REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 40
(a) We have learned in a Beraisa that, even though Apotropsin must pay for
damages out of their own pockets, they are exempt from Kofer.
Why is that?
(b) In another Beraisa, what does the Tana Kama learn from the Pasuk (in
connection with a Mu'ad that kills a person) "ve'Nasan Pidyon Nafsho"?
(c) What does Rebbi Yishmael the son of Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah say?
(a) Rav Chisda suggests that the author of the first Beraisa is Rebbi
Yishmael the son of Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah.
How does he interpret the
Machlokes Ta'ana'im in the second Beraisa?
(b) Rav Papa rejects Rav Chisda's suggestion, establishing the first Beraisa
even like the Tana Kama.
How does *he* interpret the Machlokes?
(c) The Tana Kama bases his opinion on the Gezeirah-Shavah "Shisah" ("Im
Kofer Yushas Alav") "Shisah" ("ke'Chol Asher Yuhas Alav").
In what context
is the second Pasuk written?
(d) According to Rebbi Yishmael ... the Pasuk "ve'Nasan Pidyon Nafsho"
(implying the Nefesh of the Mazik) takes preference over the
How does the Tana Kama counter this?
(a) How did Rav Nachan respond when Rava boasted about Rav Acha bar
(b) When Rava obeyed and brought Rav Acha before him, what did he ask Rav
Nachman about a Shor of two partners which killed a person?
(c) Why did he not have a problem with the equivalent case by Nezek?
(a) Rav Acha then asked Rav Nachman a second She'eilah in connection with a
Mishnah in Erchin. What does the Tana there mean when he says 'Chayvei
Erchin Memashkenin Osam'?
(b) On what grounds does he differentiate between Chayvei Erchin and Chayvei
Chata'os and Ashamos (by precluding the latter from the treasurer's right to
claim)? Why in the latter case, does he hold 'Ein Memashkenin Osam'?
(c) What She'eilah did he therefore ask Rav Nachman regarding Chayvei Kofer?
(d) How did Rav Nachman respond to this She'eilah?
(a) In a case where Reuven borrows an ox from Shimon on the understanding
that it as a Tam, and after turning out to be a Mu'ad, it subsequently gores
in Reuven's domain, the Tana of the Beraisa obligates Reuven to share the
costs with Shimon.
Answers to questions
What does he rule in the Seifa, where the ox became a
Mu'ad before Reuven returned it and it subsequently gored again?
(b) Why, in the Reisha, can Reuven not claim that ...
(c) On what grounds do we nevertheless remain with a query on the Reisha (as
it stands), according to ...
- ... he borrowed an ox, and not 'a lion'?
- ... he borrowed a Tam and not a Mu'ad?
- ... even if he had had to pay for the Tam's damages, it would have been out of the body of the ox, but not out of his own pocket?
- ... the Halachah that 'Palga Nizka K'nasa'?
- ... those who hold 'Palga Nizka Mamona'?
(a) How do we finally establish the Reisha of the Beraisa, to avoid the
problem of Reuven admitting and being Patur or of his letting the ox loose
in the marshes.
(b) In that case, why is Shimon then Chayav to pay for half the damages? Why
can he not then claim that ...
(c) This is a valid argument assuming that Shimon has money with which to
pay. What if he does not?
- ... Reuven should have returned the ox to him, and not allowed it to fall into the hands of the Nizak?
- ... had the ox been in his possession, *he* would have let it loose in the marshes?
(d) What does Rebbi Nasan learn from the Pasuk in Naso "ve'Nasan la'Asher
(a) We learned in the Seifa of the Beraisa, where the ox became a Mu'ad
before Reuven returned it and it subsequently gored again - that Shimon pays
Chatzi Nezek, whilst Reuven pays nothing.
According to Rebbi Yochanan, why
does Shimon not pay full damages?
(b) Why does he then establish two different authors for the two sections of
(c) According to Rabah, both sections of the Beraisa hold 'Reshus Einah
How does he then explain the Seifa, which obligates Shimon to
pay only Chatzi Nezek?
(d) Rav Papa takes the opposite view. If, as he maintains, the Beraisa holds
'Reshus Meshaneh', then why, in the Reisha, does the ox remain a Mu'ad in
the domain of the borrower?
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that a Shor ha'Itztadin is not Chayav Miysah.
According to Rav, it is Kasher to go on the Mizbe'ach.
Why is that?
(b) What does Shmuel say?
(a) The Tana Kama of a Beraisa precludes an animal that raped or that was
raped from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Min ha'Beheimah", an animal that was
worshipped in the name of idolatry from "min ha'Bakar", a Muktzah (dedicated
to the worship of idolatry) from "Min ha'Tzon".
What does he preclude from
the "Vav" of "u'Min ha'Tzon"?
(b) What is 'a Muktzah' animal?
(c) Why does an animal that raped, that was raped or that killed a person,
require a Pasuk to disqualify it from the Mizbe'ach? Why is it not Pasul
anyway because it has to be killed?
(d) What problem does Rebbi Shimon have with 'Noge'ach' and 'Rove'a'?
(a) What leniency does ...
(b) How do we know that the P'sul of Rove'a applies even to an O'nes?
- ... Noge'ach have over Rove'a?
- ... Rove'a have over Noge'ach?
(a) How do we try and disprove Shmuel (who said that an animal that gored
be'Ones is Pasul to go on the Mizbe'ach), from the first of the two previous
distinctions of Rebbi Shimon?
(b) How do we resolve Shmuel with the Beraisa? What is Rebbi Shimon
referring to when he says that Rove'a is not Chayav be'O'nes like Ratzon?
(c) What does Rebbi Shimon now learn from a Noge'ach be'Ones?
(d) How do we substantiate this interpretation? Why is our original one
(a) In the second of the above distinctions, Rebbi Shimon said that O'nes
pays Kofer whereas Rove'a does not.
What does the Beraisa say to substantiate Rav's opinion regarding bringing a
bull-fighting ox on the Mizbe'ach?
What problem do we have with this
assuming that ...
(b) Abaye replies that the person was subsequently killed in Beis-Din.
- ... the animal killed the person with the Revi'ah?
- ... the person did not actually die?
does that answer the Kashya?
(c) Rava establishes the Beraisa when the animal did kill the person with
Then how does he answer the Kashya? What is the difference
between killing him with its horns and killing him through Revi'ah?
(d) What has this to do with an animal that walked over a child in the
street and killed it?
Answers to questions