REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Sanhedrin 30
(a) What was strange about that Sh'tar that appeared in Beis-Din written in
the language of Beis-Din? How many witnesses signed it?
(b) On what grounds did ...
(c) According to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, what could they have written to
get round the problem?
- ... Ravina nevertheless want to validate it?
- ... did Rav Nasan bar Ami quoting Rava, object?
(a) We query Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's suggestion however, due to Shmuel.
What does Shmuel say about a Beis-Din comprising two judges? How does that
create a problem here?
(b) How do we resolve this problem?
What could they have added to the above
to obviate this problem too?
(c) How can we be so sure that the Beis-Din of Rav Ashi did not err?
(a) What does the Beraisa say in a case where someone tells the Yorshin how
he saw their father hiding money in a large box of sorts and declared that
it belonged to so-and-so, or was Ma'aser-Sheini money? What distinction does
the Tana draw between whether the box was in a field or in the house?
(b) Why the difference?
(c) What distinction does the Tana draw in the same case, but where the sons
themselves watched their father hiding the money? When do we take his
instructions seriously, and when do we not?
(d) And what does the Tana say about a case where a person's deceased father
appears to him in a dream, telling him where he will find a sum of money,
adding that it belongs to so-and-so or to Ma'aser Sheini?
(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, in the case in our Mishnah, where two
judges rule 'Zakai' (say), and the third one 'Chayav', the Sofrim write
'P'loni Zakai' (or 'Chayav' in the reverse case).
What does Resh Lakish
(b) On what grounds do we reject our initial interpretation of the Machlokes
whether, in the event that they become obligated to pay, the third judge has
to pay too (Rebbi Yochanan) or not (Resh Lakish)?
(a) So we establish the Machlokes whether the two judges need to pay the
portion of the third judge (Rebbi Yochanan) or not (Resh Lakish).
grounds do we reject this suggestion too?
(b) We finally attribute Rebbi Yochanan to the La'av of "Lo Seilech Rachil
be'Amecha" (which renders it wrong to inform the litigants what the
individual judges ruled).
What is then Resh Lakish's reason?
(c) In fact there is a third opinion. According to Rebbi Elazar, they write
'mi'Divreihen Nizdakeh P'loni'.
What is his reason?
(a) Our Mishnah states 'Gamru es ha'Davar, Machnisin Osan'.
To whom might
(b) Why, initially, do we not want to ascribe it to the litigants?
(c) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa requires the two witnesses to view the
What does Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah say?
(d) The Tana Kama also requires them to testify together in Beis-Din.
does Rebbi Nasan say?
(a) If we now establish 'Machnisin Osan' with regard to the witnesses, who
will be the author of the Mishnah?
(b) We counter this however, by establishing it with regard to the
litigants, and the author is Rebbi Nechemyah.
What does Rebbi Nechemyah
say in a Beraisa about the custom of the refined people of Yerushalayim?
(c) We ask on this from a Beraisa which explicitly states 'Machnisin es
What do we conclude?
(a) Assuming the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah argue over a
S'vara, what must be the case over which they are arguing?
(b) How can Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah combine two witnesses who are
testifying on different transactions?
(c) If, on the other hand, their argument is based on a Pasuk, how will the
Tana Kama explain the words "Lo Yakum Eid Echad" (in Vayikra, in connection
with a Korban Shevu'as ha'Eidus)? Why does the Torah ...
(d) How does Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah counter this? What does he learn
from the continuation of the Pasuk "O Ra'ah O Yada"?
- ...add the word "Echad"?
- ... then write "Eid" and not "Eidim"?
(a) Similarly, the Tana Kama and Rebbi Nasan might argue over a S'vara or
Answers to questions
What is the Tana Kama's S'vara? In what way is the testimony of a
single witness flawed?
(b) And how does Rebbi Nasan counter this argument?
(c) The Pasuk they argue over is the continuation of the same Pasuk in
Vayikra "Im Lo Yagid ve'Nasa Avono".
