REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 154
(a) If the benefactor and the beneficiary argue over whether the former was
a Bari or a Shechiv-Mera when he wrote the Sh'tar, the Chachamim in our
Mishnah hold 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero, Alav ha'Re'ayah'.
What does Rav Huna
mean when he says 'Re'ayah be'Eidim'?
(b) What is the basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim,
according to him?
(c) How do Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna interpret the Chachamim's
(d) What do the Chachamim then hold, once he has substantiated the Sh'tar?
Do they hold like Rebbi Nasan or like Rebbi Ya'akov?
(a) According to the Chachamim, what is the point of the beneficiary
substantiating the Sh'tar, seeing as the benefactor anyway admitted that he
(b) And what does Rebbi Meir mean, according to Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav
Huna, when he says 'Tzarich Le'havi Re'ayah she'Shechiv-Mera Hayah'?
(c) What is then the basis of their Machlokes?
(a) The Chachamim hold in the Mishnah in Kesuvos that if witnesses
substantiate their own signatures on a Sh'tar, but who then claim 'Anusim
Hayinu', 'Ketanim Hayinu' or 'Pesulim Hayinu', they are believed.
(b) And on what grounds does Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa disagree with this?
(c) What exactly, is the basis of their Machlokes?
(d) Seeing as they already present this Machlokes once, why do they find it
necessary to present it a second time? What might we have thought had ...
- ... the Chachamim not repeated their ruling here?
- ... Rebbi Meir not repeated his ruling there?
(a) Rabah agrees with Rav Huna, that when the Chachamim in our Mishnah say
'ha'Motzi me'Chavero, Alav ha'Re'ayah', they mean with witnesses. What did
he reply when Abaye suggested that perhaps this was because the Sh'tar
lacked the clause (generally contained in the Sh'tar of a Bari) stating that
the benefactor was 'walking on his two feet'?
(b) Then what *is* the Chachamim's reason, according to Rabah?
(c) Rebbi Yochanan too, holds like Rav Huna, whereas Resh Lakish holds
'Re'ayah be'Kiyum ha'Sh'tar', like Rav Chisda and Rabah bar Rav Huna. Rebbi
Yochanan asked on Resh Lakish from a Beraisa.
When one of the heirs sold
some property of the father's estate and died, what was the bone of
contention between the remaining brothers and the purchaser?
(d) What did Rebbi Akiva rule when the purchasers asked for permission to
examine the deceased brother's body, to ascertain that he was a Gadol when
(a) Where was Rebbi Akiva when this She'eilah came before him?
(b) What was Rebbi Yochanan trying to prove from this Beraisa?
(a) How did Resh Lakish refute Rebbi Yochanan's Kashya? In whose possession
was the property, and who was the claimant, according to him?
Answers to questions
(b) How did Resh Lakish attempt to prove his point from the claimant's
(c) Based on Rebbi Akiva's complete ruling, how do we repudiate that proof?
(a) Resh Lakish queried Rebbi Yochanan from a Beraisa cited by bar Kapara,
where Reuven claims that the field that Shimon claimed was his, really
belonged to *him*.
What does the Tana rule there, when Shimon produces a
Sh'tar to prove that he sold it to him or gave it to him as a gift, in the
event that Reuven ...
(b) What is ...
- ... denies having written it?
- ... counters that it was a Sh'tar Pasim or a Sh'tar Amanah (and he had not yet paid)?
(c) Resh Lakish asked whether the author of this Beraisa was Rebbi Meir, who
says 'Modeh bi'Sh'tar she'Kasvo, Ein Tzarich Le'kaymo' (in the Beraisa that
we quoted earlier).
- ... 'a Sh'tar Pasim'?
- ... 'a Sh'tar Amanah'?
What did Rebbi Yochanan reply?
(d) And what did Rebbi Yochanan reply, when Resh Lakish quoted him (in
connection with the Beraisa that we quoted a little earlier) as having
justified the claim of the remaining brothers that their deceased brother
had been a Katan when he sold their father's property?
(a) Rebbi Zeira asked on Rebbi Yochanan from Rebbi Yanai.
What was the
relationship between Rebbi Yanai and Rebbi Yochanan?
(b) What did Rebbi Yanai quote Rebbi as saying?
(c) Rebbi Yochanan asked on Rebbi Yanai that this was already stated by our
To what was he referring? How does Rebbi Yochanan now interpret
the 'Re'ayah' of the Chachamim?
(a) We explain Rebbi Yochanan's statement ' ... Divrei ha'Kol Eino Tzarich
Le'kaymo', by citing Rav Yosef.
Answers to questions
How does Rav Yosef Amar Rav Yehudah Amar
Shmuel present the Machlokes in our Mishnah between Rebbi Meir and the
(b) How will this help us to explain Rebbi Yochanan's statement? Why did he
say 'Divrei ha'Kol, Eino Tzarich Le'kaymo', seeing as Rebbi Meir disagrees?
(c) In light of this explanation, how will we now explain a. the Beraisa,
which quotes the opinions of Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan like they are
quoted in our Mishnah and b. Rebbi Yochanan himself, who said earlier
'Re'ayah be'Eidim' (whilst Resh Lakish said 'Re'ayah be'Kiyum ha'Sh'tar')?
(d) Earlier on the Amud, we cited Rebbi Yochanan, who queried Resh Lakish
from the Beraisa of Rebbi Akiva (that Re'ayah must mean 'Re'ayah be'Eidim').
Does this mean that we must also switch the Kashya, and that it was Resh
Lakish who really queried Rebbi Yochanan?