemyah, which praised the people
who volunteered to come and live in the city of Yerushalayim?
(b) Why did ben Sira say "*Kol* Yemei Ani Ra'im"? Why did he not take into
account Shabbos and Yom-tov, when even the poor eat well?
(c) And what did he mean when he said that the poor man had his vineyards
on top of the mountains? Why is that a disadvantage?
(a) Everybody can force their family to move to Eretz Yisrael and not to
move out of it.
Does this apply to women too?
(b) Which town has the same Din as Eretz Yisrael in this regard?
(c) Given that the money of K'putki is heavier than that of Eretz Yisrael
(and is therefore more valuable), what sort of currency will a man have to
pay if he married his wife ...
- ... in Eretz Yisrael and divorced her in K'putki?
- ... in K'putki and divorced her in Eretz Yisrael, according to the Tana Kama? ...
- ... according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel?
(a) When the Tana of our Mishnah says 'ha'Kol Ma'alin le'Eretz Yisrael, what
does 'ha'Kol' come to include?
(b) What does it come to include according to those who insert Eved Ivri in
(c) What does '*ha'Kol* Ma'alin li'Yerushalayim' come to include?
(d) Why does the Tana find it necessary to add 've'Ein *ha'Kol* Motzi'in
Mimenu' to include the same thing? Why is it not obvious, once we know that
Yerushalayim is like Eretz Yisrael in this regard?
(a) According to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, on what grounds do we always
follow the currency of Eretz Yisrael, whether the husband married his wife
there or whether he divorced her there? Either we should go after the place
where he married her (because that is where he obligated himself), or after
the place where he divorced her?
If no denomination of currency is mentioned, just silver, the debtor may pay
the creditor any denomination of silver coin that he wishes.
(b) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel always goes after the place where he married
On which major principle is his ruling based? What is his major bone
of contention with the Tana Kama?
(c) If someone produces a Sh'tar Chov which was written in Bavel, the debtor
must pay with Babylonian currency; if it was written in Eretz Yisrael, then
he must pay Eretz Yisrael currency.
What sort of currency will he have to
pay if no country is mentioned in the Sh'tar?
(d) What does the Tana mean when he concludes 'Mah she'Ein Kein bi'Kesuvah'?
Is he referring to the Reisha of the Beraisa or to the Seifa?
How do we
know that the Sh'tar was not referring to ...
- ... pieces of silver?
- ... P'rutos (so he should be able to give him copper P'rutos or silver to the value of a hundred copper P'rutos?
(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Behar "La'ses Lachem es Eretz
Cana'an, Liheyos Lachem L'Elokim"?
(b) What are the serious ramifications of this statement regarding living in
(c) If the Pasuk is not to be taken literally, what exactly does it mean?
(d) What did David ha'Melech declare when he was forcibly driven out of
Eretz Yisrael, that bears this out?
(a) Why was Rebbi Zeira careful to keep out of Rav Yehudah's sight, after
making his decision to move to Eretz Yisrael?
Answers to questions
(b) According to Rav Yehudah, the Pasuk in Yirmiyah "Bavelah Yavo'u,
ve'Shamah Yihyu" places an Isur on moving out of Bavel, even in order to go
to Eretz Yisrael (in times of Galus).
What does it mean according to Rebbi
(c) Rav Yehudah learns the Isur of moving out of Bavel, even in order to go
to Eretz Yisrael (in times of Galus), from the Pasuk in Yirmiyah "Bavelah
Yavo'u, ve'Shamah Yihyu".
What does Rebbi Zeira learn from this Pasuk?