REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 32
BAVA BASRA 31 & 32 - these Dafim have been dedicated anonymously
l'Iluy Nishmas Tzirel Nechamah bas Tuvya Yehudah.
(a) So we try to establish the Machlokes between Rebbi Elazar and Raban
Shimon ben Gamliel (who both say 'Ma'alin li'Kehunah al-Pi Eid Echad') when
we had assumed the Safek's father to be a Kohen, then, after a Kol (a rumor)
began to spread that he was a ben Gerushah or a ben Chalutzah, one witness
reinstated him as a Kasher Kohen.
What happened next?
(b) Why does the Tana need to say that the first witness came to counter a
Kol? Why could he not begin the case with one witness who came to
consolidate the Safek's status as a Kohen?
(c) Assuming that both Tana'im agree that two witnesses who testify
separately can combine to form one unit, how do we try to explain their
(d) If Rebbi Elazar is concerned about Zilusa de'Bei Dina, why does he
permit Beis-Din to reinstate the Safek after having removed him following
(a) What is wrong with the above interpretation of the Machlokes? How do we
refute it, based on the fact that they argue in the case where one witness
came at the end?
(b) Then what is the basis of their Machlokes?
(c) In any event, seeing as the two pairs of witnesses contradict each
other, why is the Safek Kohen, Kasher according to Raban Shaimon ben
(d) In fact, this Machlokes is synonymous with another Machlokes Tana'im in
a Beraisa. The Tana Kama requires two witnesses to appear in Beis-Din
What does Rebbi Nasan say?
(a) In the same Beraisa, the Tana Kama requires the two witnesses to have
witnessed the transaction simultaneously.
Answers to questions
What does Rebbi Yehoshua ben
(b) How is it possible for two witnesses to witness the transaction at two
(c) And what does the Tana Kama say?
(d) What have we now concluded? How have we vindicated Rav Nachman, who is
not concerned about Zilusa de'Bei Dina?
(a) What did Reuven do, when, after producing a Sh'tar to substantiate that
he had purchased a field from Shimon, the latter countered that the Sh'tar
was a forgery?
(b) On what grounds did Rav Yosef object, when Rabah accepted his argument
on the basis of a 'Migu' (that he could have insisted that the Sh'tar was
(c) Did Reuven have a Chazakah on the field?
(d) How could Rabah even suggest that Reuven had a 'Migu', seeing as he
would then be obligated to substantiate the Sh'tar, which he himself had
admitted was a forgery?
(a) Rabah and Rav Yosef followed their same respective lines of thought in a
What did Reuven claim from Shimon there? What was the
(b) On what basis did Rav Idi bar Avin rule like Rabah in the first case,
but like Rav Yosef in the second?
(c) Why was he not consistent? After all, who was Muchzak was not the issue,
but whose line of thought was correct, Rabah's or Rav Yosef's?
(d) Why does Rav Idi bar Avin's ruling not clash with the ruling in 'Yesh
Nochlin', where we conclude that apart from 'Sadeh', 'Inyan' and 'Mechtzah',
the Halachah is like Rabah throughout Shas?
(a) An Areiv (guarantor) claimed a hundred Zuz from the debtor, claiming
that he had paid the creditor, and produced a Sh'tar to that effect.
sort of Areiv was he?
(b) What did the Areiv counter when the debtor claimed that he had already
(c) What did a rather surprised Abaye reply, when Rav Idi bar Avin (of all
people) asked him what the Halachah was in this case?
(a) What was then the basis of Rav Idi bar Avin's Safek? Why might this case
be worse (from the point of view of the debtor) than the previous one?
Answers to questions
(b) Why did Abaye nevertheless consider the two cases comparable?
(c) Under which circumstances would Abaye have obligated the debtor to pay?