REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Sanhedrin 31
(a) Like which Tana do we initially establish the Neherdai, who even accept
a discrepancy in the testimony of the two witnesses concerning a black Manah
and a white Manah?
(b) On what grounds do we reject that?
(c) So we establish the Neherdai like Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar.
*he* say in a Beraisa, concerning one pair of witnesses, one of whom
testifies that Reuven lent Shimon a Manah, and the other, that he lent him
two, according to ...
(d) And what does he say in the same case, only where one *pair of
witnesses* says one Manah, and the other says two?
- ... Beis Shamai?
- ... Beis Hillel?
(a) What did Rebbi Ami rule in a case where one witness testified that
Reuven owes Shimon a barrel of wine, and the other one, that he owes him a
barrel of oil?
(b) What do we ask on this, even after establishing it like Rebbi Shimon ben
(c) How do we answer that?
(d) On what grounds did Rebbi combine the testimonies of one witness who
testified that Reuven lent Shimon a Manah in the upper-attic, and the other
witness, who testified that he lent him a Manah in the lower-attic?
(a) In what connection do we quote the Pasuk in Mishlei "Holech Rachil
Megaleh Sod" with regard to our Mishnah?
(b) Why did Rebbi Ami expel a certain Talmid from the Beis-Hamedrash,
coupled with the announcement 'Dein Galya Raza!'?
(c) How many years earlier had they discussed that secret?
(a) What does the Tana of our Mishnah mean when he says 'Kol Z'man she'Meivi
Re'ayah, Soser es ha'Din'?
(b) According to the Tana Kama, if Beis-Din order a litigant to bring all
his proofs within thirty days, then he must do so.
What does Raban Shimon
ben Gamliel say?
(c) In which other case do the Tana Kama and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel repeat
(d) What does the Tana say about a case where one of the litigants,
realizing that he is about to lose his case, suddenly produces two
witnesses, or pulls out documentary evidence from his belt?
(a) In which of the two cases in our Mishnah does Rabah bar Rav Huna rule
like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel?
(b) Why does he then add that the Halachah is not like the Chachamim? Is
that not obvious?
(a) What does Rabah bar Rav Huna say with regard to the Halachah in the
second Machlokes between the Chachamim and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel?
(b) There too, we ask why Rabah bar Rav Huna finds it necessary to add 'Ein
Halachah ke'Raban Shimon ben Gamliel'.
What do we answer this time? Which
ruling of Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan is he coming to negate?
(c) Why did we not give the same answer as we gave previously (regarding
Lechatchilah and Bedi'eved)?
(a) What did that young defendant reply in court (see Tosfos DH 'Chayveih'),
when Rav Nachman asked him whether he had any witnesses or proofs?
(b) What happened after Rav Nachman obligated him to pay?
(c) Why did Rav Nachman relent in spite of Rebbi Yochanan's previous ruling?
(a) What was that woman doing with the Sh'tar that she claimed had been
Answers to questions
(b) When Rav Nachman believed her, Rava suggested that this was because he
held like Rebbi.
What does Rebbi say?
(c) On what grounds did Rav Nachman reject Rava's suggestion? Why would he
have believed her even according to the Chachamim of Rebbi?
(d) According to the second Lashon, Rav Nachman did not believe her (like
the Chachamim of Rebbi).
What happened to the 'Migu' of 'I Ba'i Kalsah'?
(a) What does the Beraisa say about a Simpon which is produced by ...
(b) What is the reason for this latter ruling?
- ... the debtor? What is a 'Simpon'?
- ... a third party (unsigned) or if it appears after the signatures on the Sh'tar-Chov itself?
(c) What Kashya does this pose on Rav Nachman?
(d) What does Rav Nachman have to say about this?
(a) What does Rav Dimi Amar Rebbi Yochanan appear to mean when he ...
(b) How do we try and solve the discrepancy the Kashya by establishing the
entire Beraisa like one Tana?
- ... permits a litigant to bring proofs or to withdraw 'ad she'Yistatem Ta'anosav'? Like which Tana does this go?
- ... then adds 've'Yomar Kirvu Ish P'loni u'Peloni ve'Ye'iduni'? Like which Tana does that go?
(c) And how do we refute this suggestion by citing Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar
Rebbi Yochanan? What does he say?
(d) So we re-quote Rebbi Yochanan, this time presented by Rav Shmuel bar
Assuming that the litigant said 'Ein Li Eidim, Ein Li Re'ayah',
in which case will Rebbi Yochanan nevertheless accept ...
- ... witnesses?
- ... documentary evidence?
(a) What is the 'Makom ha'Va'ad'? What is the advantage of having one's case
(b) Why did Rebbi Elazar object to Rav Dimi quoting Rabbi Yochanan that one
litigant can force the other to take their case to the Makom ha'Va'ad? What
sort of Ba'alei-Din was Rebbi Yochanan talking about?
(c) Rav Safra agreed with Rebbi Elazar? What did they both rule?
(d) What do Beis-Din subsequently do, should ..
- ... they encounter difficulties with regard to the Halachah?
- ... the litigant request their reason for having obligated him, in writing?
(a) Who goes to whom in a case of a Yavam and a Yevamah?
(b) Rebbi Ami adds 'Afilu mi'Teverya le'Tzipori'.
What is the significance
of that statement?
(c) How does Rav Kahana extrapolate this from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei
"ve'Kar'u Lo Ziknei Iyro"?
(d) How did Ameimar justify to Rav Ashi his statement 'Hilchesa, Kofin Oso
ve'Dan be'Makom ha'Va'ad', in light of Rebbi Elazar, who just ruled 'Kofin
Oso ve'Dan be'Iyro'?
(e) What is Ameimar's reason for this ruling?
(a) When they referred to Mar Ukva the Dayan as 'li'de'Ziv Leih ke'Bar
Bisya', they may have meant that his face shone like that of Moshe Rabeinu,
who was brought up by Bisyah, the daughter of Par'oh.
How else might we
amend 'ke'Bar Bisyah' to read?
(b) Mar Ukva's face might have shone as a result of his wisdom. According to
Seifer Hagadah, the shine was a form of halo in he shape of a Menorah.
What was the cause of that?
(a) What was the gist of Mar Ukva's complaint against his brother Yirmiyah?
***** Hadran Alach Zeh Borer *****
(b) What was the problem with the Beis-Din's wording, when they first wrote
to the Beis-Din in Bavel 'Imru Lo', and then 'Hisi'uhu ve'Yir'eh Paneinu
(c) Why was it in fact, necessary to call Mar Ukva and his brother to come
(d) Then why did they first ask the Beis-Din in Bavel to deal with the case?
Answers to questions