REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 45
BAVA BASRA 44-55 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of
love for the Torah and for those who study it.
(a) We discussed earlier the ruling of Ravin bar Shmuel 'ha'Mocher Sadeh
la'Chavero she'Lo be'Achrayus Ein Me'id Lo Alehah speaking when Shimon (the
seller) owned other fields?
(b) If, on the other hand, Shmuel is speaking when the disputed field was
Shimon's only property, why should it concern him that it remains in Levi's
(c) The Kashya remains however. Even if the claimant would win the case, why
will Levi not then accuse Shimon of being "a Loveh Rasha ve'Lo Yeshalem"? So
why is he prejudiced?
(a) Rava (or Rav Papa) made an important announcement, which he wanted
everyone to know.
What did he mean when he said 'de'Salkin le'Eila,
(b) What did he announce about Reuven who sold Shimon a donkey, which a
Nochri took by force?
(c) This will only apply however, if the Nochri took the donkey but not the
Why is that?
(d) Which second condition will be required before Reuven will be obligated
to make this effort on behalf of Shimon? When will he not be obligated to do
(a) Why will Reuven not be obligated to talk the Nochri into returning the
donkey to Shimon if either of the two conditions is not met?
(b) How would the Din have differed if it had been a Yisrael who coerced
Shimon into handing him the donkey?
(c) Ameimar disagrees with Rava.
What does he say, based on the Pasuk in
Tehilim "Asher Pihem Diber Shav, vi'Yeminam Yemin Shaker"?
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that an Uman has no Chazakah. Rabah restricts
this to where the owner handed the article with witnesses.
What is the
reason for this? Will it make any difference whether the article was seen in
his possession or not?
(b) Would he be believed if he claimed that he gave the article back in
front of witnesses, who then left for overseas?
(c) Then why is he not believed to say that he returned the article without
witnesses since he could have claimed that he returned it in front of two
witnesses who then went overseas?
(a) On what grounds will the Uman be believed if the article was handed over
to him without witnesses?
Answers to questions
(b) Will it make any difference whether the article was seen in his
possession or not?
(c) Abaye asked Rabah why the 'Migu' was not applicable even if the owner
handed the Uman the article with witnesses.
What did Rabah reply? What is
the basis of their Machlokes?
(a) What does the Beraisa say about a case where Reuven queries the Uman
about his Eved, whom witnesses find training with him, or his cloak which
they spot with the laundryman, assuming that the latter replies ...
(b) Even though, in the case of the cloak, the Tana is speaking about an
immediate Chazakah, the case of the Eved must be speaking about one of three
- ... 'You gave him to me as a gift?
- ... 'You asked Levi to give him/it to me as a gift?
Why is that?
(c) Rava establishes the Seifa when they found the Eved or the cloak in the
Reshus of Levi, from whom Reuven now claims it.
What is the case?
(d) How does this explain why he is believed, even though in the Reisha, he
(a) The Reisha presents the case of 'Ra'ah'.
What Kashya does Rava now ask
from the Reisha, 'Ra'ah Avdo be'Yad Uman ... Lo Amar K'lum' on Rabah,
assuming that there were witnesses who saw that the article was handed over
(b) What does Rava try to extrapolate from there? What will be the Kashya on
Rabah if we establish the Beraisa when there are no witnesses?
(c) Why is this a Kashya on Rabah?
(d) How does Rabah answer the Kashya? Is the Tana speaking when there are
witnesses or not?
(a) In which point are Rabah and Abaye now arguing?
(b) In a case where the Uman claims that Reuven fixed a price of two Zuz to
repair his cloak, whereas Reuven counters that he promised him only one,
what does the Tana rule as long as the Uman still has the cloak in his
(c) Why is that?
(d) What does the Tana rule if the dispute arises after the Uman has already
returned it? What distinction does he draw between Toch Zemano and le'Achar
Zemano? What is considered 'Toch Zemano'?
(a) Bearing in mind the principle 'Ein Nishba'in ve'Notlin', what is the
significance of the Tana's ruling in the case of 'Toch Zemano'?
(b) The reason that the Uman is believed is because he has a 'Migu' (because
he could have claimed that he bought the cloak).
How does Rava attempt to
prove Rabah's viewpoint from there?
(c) How do we refute Rava's proof?
(a) What does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak extrapolate from our Mishnah 'Uman
Ein Lo Chazakah'?
Answers to questions
(b) Why can the Beraisa not be speaking when the article was handed to the
Uman without witnesses?
(c) How does Rava finally prove Rabah wrong from there?
(d) Why can we not refute this proof by establishing the Mishnah when the
article was not seen in the Reshus of the Uman?