REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kesuvos 84
(a) We then suggest that Rav agrees with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, that
'ha'Masneh al Mah she'Kasuv ba'Torah, Tena'o Bateil', but he holds that, if
the woman dies, her husband (who made the T'nai, 'Din u'Devarim ... '), does
not inherit her.
(b) What is wrong with this suggestion?
(a) We then suggest that Rav disagrees with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's
opinion, inasmuch as Raban Shimon ben Gamliel holds 'ha'Masneh ...
*bi'd'Oraysa*, Tena'o Bateil' (Ha bi'de'Rabbanan, Tena'o Kayam), whereas
*he* holds that even 'bi'de'Rabbanan, Tena'o Bateil.
What would be the
practical ramifications of their Machlokes?
(b) On what grounds do we reject this suggestion?
(c) So how do we finally establish Rav?
(a) What ruling does Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, in a Mishnah in Bechoros,
issue with regard to a husband who inherits his wife?
(b) Does an heir need to return his inheritance to the family of the
deceased in the Yovel year?
(c) What is the problem with Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah's ruling, assuming
that he holds 'Yerushas ha'Ba'al de'Rabbanan'?
(d) So how does Rav establish his ruling? Why does the man need to return
the inheritance and what is the significance of the monetary deduction?
(a) This explanation is borne out by a Beraisa.
What does the Beraisa say
about someone who sells his family sepulcher together with the path that
leads to it?
(b) How do we reconcile Rav's interpretation of Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah's
ruling with his own ruling that Yerushas ha'Ba'al is de'Rabbanan?
(a) If someone dies, leaving a wife, creditors and heirs, according to Rebbi
Tarfon, any Pikadon (an object that is deposited with a third person), or
money that is owed to him, is given to the 'weakest of them' (which will
explained later in the Sugya - and not to the heirs).
On what grounds ...
(b) What does Rebbi Tarfon say about detached fruit in the same
- ... do we ignore the principle 'Metalteli de'Yasmi Lo Mishtabdi le'Ba'al Chov'?
- ... does Rebbi Akiva say that it is given to the heirs (rather than to the other claimants who now stand to lose their claims)?
(c) What do Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva say in the previous case, in the
event that the wife took more than the amount of her Kesuvah or the creditor
took more than the amount of his loan? What happens to the excess?
(d) Having told us the Din by a loan, why does the Tana find it necessary to
add that the same applies to a Pikadon?
(a) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina interprets 'the weakest' in our Mishnah as
the one with the weakest proof.
What does he mean by that?
(b) Rebbi Yochanan interprets it to mean 'the woman, who is claiming her
What does the Tana mean by that?
(a) Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva argue in the Seifa regarding the excess
fruit which the woman or the creditors claimed.
Answers to questions
What does Rebbi Akiva hold
with regard to the initial amount that is owed to them?
(b) Then why does he mention specifically the excess?
(c) Does Rebbi Akiva not hold of Tefisah (taking the object of doubt into
one's possession) at all?
(a) According to Rav and Shmuel, Rebbi Tarfon permits Tefisah even after the
death of the original owner, only if the objects are lying in the street.
What would be the Din if they were lying in a Simta, according to them?
(b) What do Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish say?
(c) What did Rebbi Yochanan say when Resh Lakish forced the Dayanim who
ruled like Rebbi Tarfon to rescind their ruling?
(d) Based on the principle 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Akiva me'Chaveiro', how do we
initially explain their Machlokes?
(a) Is the principle 'Ta'ah bi'D'var Mishnah, Chozer' confined to an error
in a Mishnah, as the wording suggests?
(b) Alternatively, we contend, both Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish agree
that 'Ta'ah bi'D'var Mishnah, Chozer', but, assuming that Rebbi Tarfon was
Rebbi Akiva's Rebbe, they argue whether the Halachah is like Rebbi Akiva
even when he argues with his Rebbe.
What is the alternative to this
(c) What might be the basis of Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish's Machlokes,
even assuming that Rebbi Tarfon was Rebbi Akiva's colleague, and not his
(a) Rebbi Yochanan vindicated his relatives, who took possession of a cow
belonging to an orphan (whose deceased father owed them money) that was
standing in a Simta (like Rebbi Tarfon).
What did Resh Lakish say?
(b) How did Rebbi Yochanan react when he heard what Resh Lakish had ruled?
(c) A certain creditor claimed that he had taken possession of an ox from
the orphans' shepherd *before* their father's death, whilst the shepherd
countered that he had taken it *after* his death.
On what basis did Rav
Nachman believe the creditor?
(d) How do we reconcile this with Resh Lakish, who says that a Chazakah
(proof of ownership from the fact that they are in one's domain) is not
acceptable with regard to animals, who may have walked into one's field by
(a) When the family of the sexilarch took possession of a maidservant
belonging to orphans from a Simta (like Rebbi Tarfon, according to Rebbi
Yochanan and Resh Lakish's interpretation). What did Rebbi Aba comment,
when various Amora'im vindicated their action.
(b) When Yeimar bar Chashu's debtor died, Yeimar sent his Sh'liach to take
possession of a boat that he had left. Rav Papa and Rav Huna Brei de'Rav
Yehoshua objected, based on a statement by Rebbi Yochanan. What did Rebbi
(a) What is the significance of the fact that Rav Papa proceeded to row the
boat in the above episode, whilst Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua steered it?
Answers to questions
What claim did they have on the boat anyway?
(b) What did they retort, when Rav Pinchas bar Ami cited the opinion of Rav
and Shmuel, who hold that Tefisah from a Simta is not effective?
(c) When they eventually came before Rava, what disappointing news did he
have for them?