REVIEW QUESTIONS - BAVA METZIA 6

REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI

Prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
daf@dafyomi.co.il http://www.dafyomi.co.il

Previous Daf BAVA METZIA 6

Ask A
Question

BAVA METZIA 6 - Dedicated by Dr. Chaim Bitton of Geneva Switzerland in gratitude to his parents, Shmuel and Rina Bitton, who raised him in the path of Torah and Mitzvot. May they be blessed with long life and good health and may they merit to see much Nachat from their children and grandchildren.

1)
(a) What do we finally prove from ...
1. ... Rav Nachman, who obligates every Kofer ba'Kol to swear a Shevu'as Hesses?
2. ... Rebbi Chiya's Beraisa of Chenvani al Pinkaso (where both the worker and the storekeeper swear and take from the Balabos)?
(b) And we draw the same conclusion from Rav Sheishes, who obligates a Shomer Chinam who claims that the article was stolen, to make three Shevu'os. Besides Shevu'as ha'Shomrim and a Shevu'ah that he does not have the article in his possession, which other Shevu'ah does he require him to make?
click for answer

2)
(a) According to Abaye, the reason for the Shevu'ah in our Mishnah is because we assume that the one who grabbed the Talis is claiming an old debt. On what grounds does Abaye disagree with Rebbi Yochanan? Why does he not want to ascribe it to the fact that Chazal instituted it in order to prevent people from grabbing other people's Taleisim?
(b) Why is claiming an old debt without the debtor's consent not also considered 'Chashid a'Mamona'?
(c) How do we amend Abaye's reason to explain why they do not then take half the Talis without a Shevu'ah?
(d) What is then the point of making him swear? What does Rav Shisha Brei de'Rav Idi say to explain why a person may be willing to take money that is perhaps not his, but will not wear on money that is perhaps not his?
click for answer

3)
(a) Rebbi Zeira asked what the Din will be if one of the two men holding the Talis grabbed it in front of Beis-Din. What will be the Din assuming the second man ...
1. ... remained silent?
2. ... immediately protested?
(b) Then what is Rebbi Zeira's She'eilah?
(c) The Beraisa establishes our Mishnah where the two men were actually holding on to the Talis, but not if one of them was holding it. Why is this obvious, the way it stands?
(d) How do we therefore establish the Mishnah? What do we prove by doing so?
click for answer

4)
(a) We refute this proof by re-establishing the Beraisa where they came into Beis-Din holding the Talis. Then after being told to divide it, they left, only to return a short while later with Reuven holding it. If he claims that Shimon had admitted that it belonged to him, what does Shimon now claim?
(b) On what grounds do we believe Reuven?
(c) How else might we interpret the Beraisa (to avoid establishing it where Reuven grabbed the Talis)?
(d) What do we mean when we say that even Sumchus will agree with this ruling?
click for answer

5)
(a) Assuming that, in the previous She'eilah, Reuven's grabbing is ineffective, what will be the Din if either before or after the grabbing, he declares it Hekdesh? Will the Hekdesh be valid?
(b) We ask what the Din will be if instead of grabbing it, Reuven declares it Hekdesh, assuming that grabbing would have been effective. Why might the Hekdesh ...
1. ... be valid?
2. ... not be valid?
click for answer

6b----------------------------------------6b

6)
(a) To resolve the She'eilah, we cite the case of the bath-house over which two people were arguing. What did all the Rabbanan do when one of them declared it Hekdesh?
(b) Although Rav Oshaya instructed Rabah to ask Rav Chisda in Kafri what status the bathhouse had, whom did he ask when he stopped in Sura on his way to Kafri?
click for answer

7)
(a) Rav Hamnuna cited a Mishnah in Taharos. What does the Tana there say about a Safek Bechor? Is he referring to ...
1. ... a Bechor Adam or a Bechor Beheimah?
2. ... a Tahor Bechor or one that is Tamei?
(b) What is the case of ...
1. ... a Safek Bechor Beheimah?
2. ... a Safek Bechor Adam?
(c) How did Rav Hamnuna understand the Mishnah's ruling 'ha'Motzi me'Chavero Alav ha'Re'ayah'? To whom does it pertain?
(d) Seeing as it is a Safek B'chor, on what grounds would Beis-Din permit the Kohen to keep it?
click for answer

8)
(a) What did Rav Hamnuna then try to prove, based on the Beraisa which adds 'Asurin be'Gizah u'va'Avodah' (there where the Kohen did not take it)?
(b) How did Rabah refute Rav Hamnuna's proof? Why might there be no proof at all from 'Takfah Kohen' (by Bechor) for the case of the bathhouse?
click for answer

9)
(a) The Mishnah in Bechoros states 'ha'Sefeikos Nichnasin le'Dir'. What does 'Sefeikos' refer to?
(b) How does Rav Chananyah prove Rabah (who assumes that 'Takfah Kohen Motzi'in Oso mi'Yado') right from this Mishnah?
(c) What does Abaye gain by establishing the Mishnah where the owner had only nine sheep besides the Safek?
(d) On what grounds does Abaye withdraw his rejection of Rav Chananyah's proof?
click for answer

10)
(a) And he proves this from a Mishnah in Bechoros. What does the Tana there rule in a case where one of the counted sheep jump back into the pen, joining those waiting to be counted? How many sheep were already counted?
(b) Why do we exempt the sheep that ...
1. ... have not yet been counted from Ma'aser?
2. ... have already been counted? What is 'Minyan ha'Ra'uy'?
click for answer

11)
(a) What does Rava mean when he says 'Minyan ha'Ra'uy Poter'? How many sheep were being counted and what happened to the one sheep?
(b) What happens to the three remaining sheep?
(c) How does Abaye now prove from the Mishnah in Bechoros that a Safek is not subject to Ma'aser?
(d) What makes all the un'Ma'asered sheep in the pen a Safek?
click for answer