REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 6
BAVA KAMA 6 (13 Av) - Chaim Yitzchok and Aviva Esther Fishof have sponsored
today's Daf for the Zechus of the Neshamah of Mordechai ben Rav Yosef Dov
(whose Yahrzeit is today), and for a Refu'ah Shelemah for Yosef ben Ettel.
(a) According to Abaye, 'ha'Tzad ha'Shaveh she'Bahen, she'Darkan Le'hazik
... ' comes to include a stone, a knife or a load that one left on the roof
and which fell down and damaged.
How did they fall down?
(b) Why can this not be speaking when they damaged ...
(c) So how do we establish Abaye? In which of these cases is the Tana
speaking, and why is not really comparable to Bor?
- ... in flight?
- ... after they had landed, assuming the owner then declared them Hefker?
- ... after they had landed, assuming the owner did not declare them Hefker, according to Shmuel and Rav respectively?
(d) How do we get round the problem of 'Ko'ach Acher Me'urav Bo?
(a) According to Rava, 'ha'Tzad ha'Shaveh she'Bahen, she'Darkan Le'hazik ...
' comes to include a Bor ha'Misgalgel ... '.
What is a 'Bor ha'Misgalgel
(b) We establish the case when he declared it Hefker.
Why is this not
really comparable to Bor?
(c) So how do we get round the problem of 'Ein Ma'asav Garmu Lo'? What do we
learn it from besides Bor?
(d) A third interpretation of what we learn from 'ha'Tzad ha'Shaveh
she'Bahen' is that of Rav Ada bar Ahavah.
Which case does the Tana come to
include according to him?
(a) What does the Tana say about opening one's gutters and cleaning out
one's caves in the summer?
Answers to questions
(b) We establish this case too, when the sewage and trash have already
landed in the street, and when the owner declared them Hefker.
What is the
Chidush? Is it not obvious that this is a regular Toldah of Bor?
(c) What will be the Din if the sewage or trash damages ...
(d) How do we resolve the problem that whereas a Bor bi'Reshus ha'Rabim is
dug without permission, this case speaks when he acted with the Beis-Din's
- ... whilst it is moving through the air?
- ... after it was stationary, but before the owner declared it Hefker?
(a) Ravina has a fourth explanation (of what we learn from 'ha'Tzad
ha'Shaveh she'Bahen' in our Mishnah). He cites a Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a,
which exempts the owner of a wall or a tree that fell into the street and
damaged, from paying.
To what does Rav Yehudah Amar Rav ascribe the unusual Lashon 'Chav ha'Mazik'
used by the Tana of our Mishnah (instead of 'Chayav ha'Mazik')?
Under which circumstances will he nevertheless
obligate him to pay?
(b) Here again, if the owner declared the wall or the tree Hefker, it is a
Toldah of Bor, and if not, it is Bor according to Shmuel, Shor according to
So how do we establish the case? What then, is the Chidush?
(c) Then why is he Chayav?
(a) According to Rebbi Yishmael, "Meitav Sadeihu u'Meitav Karmo" refers to
that of the Nizak.
How do we initially explain this?
(b) Rebbi Akiva says 'Lo Ba ha'Kasuv Ela Li'Gevos le'Nizakin min ha'Idis'.
What does he mean?
(c) What does Rebbi Akiva add to that statement?
(a) What problem do we have with Rebbi Yishmael's opinion?
(b) On what grounds do we reject Rav Idi bad Avin's suggestion that Rebbi
Yishmael is speaking when we do not know which quality row the ox ate?
(c) So how does Rav Acha bar Ya'akov establish the case?
(d) What will then be the basis of Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva's dispute?
(a) How does Rebbi Yishmael derive his opinion from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah'
"Sadeh" ("Meitav Sadeihu ... Yeshalem") "Sadeh" ("u'Bi'er bi'S'dei Acher")?
(b) And how does Rebbi Akiva derive his opinion from the former Pasuk
"Meitav Sadeihu u'Meitav Karmo Yeshalem"?
(c) How does Rebbi Yishmael establish Rebbi Akiva's D'rashah? How does he
interpret the inference?
(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk "ve'Chi Yigof Shor Ish es *Shor
Answers to questions
(b) *ve'Lo Shor Hekdesh* might be no more than an example (and the D'rashah
really pertains to fields of Hekdesh too).
Why, on the other hand, might
it refer specifically to an ox of Hekdesh, and not to a field of Hekdesh
that his ox ate?
(c) In any event, it is clear that, when Rebbi Akiva said 'Kal va'Chomer
le'Hekdesh', he cannot have meant that if a private ox gored a Hekdesh one,
he must certainly pay with Meitav.
Why can he not have meant that if
someone undertakes to give a Manah to Bedek ha'Bayis, the treasurer demands
Idis from him?
(d) Why can he not mean this even assuming that he holds that a regular
creditor claims Idis?