REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 67
(a) When Rav Nachman made his statement conceding that the seller cannot
reclaim any fruit that the purchaser actually picked and ate (because he
holds 'Mechilah be'Ta'us Havya Mechilah') - what did Rava have in mind to
ask him from Ona'ah?
Rava concludes however, that neither is Ona'ah a Kashya on Rav Nachman, nor
does Aylonis prove him right.
(b) Rav Nachman however, preempted his Kashya, by proving from Aylonis that
'Mechilah be'Ta'us is indeed Mechilah.
What does the Tana of the Mishnah
in Kesuvos say about a Mema'enes, a Sheniyah and an Aylonis with regard to
Kesuvah (including her Nechsei Tzon Barzel), Peiros, Mezonos or Bela'os (her
worn-out clothes that her husband used)?
(c) What is the reason for this, regarding ...
(d) How does Rav Nachman prove his point from here?
- ... a Mema'enes?
- ... a Sheniyah?
- ... an Aylonis?
Why is ...
- ... Ona'ah not a Kashya? Why is it not considered Mechilah be'Ta'us?
- ... Aylonis not a proof.
Why is it not considered a Mechilah be'Ta'us?
(a) After Reuven purchased a field on behalf of a woman called Navla, what
did he reply when Shimon the seller asked him whether Navla would return the
field if he obtained the money with which to buy it back?
(b) What else might 'At ve'Navla Achi' mean?
(c) What initial ruling did Rabah bar Rav Huna issue in this case?
(d) The field certainly had to be returned.
What did he eventually rule
with regard to the Peiros that Navla had eaten in the meantime? Who
concurred with Rabah bar Rav Huna's ruling?
(a) Abaye asked Rabah what the Din would be in the equivalent case of
What is the case of Mashkanta?
(b) We might consider the fruit Avak Ribis, like in the previous case,
because there was no stipulation permitting the creditor to eat the fruit.
Why might we nevertheless obligate the creditor to return the fruit as if it
was Ribis Ketzutzah?
(c) How do we reconcile Rabah, who replied that here too, the fruit is
considered Avak Ribis, with Rav Nachman, who ruled earlier (with regard to
our Mishnah, 'Hadri Ar'a, ve'Hadri Peiri')?
(d) Ravina is even more stringent than Rabah bar Rav Huna.
What does Rav
Papi quote him as having ruled?
(a) Mar B'rei de'Rav Yosef rules in the name of Rava 'be'Asra de'Mesalki,
Achal Shiur Zuzi, Mesalkinan Lei'.
What does Rava mean by ...
(b) And what does Rava ...
- ... 'be'Asra de'Mesalki'?
- ... 'Achal Shiur Zuzi, Mesalkinan Lei'?
(c) What did Rava rule with regard to the two latter Dinim if the field
belonged to Yesomim?
- ... rule in a case where the creditor ate in excess of the loan?
- ... mean when he adds 've'Lo Mechashvinan mi'Sh'tara li'Sh'tara'?
(d) Why is that?
(a) Why does Rava confine the above rulings to a place where *it is
customary* for the debtor to redeem his field with money ('be'Asra
de'Mesalki')? How will the Din differ in a place where *it is not*?
Answers to questions
(b) We just learned that Rava obligates the creditor to return the field,
before he continues to eat any more fruit (if the debtor so claims).
does Rav Ashi say?
(c) Why does he not reckon the fruit that the creditor ate as the payment of
the debt, like Rava holds?
(d) What does Rav Ashi rule with regard to Yesomim? In which point does he
disagree with Rava's previous ruling?
(a) Rava B'rei de'Rav Yosef in the name of Rava only permits a creditor to
eat from a Mashkon be'Asra de'Mesalki by means of Nachyasa.
'Nachyasa'? Why is it not considered Ribis?
(b) And he adds that a Tzurba mi'de'Rabbanan (a Talmid-Chacham) should avoid
Why is that?
(c) Why does Rava restrict the initial ruling to Asra de'Mesalki? How will
the Din differ in an Asra de'Lo Mesalki?
(a) Initially, we advise a Tzurba mi'de'Rabbanan to accept a Mashkon
'be'Kitzusa', according to those who permit it (in fact, it is a Machlokes
between Rav Acha and Ravina - see Tosfos DH 'Ravina'). According to the
first Lashon, 'Kitzusa' means that the creditor eats the fruit for five
years without deducting from the loan, but from then on, he assesses all the
fruit that grows and deducts it from the loan.
With which point does the
second Lashon disagree?
(b) How does the second Lashon then define 'Kitzusa'?
(c) According to the first Lashon, everyone will agree that 'Kitzusa', the
way the second Lashon defines it, is permitted even for a Talmid-Chacham.
What is the only concession for a Talmid-Chacham according to the one who is
strict in the second Lashon? What is 'Mashkanta de'Sura'?
(a) Rav Papa and Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua state that the Ba'al-Chov
(creditor) of a creditor who has a Mashkon be'Asra de'Mesalki and who died,
cannot claim the field or the Peiros from his heirs.
(b) Why on the other hand, could he have claimed the Peiros from their
father in his lifetime?
(c) Similarly, they said that, in the event of the creditor's death, his
Bechor does not receive a double portion from that field, and Sh'mitah
cancels the debt.
Why does ...
(d) Why do Rav Papa and Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua then rule that in the
case of a Mashkon be'Asra de'Lo Mesalki, the creditor's Ba'al-Chov can claim
the Mashkon from the creditor's heirs, the Bechor receives double and
Sh'mitah does not cancel the debt?
- ... the Bechor not receive a double portion?
- ... Sh'mitah cancel the debt (in spite of the Mashkon)?
(a) Mar Zutra quoting Rav Papa rules that regarding a Mashkon of date-palms
in an Asra de'Mesalki, the debtor can even reclaim mi'Tamri de'Abudya.
What are 'Tamri de'Abudya'?
(b) At which stage however, could he no longer claim them?
(c) And according to which opinion would he no longer be able to claim even
before the creditor picked them up?
(a) If, be'Asra de'Mesalki, the debtor undertakes not to 'redeem' the land
by paying, no Kinyan is required to clinch the stipulation.
If it were,
when would it have taken place? What form would it have taken?
(b) What would have been the point of the Kinyan anyway? What would it have
(c) If, be'Asra de'Lo Mesalki, the creditor undertakes to allow the debtor
to pay and 'redeem' his land, Rav Papa does not require a Kinyan to clinch
What does Rav Shisha B'rei de'Rav Idi say? Like whom is
(d) What does the Kinyan achieve in this case?
(a) What will be the Din if, be'Asra de'Mesalki, the debtor informs the
creditor that he is going to fetch the money to pay him?
(b) In which case then does Ravina say that the creditor may eat and Mar
Zutra B'rei de'Rav Mari say that he may not?
(c) Like whom is the Halachah?
(a) Rav Kahana, Rav Papa and Rav Ashi did not eat the fruit of a Mashkon
'be'Nachyasa' (as we learned above). When Mar Zutra asked Ravina why he did,
he replied that it was no different than S'dei Achuzah.
Answers to questions
What did he mean
by S'dei Achuzah? Which Din of S'dei Achuzah was he referring to?
(b) And what did he mean by the comparison to Mashkanta?
(c) On what grounds then, did Ravina's colleagues disagree with him? What
distinction do they draw between S'dei Achuzah and Mashkanta?