REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 13
(a) We already discussed the Beraisa "u'Ma'alah Ma'al ba'Hashem", 'Lerabos
Kodshim Kalim she'Heim Mamono, Divrei Rebbi Yossi Hagelili'. ben Azai adds
'Lerabos es ha'Shelamim'.
What does Aba Yossi ben Dustai say?
(b) What are the three Chumros of Shelamim over Bechor?
(c) In that case, what does ben Azai come to preclude, when he says 'Lerabos
(d) We take it for granted that Bechor, like Shelamim, is considered the
property of the owner, as we just intimated.
But did we not also just
learn that Matnos Kehunah are not the property of the owner, even according
to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili?
(a) What does the Tana learn from the fact that the Torah writes in Korach
"Lo Sipadeh" with regard to Bechor, whereas in Bechukosai with regard to
Ma'aser (Beheimah) it writes "Lo Yiga'el"?
(b) Whose opinion does this distinction help us clarify?
(c) With regard to a Bechor in Eretz Yisrael, "Lo Sipadeh" implies that it
may not be redeemed (unless it obtains a blemish), and in the time of the
Beis Hamikdash, that it must be sacrificed. What does "Lo Sipadeh" imply
with regard to a Bechor in Chutz la'Aretz (bearing in mind that it may be
(d) What do we learn (regarding Ma'aser) from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Lo
Yiga'el" "Lo Yiga'el" from Charamim?
- ... before the animal has been Shechted?
- ... after its Shechitah?
(a) Ravina makes the same inference (precluding specifically Ma'aser, and
not Shelamim), in the Seifa (according to Aba Yossi ben Dustai), as we just
made in the Reisha (precluding Ma'aser, and not Bechor, according to ben
What edge does Bechor have over Shelamim, according to Ravina?
(b) According to Ravina, what does Aba Yossi ben Dustai consider Mamon
Ba'alim, and what does he not?
(c) How do we prove Ravina wrong from Lashon of the Aba Yossi ben Dustai
(whose very words he is coming to explain)?
(a) Until now, we have taken 'Nechasim she'Ein Bahem Me'ilah' literally (as
a result of which we were forced to establish the author of our Mishnah as
Rebbi Yossi Hagelili).
How does Rava interpret it?
(b) What problem do we have with that?
(a) What did Rebbi Aba mean when he said 'Shelamim she'Hiziku, Govah
mi'Besaran, ve'Eino Govah me'Eimureihen'?
(b) Why can he not have meant what he said literally?
(c) We have difficulty in establishing which Tana Rebbi Aba's statement
follows. If it is the Rabbanan, we ask, it is obvious.
What do the
Rabbanan say in a case where one ox pushed another ox into a pit, in the
case of ...
(d) Why is the owner of the pit Patur from paying in both cases?
- ... a Shor Tam?
- ... a Shor Mu'ad?
(a) What does Rebbi Nasan say in the case of ...
(b) What is Rebbi Nasan's reasoning?
- ... a Shor Tam?
- ... a Shor Mu'ad?
(c) We conclude that Rebbi Aba could hold like either Tana.
grounds might he hold like ...
- ... the Rabbanan? Why might we otherwise have thought that they would concede in the case of a Shelamim animal, that the Nizak *can claim the entire damage from the flesh*?
- ... Rebbi Nasan? Why might Rebbi Nasan concede that he *cannot*?
(a) Although we accept the above explanation of Rebbi Aba's statement, how
else might we explain 'Lo Tzericha Ligvos mi'Besaran Keneged Eimurehen'?
Answers to questions
(b) How will we then amend the original problem 'I Aliba ...
(c) On what grounds do we reject this explantion?
- ... de'Rabbanan P'shita'?
- ... de'Rebbi Nasan, Ha Amar Ki Leka le'Ishtelumi me'Hai, Mishtalem me'Hai'?
(a) What is the problem with Rava's statement 'Todah she'Hizikah, Govah
mi'Besarah, ve'Eno Govah mi'Lachmah'?
(b) Rava's Chidush actually lies in the Seifa of his words.
What does he
(c) What is the Chidush in that statement?
(a) What does the Tana of our Mishnah come to preclude, when he says ...
(b) Then why do we need the one Mishnah later, which specifically exempts
the ox of a Jew which gores that of a Nochri, and another, which
specifically exempts two oxen chasing a third ox, where one of them kills
it, and each one blames the other one?
- ... 'Nechasim she'Hein shel B'nei B'ris?
- ... 'Nechasim ha'Meyuchadim'?
(c) Alternatively, we are speaking about property of Hefker.
case is the Mishnah obviously not concerned?
(d) We therefore conclude that the Mishnah comes to preclude a Hefker ox
that gored a private one.
Why can he not just go and take the ox? Who is
(a) Ravina has a third interpretation of what 'Nechasim ha'Meyuchadim' comes
to preclude, conforming with Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa.
What does Rebbi
Yehudah learn from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ve'Hu'ad bi'Ve'alav ve'Heimis"?
(b) Based on the end of the Pasuk "ha'Shor Yisakel", how do we amend Rebbi
(a) On what grounds is the Mazik Patur if his ox damaged someone else's ox
that strayed into his field?
(b) Rav Chisda Amar Avimi renders partners who damage each other's property
by means of Shen or Regel liable.
What does Rebbi Elazar say?
(c) How will we explain our Mishnah ' ... Chutz me'Reshus ha'Meyuchedes
u'Reshus ha'Nizak ve'ha'Mazik ke'she'Hizik, Chav ha'Mazik ... ' according to
(d) According to Rav Chisda, how do we know that 'ke'she'Hizik, Chav
ha'Mazik ... ' refers to Shen ve'Regel and not to Keren?
- ... Rav Chisda?
- ... Rebbi Elazar?
(a) According to Rebbi Elazar, 'ke'she'Hizik Chav ha'Mazik ... ' come to
include Keren, which has not yet been mentioned. However, that is only
according to Shmuel, who learns 'Shor le'Raglo' and 'Mav'eh le'Shino'.
will Rebbi Elazar explain it according to Rav, who includes Keren in 'Shor'?
(b) What does the Tana of the Beraisa, who states this Chidush, add
regarding a Shomer, if the ox he is looking after, breaks out in the night
or is let out by robbers?
(c) When the Tana of the Beraisa, commenting on our Mishnah 'ke'she'Hizik
Chav ha'Mazik ... ' explains 'Lerabos Shomer Chinam ... ve'ha'Sho'el ... ',
why can he not be speaking when it is ...
- ... the borrowed ox that damaged the ox of the Shomer (at least, so we think initially)?
- ... the Shomer's ox which gored the borrowed one?
(a) We finally establish the case when it was the borrowed ox that gored the
ox of the borrower.
Answers to questions
How do we then establish the case to evade the Kashya
that we asked earlier?
(b) What can we infer from the Seifa 'Nifretzah *ba'Laylah* ... , Patur'?
(c) But did we not just establish the Beraisa when the Shomer did not accept
the liability of damages caused by the ox he is guarding?