REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 41
BAVA KAMA 41 - Sponsored by the generous contributions of an anonymous donor
in Manchester, England. May he be blessed with a Kesivah va'Chasimah Tovah,
and a year of physical and spiritual growth and prosperity.
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah discusses Kofer.
Is a Tam that kills a person
(b) With regard to the Chiyuv Miysah, will it make any difference whether
the ox killed a grown-up who is Chayav to keep the Mitzvos or a Katan, who
- ... Chayav to pay Kofer?
- ... Patur from Miysah?
(c) How much must the owner of an ox pay, for killing an Eved worth ...
- ... a hundred Manah pay?
- ... one Dinar?
(a) We ask how an animal can ever be a Mu'ah le'Adam, seeing as it must be
put to death after the first killing.
What objection does Rav Ashi raise
to Rabah's answer that it is possible when the animal chased three people
and Beis-Din assessed that it would have killed them had it caught them?
(b) Rav Ashi himself answers 'K'gon she'Siken li'Sheloshah B'nei Adam'.
What does he mean by that?
(c) We reject the answer of Rav Z'vid (that it becomes a Mu'ad by killing
three animals) on the grounds that a Mu'ad for animals is not a Mu'ad for
people, as we learned above.
On what grounds do we reject the answer of
(d) Rav Papa establishes a Mu'ad le'Adam when it is simply not physically
possible to kill it.
- ... Rav Shimi (that it first killed three Nochrim)?
- ... Resh Lakish (that it first killed three T'reifos)?
To which case is he referring?
(a) Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ika answers that the Zomemei Zomemin themselves
What does he mean?
(b) This is only clear-cut however, according to those who only require the
Mazik ox to be warned, but according to those who require the owner to be
warned, there is a problem.
What is the problem?
(c) How do we establish the case to resolve this problem? What additional
information will the final witnesses have to provide?
(a) According to Ravina, it is possible to find a Mu'ad le'Adam in a case
where the witnesses were able to identify the owner's herd, but not the
On what grounds is the owner then Chayav? Seeing as he did
not know which animal gored the first three times, what should he have done?
(b) How did any one specific animal then become Mu'ad?
(a) What does the Tana learn from the Pasuk (in connection with an ox that
killed a person) ...
(b) In this light, how does ben Zoma explain the phrase "u'Ba'al ha'Shor
- ... "ve'Lo Ye'achel es Besaro"?
- ... "u'Ba'al ha'Shor Naki"?
(c) Why does the Tana decline to explain the Pasuk literally (with regard to
an ox that was stoned?
(a) How does Rebbi Avuhu Amar Rebbi Elazar interpret "Lo Ye'achel", "Lo
Sochal" and "Lo Sochlu" wherever they occur?
(b) How does he extrapolate this from the Pasuk (written in connection with
Neveilah) "la'Ger Asher bi'She'arecha Titnenah va'Achalah"?
(c) That being the case, why does the Tana not establish "ve'Lo Ye'achel es
Besaro" with regard to a prohibition forbidding Hana'ah from an ox that was
stoned (but permitting it if it is Shechted)?
(d) How do we know to split Rebi Avuhu's Din in this way?
(a) Alternatively, how might we learn it from "Lo Ye'achel *es Besaro*"?
Answers to questions
(b) We suggest that "ve'Lo Ye'achel es Besaro" might pertain specifically to
where the animal was Shechted with a sharp piece of rock, but not to where
it was Shechted with a knife.
What is the basis for such a suggestion?
(c) But we refute this on the basis of a Mishnah in Chulin.
What does the
Tana say there about someone who Shechts with a scythe, a sharp piece of
rock or a a reed?
(d) What have we proved with this Mishnah? How does that repudiate the
(a) Having concluded that we learn both the prohibition to eat a 'Shor
ha'Niskal' that was Shechted and to derive benefit from it, from "ve'Lo
Ye'achel es Besaro", what do we learn from "u'Ba'al ha'Shor Naki"?
(b) We will shortly discuss the opinions of other Tana'im who learn other
things from "u'Ba'al ha'Shor Naki".
How do they learn Hana'as Oro from "es
(c) Our Tana is Shimon ha'Amsuni or Nechemyah ha'Amsuni, who does not
Darshen the word "es" wherever it appears in the Torah.
What made him
retract from all the 'esin' that he had Darshened up to that point?
(d) What did he reply when they asked him what he would do with the numerous
D'rashos he had made up to that point?
(a) Who is the Tana who argues with Shimon ha'Amsuni?
(b) What does *he* learn from the "es" in "es Hashem Elokecha Tiyra"?
(a) Rebbi Eliezer in a Beraisa learns from "u'Ba'al ha'Shor Naki", 'Naki
To what is he referring?
(b) On what grounds does Rebbi Akiva object to Rebbi Eliezer's D'rashah?
(c) How does Rebbi Eliezer counter this objection?
(d) How can he establish the case when the owner admitted to his ox having
gored the person? Why does this not contravene the principle 'Modeh bi'K'nas
(a) Does one put to death an animal that meant to kill another animal, but
inadvertently killed a person, or that meant to kill a Nochri and
inadvertently killed a Yisrael?
Regarding the question which answer did Rebbi Eliezer give Rebbi Akiva
first, Rav Kahana says in the name of Rava 'Miskaven, whereas Rav Tivyomi
said in the name of Rava 'Heimis' ('Eid Echad'). Each of them gave a Mashal
to support his opinion.
(b) What is the third case mentioned by Rebbi Eliezer in the Beraisa?
(c) Why do we quote this Beraisa?
(d) Why is the Beraisa of 'Miskaven' considered a bigger Chidush than that
of 'Eid Echad'?
What Mashal did ...
Answers to questions
- ... Rav Kahana give?
- ... Rav Tivyomi give?