REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 42
BAVA KAMA 42 - - dedicated by Reb Gedalia Weinberger of Brooklyn, N.Y. in
memory of his father, Reb Chaim Tzvi ben Reb Shlomo Weinberger (Yahrzeit: 18
Adar). Reb Chaim Tzvi, who miraculously survived the holocaust, always
remained strongly dedicated to Torah and its study.
(a) In another Beraisa, Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learns from "Ba'al ha'Shor
Naki", 'Naki mi'D'mei V'lados'.
To which case is he referring?
(b) What does Rebbi Akiva ask on Rebbi Yossi Hagelili from the Pasuk "Ki
Yinatzu Anashim, ve'Nagfu Ishah Harah"?
(c) To answer this Kashya, Rav Ula B'rei de'Rav Idi interprets "Anashim"
What distinction does he make between a Tam and a Mu'ad,
based on his D'rashah "Anashim", 've'Lo Shevarim Dumya la'Anashim'?
(d) On what grounds does Rava object to this D'rashah?
(a) What is Rabah's version of Rav Ula B'rei de'Rav Idi's D'rashah
("Anashim", 've'Lo Shevarim Dumya la'Anashim')?
Abaye and Rava therefore, come up with a different version of "Anashim",
've'Lo Shevarim Dumya la'Anashim'.
(b) What do we learn from the Pasuk (in connection with Bo'shes) from the
same D'rashah "ve'Chi Yinatzu Anashim", "Anashim", ve'Lo Sh'varim'?
(c) Abaye asks on Rabah why we do not say by Bo'shes too, that only a Tam is
Patur, but a Mu'ad is Chayav.
From where do we know that this is not the
In which case would we have obligated
an animal that killed, to pay for the babies, even though a person in the
equivalent case would be Patur? Why would he be Patur?
(a) Rav Ada bar Ahavah queries Abaye and Rava's answer. According to him,
even a person would be Chayav in the case of "Ki Yinatzu Anashim", even if
he killed the woman with the same stroke, because he holds like Rebbi
Answers to questions
What does Rebbi Shimon say about someone who meant to kill Reuven
and he struck Shimon by mistake (the case discussed by the Torah)?
(b) Why is he not Patur from paying anyway, due to Tana de'Bei Chizkiyah
(who exempts even someone who killed be'Shogeg from paying for the damage)?
(c) So how does Rav Ada bar Ahavah finally establish "Anashim", 've'Lo
Shevarim Dumya la'Anashim'?
(d) What did Rav Chagai bring with him when he came from the south?
(a) In yet another Beraisa, Rebbi Akiva says "Ba'al ha'Shor Naki", 'Naki
To which case is he referring, bearing in mind the Din of
thirty Shekalim that one has to pay if one's ox gored an Eved?
(b) We ask why Rebbi Akiva does not ask on himself the same Kashya that he
asked earlier on Rebbi Eliezer (when he Darshened 'Naki me'Chatzi Kofer').
How does Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak establish the case to resolve this problem?
(c) Then why did Rebbi Akiva ask this Kashya on Rebbi Eliezer? Why did it
not occur to him that if this answer was good enough for him, then it is
good enough for Rebbi Eliezer too?
(a) Why, on the other hand, did Rebbi Eliezer not establish the case when
the owner Shechted it first, like Rebbi Akiva?
(b) What problem does that pose on Rebbi Akiva?
(c) Rav Asi quoted a great man who explained Rebbi Akiva.
What was his
(a) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina based his answer on another statement of
What did Rebbi Akiva say about a Shor Tam that injured a
(b) How would this answer the Kashya that we asked on Rebbi Akiva ('Naki
(c) Rebbi Zeira refutes this however, on the basis of a Beraisa.
Rebbi Akiva learn from the Pasuk (in connection with an ox that killed a
child) "ka'Mishpat ha'Zeh Ya'aseh Lo"?
(d) What did Rebbi Zeira mean when he said 'Tavra Rebbi Akiva li'Gezizeih'?
(a) How does Rava finally explain Rebbi Akiva? What makes us think that the
owner of the Tam would have to pay min ha'Aliyah by Eved more than by any
other case of Nezek?
(b) How do we know for sure that Rava's explanation is the right one?
(c) Before concluding that Eved by Tam is even more stringent than Mu'ad (as
we just explained), the Tana gives two reasons why we really should not
require a Pasuk to exempt him. One of them is because an Eved should not be
any different than a ben Chorin (where a Tam pays mi'Gufo).
What is the
(a) In a Beraisa, Rebbi Akiva discusses the Hekesh "ve'Heimis Ish O Ishah".
Why can the Pasuk not be coming to obligate a Mu'ad that killed a woman just
like when it killed a man?
(b) Then in which connection *is* the Pasuk comparing a woman to a man?
(c) What does Rebbi Akiva learn from the Pasuk in Pinchas "ve'Yarash Osah"?
(d) We actually derive this from the word "li'She'eiro" mentioned in the
Pasuk, and 'She'eiro' means his wife.
How do we know that the Torah is not
saying that it is the man's property that goes to his wife, as is implied by
(a) How does Resh Lakish reconcile the two D'rashos of Rebbi Akiva (that, on
the one hand, her property goes to her husband, and on the other, her Kofer
goes to her heirs)? In what way is Kofer different than the rest of her
(b) What do we learn from the sequence of the Pasuk "ve'Heimis Ish O Ishah
ha'Shor Yisakel ve'Gam Be'alav Yumas. Im Kofer Yushas Alav"?
(c) If not for this Pasuk, what would we have thought?
(d) The Tana of the Beraisa rules that someone who strikes a pregnant woman
and kills her babies, must pay the woman her Nezek and Tza'ar, and the value
of the babies to her husband.
In the event that ...
- ... her husband has died, who receives the D'mei V'lados?
- ... the woman has died, who receives her Nezek and Tza'ar?
(a) Who receives the Nezek, the Tza'ar and the D'mei V'lados, in the event
that the woman was a Shifchah Meshuchreres or a Giyores, and neither she or
her husband are still alive?
Answers to questions
(b) How do Rabah and Rav Nachman reconcile this Beraisa (where we see that
the woman's Yorshin inherit her and not her husband) with Rebbi Akiva's
D'rashah from "ve'Yarash Osah" (from which he learns that it is the husband
who inherits his wife)?
(c) What do we learn from the Pasuk "Ka'asher Yashis Alav *Ba'al ha'Ishah*"?