What is the basis of their Machlokes?
(d) What must both opinions then hold vis-a-vis the Machlokes between the
Tana Kama and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah?
(a) What was Rebbi Shimon ben Elyakim trying hard to do to Rebbi Yossi
(b) How did he eventually get Rebbi Yochanan to do the trick? What did he
tell Rebbi Yochanan about Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina?
(c) What did the latter actually tell Rebbi Yochanan that he had heard?
(d) Why was Rebbi Yochanan not impressed? What rendered that information
(a) What did Rebbi Zeira extrapolate from the fact that Rebbi Yochanan did
not withdraw the Semichah?
(b) Rebbi Chiya bar Avin Amar Rav rules like Rebbi Yochanan both by Karka'os
and by Metaltelin.
What is the case by ...
(c) What does Ula say?
- ... Karka'os?
- ... Metaltelin?
(d) How do we reconcile Ula's statement (implying that the Rabbanan argue
with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah even by Karka'os), with Rebbi Aba Amar Rav
Huna Amar Rav and others, who restrict the Rabbanan's opinion to Metaltelin?
(a) Tani Rav Idi bar Avin be'Nizakin de'Bei Karna (one of those who agree
with Rebbi Aba Amar Rav Huna Amar Rav), adds that the Rabbanan also concede
to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah by Eidus Bechor, Eidus Chazakah and she'be'Ben
ve'she'be'Bas. 'she'be'Ben ve'she'be'Bas' refers to the two hairs that a
Katan requires to become a Gadol.
What, in this context, is ...
(b) Why can 'Eidus Bechor' not be speaking when each witness testified
independently that a Chacham permitted the Bechor?
- ... 'Eidus Bechor'?
- ... 'Eidus Chazakah'?
(c) If the Rabbanan agree in these three cases, why do they argue in our
case (of a loan of a Manah)?
(d) In the case of she'be'Ben ve'she'be'Bas, why can Tani Rav Idi bar Avin
not be speaking when one witness testifies that he saw a hair on the back of
the child's hand (or on the lower back), and the second witness, on his
(e) Then what *is* the case?
(a) The Rabbanan who came from Mechuza quoting Rebbi Zeira in the name of
Rav rule like Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah by Karka, but not by Metaltelin.
Rav is merely following his own reasoning, Ula declares.
What did Rav say
(b) What is the reason for the difference between the two?
- ... Hoda'ah Achar Hoda'ah or Hoda'ah Achar Halva'ah?
- ... Halva'ah Achar Halva'ah or Halva'ah Achar Hoda'ah?
(c) What does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak ask Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua?
Why is he not happy with ...
- ... Hoda'ah Achar Hoda'ah initially?
- ... Hoda'ah Achar Hoda'ah, even after he answered him that the debtor must inform the second witness that he is admitting to the same Manah as he admitted to the first?
(a) How did Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua resolve the problem?
(b) What was his reaction when Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak thanked him for
putting his mind at rest? What spoke did Rava or Rav Sheishes place in the
(c) What did Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak mean when he told Rav Huna B'rei
de'Rav Yehoshua that he now understood why he had heard him described as
someone who bends date-palms and straightens them again?
(d) On what grounds do the Neherda'i combine the witnesses in all four of
the above cases?
(a) With regard to Eidus Mamon, Rav Yehudah validates the testimony of two
witnesses who contradict each other in the Bedikos.
Answers to questions
What are 'Bedikos'?
(b) Rava restricts Rav Yehudah's ruling to where one of the witnesses refers
to a black purse, and the other, to a white one.
What does he come to
(c) What distinction does Rav Chisda draw between a discrepancy in the
witnesses testimony concerning the type of weapon used by the murderer, and
a discrepancy in the color clothes that the murderer or the murdered man
(d) But did Rav (explaining Rav Yehudah) not just explain that a discrepancy
in Bedikos is only acceptable by cases of Mamon, but not by cases of