REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 37
BAVA KAMA 37 - This Daf has been sponsored by Marcia and Lee Weinblatt of
Teaneck, NJ, in honor of the marriage of their daughter, Jodi Weinblatt, to
Yaakov Mugrabi, on Sept 2, 2001.
(a) Our Mishnah cites three cases where an ox might be Muad for one thing
but not for another. The first two are when it is Mu'ad for oxen but not for
other species and when it is Mu'ad for people but not for animals.
the third case?
(b) What does the Tana rule in this case?
(c) Rebbi Yehudah draws the same distinction between an ox that is Mu'ad for
Shabbasos but not for weekdays.
What is the reason for this? Since when
does an ox observe Shabbos?
(d) In this latter case, how will the ox revert to its Tamus?
(a) According to Rav Z'vid, the text in our Mishnah reads 'Shor she'Mu'ad
le'Miyno, ve'Eino Mu'ad le'she'Eino Miyno".
What are the ramifications of
(b) What does Rav Papa say?
(c) Rav Zvid derives his opinion from the third case 'Mu'ad li'Ketanim
ve'Eino Mu'ad li'Gedolim', which would be superfluous if not for the
inference ('Ha S'tama Lo Havi Mu'ad').
How does Rav Papa counter his
proof? Why *does* the Tana find it necessary to insert this case?
(a) How does Rav Papa derive his opinion from the Reisha (which is really
the middle case) 'Mu'ad le'Adam Eino Mu'ad li'Beheimah'?
(b) How does Rav Z'vid establish the Reisha to counter Rav Papa's proof?
(c) What does Sumchus say about an animal that is 'Mu'ad le'Adam'?
(d) How does Rav Z'vid establish Sumchus in order to refute the proof that,
if Sumchus holds ' ... Eino Mu'ad li'Beheimah', the Rabbanan must hold
'Mu'ad ... '?
(a) What does Rav Ashi prove from the Seifa of our Mishnah, where Rebbi
Yehudah's Talmidim asked him 'Harei Zeh Hayah Mu'ad le'Shabbasos ... ' and
from his answer?
(b) How does Rav Yanai substantiate this from the Reisha, which concludes
'es she'Mu'ad Lo, Meshalem Nezek Shalem ... '?
(c) In which context do we conclude with the statement 'Nagach Shor, Chamor
ve'Gamal, Na'aseh Mu'ad la'Kol'?
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa describes a 'Mu'ad le'Sirugin'.
Answers to questions
How does an ox
become a Mu'ad le'Sirugin ...
(b) What is the Chidush of this last statement?
- ... for oxen?
- ... for all species of animals?
(c) What is an Arod?
(a) We ask what the Din will be if, after goring three oxen in the same
sequence, an ox gores a donkey and a camel in the same sequence. Assuming
that, in this case, we go after the first sequence, what She'eilah do we ask
(b) Similarly, we ask what the Din will be if an ox gores on three
consecutive Shabbasos, and on the Sunday and Monday following the third
On what basis do we then ask what the Din will be if it gored on
Thursday and on Friday and then on three consecutive Shabbasos?
(c) How do we conclude both She'eilos?
(a) According to Rav, if, for the first time, a woman sees blood on the
fifteenth of Iyar, on the sixteenth of Sivan and on the seventeenth of
Tamuz, this becomes her new Veses.
When will it become her Veses,
according to Shmuel?
(b) How does this Machlokes affect ...
(c) What does Rava rule in a case where an ox gored following the three
occasions that it heard a Shofar-blast?
- ... our Sugya?
- ... the Beraisa (that we cited on the previous Amud) which describes a Mu'ad le'Sirugin as one that gored one ox, ignored the second one that it saw, gored the third one, ignored the fourth, gored the fifth and ignored the sixth)?
(d) What is Rava's Chidush? Why is this not obvious?
(a) If an ox belonging to a Hedyot gores an ox belonging to Hekdesh, the
owner is Patur.
Assuming that Rebbi Shimon ben Menasyah exempts a Hekdesh ox that gored the
ox of a Hedyot due to "Re'eihu (like the Rabbanan), why can we not then say
that he obligates a Tam ox of a Hedyot that gored one of Hekdesh to pay full
from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from the ox belonging to a Hedyot which gored an ox
belonging to a Hedyot?
How about the other way round?
(b) From where does the Tana learn this?
(c) What distinction does our Mishnah make between the ox of a Yisrael
goring one of a Nochri and vice-versa?
(d) What does Rebbi Shimon ben Menasyah in a Beraisa say with regard to a
Hedyot goring an ox belonging to Hekdesh and vice-versa?
(a) Ultimately, Resh Lakish learns Rebbi Shimon ben Menasyah's Chumra by a
Hedyot's Tam which gored a Hekdesh ox, from "Re'eihu".
How does he Darshen
"Re'eihu" in this context?
(b) What prompts him to Darshen this way? Why does he not simply exempt the
Hedyot from paying for the damage to a Shor shel Hekdesh (like the
(c) The P'tur by a Shor Mu'ad of Hekdesh that gored a Shor Hedyot, Rebbi
Shimon ben Menasyah learns from the Pasuk "ve'Hu'ad bi'Ve'alav" (which does
not apply to a Shor shel Hekdesh).
From which Pasuk does he exempt Hekdesh
if its Shor Tam caused damage?
(a) According to an alternative interpretation of Resh Lakish's explanation,
he only comes to avoid the 'Kal va'Chomer.
Answers to questions
In that case, from where does
he learn the P'tur of a Hekdesh ox that gored that of a Hedyot?
(b) Why does he not then Darshen "Re'eihu" in connection with a Hedyot ox
that gored one of Hekdesh in the same way as he Darshened it in connection
with the reverse case?
(c) Then why does he not Darshen "Re'eihu" by Shor shel Hekdesh ... in the
same way as he Darshens it by a Shor shel Hedyot ... ?
(d) And how does he then know that a Shor Mu'ad of Hekdesh is Patur as well
(despite the fact that "Re'eihu" is not written there)?