REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 4
BAVA KAMA 4 (11 Av) - dedicated by Eitan Fish in memory of his illustrious
ancestor, Hagaon Rav Yitzchak Blazer ("Reb Itzele Peterburger"), author of
"Kochevei Or" and "Pri Yitzchak" and one of the foremost Talmidim of Hagaon
Rav Yisrael Salanter, Zatza"l. Reb Itzele passed away on 11 Av 5667 (1907)
(a) Rav Yehudah (who establishes 'Shor le'Karno, u'Mav'eh le'Shino')
explains the continuation of our Mishnah like this 'Lo Re'i ha'Keren she'Ein
Hana'ah le'Hezeiko, ki'Re'i ha'Shen, she'Yesh Hana'ah le'Hezeiko'.
does he explain 've'Lo Re'i ha'Shen ki'Re'i ha'Keren?
(b) On what basis do we reject this second D'rashah?
(c) Why do we ask this Kashya on the second D'rashah, and not on the first
(where 'Yesh Hana'ah le'Hezeiko' is used as a reason to exempt the owner
from payment, when really it ought to be a reason to obligate him)? Does it
mean that the Kashya does not apply there?
(d) Why can we not simply invert the order and say that we cannot learn
Keren where the animal does not intend to damage, from Keren, where it does?
(a) What do an Eved Cana'ani and a married woman have in common with regard
to the Din of damages?
(b) On what grounds do we then refute the suggestion that Eved ve'Ishah will
prove that Kavanaso Le'hazik is not always sufficient reason to obligate
(c) So we invert the reasons and learn 'Lo Re'i ha'Keren she'Kavanasan
Le'hazik ki'Re'i ha'Shen she'Ein Kavanaso Le'hazik ... '.
On what grounds
do we refute the suggestion that the Tana omits Regel, because it relies on
the Seifa, where he writes "ke'she'Hizik, Chav ha'Mazik Le'shalem ... ' to
(a) So we conclude that according to Shmuel, Shor does not refer to Keren.
What then, does it refer to?
(b) Why does the Tana not learn ...
(c) And the Tana includes Keren in the Seifa "ke'she'Hizik Chav ha'Mazik
Le'shalem ... '.
- ... Shen from Regel?
- ... Regel from Shen?
Why does he not include it explicitly in the Reisha?
(a) Sh'muel declines to learn like Rav, in whose opinion Mav'eh refers to
Adam, because the Tana mentions Adam later 'Shor ha'Mu'ad ... ve'ha'Adam'.
Why does he not list it explicitly in the Reisha?
(b) According to Rav, having included Adam in the Reisha, why did the Tana
see fit to repeat it in the Seifa?
(c) And how does Rav explain ...
- ... 'Lo Harei ha'Shor ke'Harei ha'Mav'eh'?
- ... 'Lo Harei ha'Mav'eh ke'Harei ha'Shor'?
(a) The Tana lists the 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' between Shor and Mav'eh as
she'Darkan Le'hazik, u'Shemirasan Alecha'.
Answers to questions
Under what conditions does
'Darkan Le'hazik' apply to ...
(b) What is the problem with the Lashon 'u'Shemirasan Alecha'?
- ... Shor?
- ... Adam?
(c) We cite Karna who inclsudes Adam among the four Avos Nezikin, and
according to whom we have to explain this Lashon, even assuming Mav'eh to be
Shen (Tosfos DH 'u'le'Ta'amech').
What did Rebbi Avahu instruct the
Beraisa expert to add to the Mishnah to accommodate Karna and Rav?
(a) How do we know that, based on the Pasuk in Yeshayah "ki'Kedo'ach Eish
Hamasim, Mayim Tav'eh Eish", Mav'eh is not ...
(b) What does the Pasuk actually mean?
- ... water (see Tosfos)?
- ... fire?
(c) Had we accepted the first contention, what would the Av have comprised?
(d) Why can Mav'eh not be fire, as we contended ...
- ... and Hev'er an explanation?
- ... Hev'er an explanation, with Shor comprising both Shen and Regel?
(a) Rebbi Oshaya cites a Beraisa which lists thirteen Avos.
four Shomrim, which other five does he add to the four of our Mishnah?
(b) What makes them all Avos?
(c) Which two Avos of Rebbi Oshaya have exactly the same Din (see Tosfos DH
(d) What is the difference between ...
- ... a Shomer Chinam and a Nosei Sachar?
- ... a Nosei Sachar and a Sho'el?
(a) Why does the Tana of our Mishnah not list the other nine (of Rebbi
Oshaya), according to ...
(b) How do we know that our Mishnah is confined to damage of property?
- ... Shmuel ('Tana Shor le'Raglo u'Mav'eh le'Shino')?
- ... Rav, ('Mav'eh, Zeh Adam')?
(c) Then why does the Tana not also divide Shor into two? Let our Mishnah be
confined to Shor de'Azik Shor, whilst Rebbi Oshaya creates a neew
sub-category by adding Shor de'Azik Adam?
(d) Then why does Rebbi Oshaya include the four Shomrim in his list, even
though they fall under the category of 'Adam de'Azik Shor'? Why are they not
included in Adam de'Azik Shor in our Mishnah?
(a) Rebbi Chiya quoting a Beraisa adds another eleven to Rebbi Oshaya's
list. What, in essence, is he adding to the previous list? Why did the
Tana of our Mishnah and Rebbi Oshaya not include (most of) them in their
(b) The first four that he lists are Tashlumei Kefel, Tashlumei Arba'ah
va'Chamishah, Ganav and Gazlan.
How is it possible for a Ganav to pay the
Keren (the principle) without paying Kefel?
(c) What is the source in the Torah for ...
(d) Seeing as Ganav and Gazlan are Mamon and not K'nas, why did Rebbi Oshaya
not include them in his list?
- ... Ganav?
- ... Gazlan?
(a) After Eidim Zomemin, Rebbi Chiya's Tana lists O'nes, Mefateh and Motzi
How much must the man pay in the case of ...
(b) What are the last three cases on Rebbi Chiya's list?
- ... O'nes?
- ... Mefateh?
- ... Motzi Shem Ra?
(c) What is the definition of ...
(d) Why can Menasech not refer to someone who pours Yayin Nesech into
someone's Kasher wine?
- ... Metamei?
- ... Medameh?
- ... Menasech?
(a) We learned above that Rebbi Oshaya did not list Ganav and Gazlan,
because they are included in Shomer Chinam and Sho'el.
Answers to questions
What do they have
to do with theft?
(b) Why is it not really appropriate to mention 'Sho'el' here?
(c) Having already listed Shomer Chinam, why did Rebbi Chiya's Tana then see
fit to mention Ganav and Gazlan individually?