REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Shevuos 46
SHEVUOS 46 (7 Adar) - dedicated in memory of the passing (on 7 Adar
5748/1988) of Moreinu Ha'Rav Ha'Gaon Rav Shaul David Ha'Kohen Margulies
ZT'L, Av Beis Din of Prushkov (suburb of Warsaw), Rav of Congregation Degel
Israel (Queens, N.Y.), examiner for Yeshivas Chachmei Lublin (in Poland) and
close disciple of ha'Gaon Rav Meir Shapiro (initiator of the Daf ha'Yomi).
Dedicated by Rebbetzin Margulies and Rabbi and Mrs. David Sheinfeld.
(a) They sent from Rav's Beis-Hamedrash to ask Shmuel who will have to swear
in a case where the craftsman claims that he was promised two Zuz, and the
employer counters that they only agreed on one.
What did Shmuel reply?
(b) What reason did he give to differentiate between this ruling and that of
'Sachir bi'Zemano Nishba ve'Notel'?
(c) How does Rav Nachman reconcile this with Rabah bar Shmuel, who concluded
(in this very case) 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero, Alav ha'Re'ayah', implying that if
the employee does not prove his claim, he loses outright (without the
employer having to swear)?
(a) We have a problem with Shmuel however, from a Beraisa which discuses a
case where a tailor claims two Zuz for repairing a coat, and the owner
claims that he only agreed to pay one.
What does the Tana rule as long as
the tailor still has the coat in his possession?
(b) If he already returned the coat to the owner, and claims his wages
within the time limit, the Tana applies the ruling of our Mishnah 'Sachir
bi'Zemano ... '.
What does he Tana rule in a case where he claims his
wages after the time limit has expired?
(c) Which of these rulings is a Kashya on Shmuel?
(d) To reconcile the Beraisa with Shmuel, Rav Nachman establishes the author
as Rebbi Yehudah.
What does Rebbi Yehudah say?
(a) Why do we reject the suggestion that the Rebbi Yehudah referred to by
Rav Nachman is the one in our Mishnah 'Rebbi Yehudah Omer, ad she'Tehei Sham
To reconcile Rabah bar Shmuel with the Beraisa, Rava concludes that in fact,
Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan argue over two separate issues.
(b) We therefore conclude that he is referring to Rebbi Yehudah in the
Beraisa. The Tana Kama there stresses that the Sachir only swears as long as
it is within the time limit set by the Torah. Rebbi Yehudah restricts this
ruling to a 'Modeh be'Miktzas'.
What two examples does he give of ...
(c) What logistical problem does Rav Shisha b'rei de'Rav Idi have with
confining the 'Kula' of 'Katzatzta Shetayim ... ' to Rebbi Yehudah?
- ... 'Modeh be'Miktzas'?
- ... 'Kofer ba'Kol (who does not swear)?
(d) On the other hand, what problem do we have with extending it to the
- ... is Rebbi Yehudah strict with the Sachir in the case of 'Kofer ba'Kol'?
- ... are the Rabbanan strict with him in the case of 'Shetayim Katzatzta Li ... '?
(a) What did Rav Nachman say about Reuven who picks up an ax and announces
that he is going to chop down Shimon's tree, in the event that Shimon's tree
is subsequently found chopped down?
Answers to questions
(b) What is the logic behind Rav Nachman's ruling?
(c) Based on this logic, what problem do we have with the case of 'Nigzal'
in our Mishnah?
(d) If, as we conclude, the Tana is speaking about vessels that witnesses
actually saw the 'Gazlan' taking away objects, why do they not also testify
which objects he took?
(a) What does Rav Yehudah say about Reuven who is seen leaving Shimon's
house with objects hidden in his clothes, which he claims he purchased from
Shimon? What does Shimon say?
(b) Will he be believed with a Shevu'ah?
(c) This will not apply, says Rav Yehudah, to a case where Shimon sells such
How does he qualify this statement? In which circumstances will
Reuven be believed with a Shevu'ah even if ...
(d) If neither of these conditions is fulfilled, which combination of facts
will be responsible for his not being believed?
- ... Shimon does not?
- ... they are not objects that one tends to hide?
(a) In which circumstances is Shimon never believed?
(b) With regard to which kind of objects is Reuven believed, irrespective of
(a) Rav Huna bar Avin proved this from Rava.
From whom did he allow
someone to claim a 'Zuga de'Sarb'la' and a 'Sifra de'Agad'ta'?
What is a
(b) What was the case?
(c) What does Rav Huna bar Avin prove from this episode? How does he prove
his point from there?
(a) Why was Rava's ruling confined to 'Sifra de'Agad'ta'? What would he have
ruled with regard to a Sefer Halachah?
(b) Would there then be any point in writing a Sh'tar Mechirah for the sale
of such Sefarim?
(a) The case of 'Nigzal' currently under discussion, is one of those
included in 'Nishba'in ve'Notlin'.
Who else besides the guard, can swear
and claim the objects from the 'Gazlan' on behalf of the Nigzal?
(b) Rav Papa's She'eilah whether this incorporates 'Sechiro u'Lekito'
What is 'Sechiro u'Lekito'?
(c) Rav Yeimar asked Rav Ashi whether the Nigzal is believed even if he
claims that the Gazlan took silver.
What did Rav Ashi reply?
(a) With regard to the case of 'Nechbal' cited in our Mishnah, under which
circumstances does Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel permit the Nechbal to claim even
without a Shevu'ah?
Answers to questions
(b) Why are we not afraid that ...
(c) We already learned in our Mishnah that the Tana states 'va'Afilu
Shevu'as Shav' to include even such a Shevu'ah that does not entail causing
a monetary loss in the Din of she'Kenegdo Chashud'.
- ... that he scratched himself against a wall? What does the Beraisa cited by Rebbi Chiya say about that?
- ... a third person wounded him?
Why does the Tana not
then include a Shevu'as Bituy ...
- ... in the future (which does not cause a monetary loss either)?
- ... in the past?