REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 45
(a) What distinction does the Tana of the Beraisa draw between an owner who,
after his ox killed someone, sold it, Shechted it or declared it Hekdesh
before it had been sentenced to stoning and afterwards?
(b) And what does he say about a Shomer who returned the ox that gored
someone to death to its owner ...
(c) With which of the Tana Kama's rulings does Rabbi Ya'akov disagree?
- ... before the sentence?
- ... after the sentence?
(d) Assuming the basis of their Machlokes to be whether one can say to the
owner of Isurei Hana'ah 'Harei she'Lecha Lefanecha', what other practical
ramifications will their Machlokes have.
(a) Rabah concludes that in fact, even the Tana Kama concedes that one can
say to the owner of Isurei Hana'ah 'Harei she'Lecha Lefanecha'.
is the Tana Kama's reason for saying 'Hichziro Shomer le'Beis Ba'alav, Eino
Muchzor? What makes this case worse than Chametz on Pesach?
(b) What does Rebbi Ya'akov hold? On what grounds does he argue with the
(c) How does Rabah know that this is the Rabbanan's reason and not because
they hold that one cannot say to the owner 'Harei she'Lecha Lefanecha'?
(d) And how do we know that Rabah's reason in the Rabbanan is because the
Shomer failed to return the owner's ox to him, thereby depriving him of the
possibility of saving it (as the Lashon suggests)?
(a) Rebbi Ya'akov maintains that it is possible to conclude the Din of an ox
even in its absence.
How does he counter the Rabbanan's proof from the
principle 'ke'Miysas ha'Ba'alim, Kach Miysas ha'Shor'?
(b) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Mas'ei "Ad Omdo Lifnei ha'Eidah
(a) We have learned in a Beraisa that the four Shomrim take the place of the
Answers to questions
What will the difference then be whether the ox that they are
guarding and that killed someone, is a Tam or a Mu'ad?
(b) Which of the Shomrin does the Tana exempt from reimbursing the owner for
the loss of his ox?
(c) We ask 'Mah Nafshach', if they guarded the ox, then they should all be
Patur, and if they did not, they should all be liable.
What do we answer?
(a) The Beraisa currently under discussion goes neither like Rebbi Meir nor
like Rebbi Yehudah.
Why can it not go like ...
(b) We initially establish the Beraisa like Rebbi Eliezer.
- ... Rebbi Meir? What does Rebbi Meir say about a Socher?
- ... Rebbi Yehudah? What does Rebbi Yehudah say regarding the Shemirah of a Mu'ad?
How will he
deal with both of the above problems?
(c) Abaye establishes the author as Rebbi Meir, and he answers the Kashya on
this with the words 'ke'de'Machlif Rabah bar Avuhah'.
What does Rabah bar
Avuhah say? How does this answer the Kashya?
(a) Rebbi Elazar obligates a Shomer Chinam to pay, should the ox he is
looking after cause damage.
What does he say about paying the owner in the
event that the ox is injured?
(b) What would the Din be if the Shomer Chinam ...
(c) Rava establishes Rebbi Elazar's case when he did indeed accept
- ... accepted full responsibility (in the case of a regular ox)?
- ... did not accept the responsibility for damages?
Then why is he Chayav for the one and Patur from the
(a) Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah, obligates the owner to pay for damages done
by one's ox after he tied it by its reigns or locked the door in front of
Why is that?
(b) Rebbi Yehudah disagrees.
What does he learn from the Pasuk "ve'Lo
Yishmerenu Be'alav" (written in connection with a Mu'ad)?
(c) Rebbi Eliezer is the most stringent of all.
What does he say with
regard to a Mu'ad?
(a) Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah argue over the interpretation of the Pasuk
"ve'Lo Yishmerenu" (written in connection with Mu'ad).
Over which basic
premise do they argue (that will determine their respective
(b) What does 'S'tam Shevarim be'Chezkas Shimur Kaymi' mean?
(c) Based on the premise 'S'tam Shevarim La'av be'Chezkas Shimur Kaymi', how
does Rebbi Meir subsequently interpret "ve'Lo Yishmerenu"?
(d) From where does Rebbi Meir then learn that a Tam also requires a a
(a) Based on the premise 'S'tam Shevarim be'Chezkas Shimur Kaymi', and that
the Torah therefore obligates a proper Shemirah by a Tam, how does Rebbi
Yehudah interpret "ve'Lo Yishmerenu"?
According to Rav Ada bar Ahavah, even though Rebbi Yehudah exempts a Mu'ad
from a proper Shemirah, the owner will nevertheless be liable to pay half.
(b) Why does he not Darshen the Gezeirah-Shavah ('Negichah le'Tam, Negichah
le'Mu'ad'), like Rebbi Meir?
(c) Seeing as we need "ve'Lo Yishmerenu" to teach us the initial Chiyuv by a
Mu'ad, how can we now use the same word to teach us the 'Miy'ut'?
(d) The most lenient opinion of all is that of Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov.
On the presumption that he follows the basic D'rashah of Rebbi Yehudah, from
where does Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov learn that even a Tam requires only a
Why is that?
(a) According to Rav, Ha'ada'ah on an ox's right horn does not cover its
Will the reverse also be true?
(b) Why can Rav not be referring to the Din of how much the owner has to
(c) Then to what is he referring?
(d) Why can Rav then not hold like ...
- ... Rebbi Meir?
- ... Rebbi Yehudah, according to Rav Ada bar Ahavah?
(a) Like whom *does* Rav ultimately hold?
Answers to questions
(b) What is he then coming to teach us?