37b----------------------------------------37b
7)
(a) We just cited Rebbi Tarfon who says 'Meni'ach Gezeilah Beinehem u'Mistalek'. We query this however, from Rebbi Aba bar Zavda Amar Rav (whom we already quoted in the second Perek). What does Rav say regarding 'Safek Hinu'ach'?
(b) What is his reason for saying 've'Im Natal, Lo Yachzir'? What does 'Lo Yachzir' mean"
(c) How does Rav Safra therefore interpret 'Meni'ach Gezeilah Beinehem u'Mistalek'?
click for answer
8)
(a) Rebbi Akiva disagrees with Rebbi Tarfon in Yevamos. What does he say about someone who does know from which of the five men he stole?
(b) The Mishnah in Bava Basra discusses a case where a house fell on a man and his mother. What do each one's heirs claim?
(c) Both Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai (who argue on other cases there, agree that they divide the property. What does Rebbi Akiva say?
click for answer
9)
(a) How does Rava reconcile the two seemingly contradictory rulings of Rebbi Akiva? Why does he rule in Bava Basra 'Uki Mamona be'Chezkas Marei', and in Yevamos 'mi'Sefeika Mafkinan Mamona'?
(b) We query this ruling from our Mishnah, where the Tana obligates the Ganav and the Shomer to pay both claimants, even though that too, is a case of Shema ve'Shema. How do we know that ...
1. ... the author is Rebbi Akiva?
2. ... that the Tana is speaking in a case of Shema ve'Shema?
(c) How do we then reconcile Rebbi Akiva's ruling in Bava Basra with the Reisha of our Mishnah, where the Gazlan has to pay both claimants? Why do we not say in the latter case too, 'Uki Mamona be'Chezkas Marei'?
(d) And if, as we explained earlier, wherever the two depositors handed their deposits to the Shomer separately, the onus to remember who gave what lies on the Shomer, why does Rava (or Rav Papa) state 'ha'Kol Modim bi'Shenayim she'Hifkidu Eitzel Ro'eh, she'Meni'ach Ro'eh Beinehem u'Mistalek'? Why is the shepherd not obligated to give each one two sheep?
click for answer
10)
(a) Having taught in the Seifa, that the Shomer is obligated to pay both claimants in the case of one Manah and two Manah, why does the Tana find it necessary to repeat this ruling in the case of a small vessel and a large one?
(b) Why can we not say that, having presented the case of the vessels, he finds it necessary to add the case of the money to teach us that even there, Rebbi Yossi says 'ha'Kol Munach'?
(c) Then why does the Tana need to mention the case of the money?
click for answer
Next Daf
Index to Review Questions and Answers for Maseches Bava Metzia
