REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 4
(a) If Rebbi Chiya cannot learn the 'Kal va'Chomer' (obligating a Shevu'ah
by Ha'ada'as Eidim) from Eid Echad directly (as we just proved), then from
where does he learn it?
(b) What is the source for 'Gilgul Shevu'ah'?
(c) How do we answer the Pircha that whereas by Eid Echad it is the Shevu'ah
that obligates the defendant, by Eidim it is the testimony that obligates
him (so how can Rebbi Chiya learn the one from the other)?
(d) But Piv is not subject to Hakchashah and Hazamah like Eidim are, as we
So from where do we finally learn the 'Kal va'Chomer'?
(a) What Pircha can we ask on the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh'? On what grounds might we
not be able to believe him with a Shevu'ah, even if we do believe him in the
cases of the Tzad ha'Shaveh?
(b) We repudiate this Kashya however, on the basis of a statement by Rav Idi
bar Avin Amar Rav Chisda.
What distinction does he draw between someone
who denies a loan and someone who denies a Pikadon?
(c) What is the reason for this distinction?
(d) What do we mean when we say that the law of Hazamah does not apply to an
(a) Bearing in mind what we just explained, why does Rebbi Chiya reject the
Pircha that the law of Hazamah applies to Eidim but not to the 'Tzad
(b) We conclude that there is no Kashya on Rebbi Chiya's 'Kal va'Chomer',
but that his proof from our Mishnah cannot pertain to the current Halachah.
(c) What conclusion do we draw from this regarding the Shevu'ah of our
(a) We also conclude that Rebbi Chiya's proof from our Mishnah pertains to
the other Din of Rebbi Chiya regarding 'Heilech'.
Seeing as even Rebbi Chiya is bound to agree that the Shevu'ah in our
Mishnah is a Takanas Chachamim (as we explained above), how can he prove
from it that Heilech is Chayav to swear mi'd'Oraysa?
What is 'Heilech'?
(b) How does Rebbi Chiya prove from our Mishnah that 'Heilech' is Chayav to
(c) On what grounds does Rav Sheishes rule that 'Heilech' is Patur from a
(d) How will Rav Sheishes then explain the Shevu'ah in our Mishnah?
Answers to questions
(a) What does Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar say about a Sh'tar which specifies
'Sela'im' or 'Dinrim' (but not how many), if the creditor claims five and
the debtor admits to three?
(b) Rebbi Akiva exempts him from a Shevu'ah, because it is Meishiv Aveidah.
What does he mean by that?
(c) What can we extrapolate from the fact that Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar
specifically mentions three? What would be the Din if the debtor admitted to
(d) What does this prove (regarding the Din of Heilech)?
(a) We conclude however, that Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar might obligate him
even if he admitted to two Sela'im or Dinrim.
Then why did he mention
(b) We refute this answer however, due to the Lashon of the Beraisa.
would Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar have said had he mentioned 'three' only on
account of Rebbi Akiva?
(c) So we conclude that, had the debtor admitted to only two Sela'im, he
would indeed have been Patur from a Shevu'ah, but that is even if Heilech
Why is that? What makes this case better than Heilech?
(d) As a matter of fact, he would be Patur anyway because every Sh'tar is a
claim on all the debtor's Karka, which are all Meshubad to the creditor (and
there is no Shevu'ah on Karka, whether the debtor denies Karka or admits
Then why is he Chayav to swear if he admits to three?
(a) Some cite the above proof (reversed) from Rebbi Akiva, who says that he
is Patur because of Meishiv Aveidah. What can we extrapolate from the fact
that Rebbi Akiva speaks about three Sela'im ... ? What would the Din be in a
case where the debtor admitted to two?
(b) What does this prove?
(c) And how do we refute this proof?
(d) Why must it be so? Why could Rebbi Akiva not possibly obligate the
debtor had he admitted to two?
(a) What is now the obvious Kashya on Rebbi Chiya?
(b) What is Rebbi Chiya's answer?
(a) What does the Mishnah in Shevu'os say in a case where Reuven claims
Karka and vessels, and Shimon admits to ...
Answers to questions
(b) What does Mar Zutra B'rei de'Rav Nachman extrapolate from this Beraisa
with regard to 'Keilim ve'Keilim'? Why would this be a proof for Rebbi
- ... the vessels and denies the Karka or vice-versa?
- ... some of the Karka?
- ... some of the vessels?
(c) We answer that really 'Keilim ve'Keilim' is Patur too.
Then why did
the Tana speak specifically about 'Keilim ve'Karka'?
(d) Why does the Mishnah need to teach us 'Zokekin' by implication, when the
very same Mishnah in Shevu'os teaches it specifically?