REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 12
BAVA METZIA 11-17 - This study material has been produced with the help of
the Israeli ministry of religious affairs.
(a) What will be the Din if Levi, after declaring a purse Hefker (to whoever
acquired it first - see Tosfos DH 've'Yatza'), lobbed it into Reuven's
house, and Shimon caught it before it landed? Who will own the purse?
(b) Rava asked what the Din will be if Levi threw the purse with force
through one doorway of Reuven's house, and it passed through the opposite
doorway and fell into the street.
Why might this case be different than
the previous one?
(c) One of Rava's Talmidim asked him why he did not resolve this She'eilah
from Rebbi Aba bar Kahana, who rules that in the case of Matanah, if a deer
is running through Reuven's field, he will acquire it despite the fact that
it is running too fast for him to catch.
What did Rava reply?
(a) What does the Tana say about a Metzi'ah that one's young child, Eved or
Shifchah or wife finds?
(b) What is the source for this as regards one's ...
(c) The Metzi'ah of one's Eved Ivri and Amah Ivriyah belong to the finder.
What does the Tana say about the Metzi'ah of one's divorced wife who has not
yet received her Kesuvah?
- ... young daughter?
- ... Eved or Shifchah?
- ... wife?
(a) What reason does Shmuel give for the Takanas Chachamim that whatever a
son finds belongs to his father?
(b) What do we extrapolate from Shmuel regarding the Torah law of what a
(c) We query this however from a Beraisa. What does the Tana Kama say with
regard to one's son collecting Leket after his father in the case where
someone hires ...
(d) And what does Rebbi Yossi say?
- ... a poor man to work in his field?
- ... a part owner of the crops (who is considered a rich man) to do the work?
(a) Shmuel rules there like Rebbi Yossi.
What problem does this create
with his previous ruling regarding the Metzi'ah of a Katan?
there be no problem if a Katan would be Koneh min ha'Torah?
(b) How do we reconcile Shmuel's two rulings?
(c) The Tana Kama in the Mishnah in Shevu'os holds that what a Katan finds
is subject to theft because of Darkei Shalom.
What does Rebbi Yossi say?
(d) If, as Rav Chisda explains, Rebbi Yossi means 'Gezel Gamur
mi'Divreihem', what is the difference between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yossi?
(a) Based on Rav Chisda's interpretation of Rebbi Yossi (with which we
assume, Shmuel concurs), what have we now proved from Shmuel's ruling (like
Rebbi Yossi in the Beraisa) that contradicts his previous ruling?
So how does Rava (who agrees that a Katan cannot acquire an article from
Hefker) explain Rebbi Yossi's concession?
(b) So Abaye compares the case of Rebbi Yossi in the Beraisa to a field
through which Nemushos have already passed.
Who are the 'Nemushos'? What
do Chazal say about them, and why?
(c) What does Abaye mean with his statement" What does our case of a child
collecting after his father have to do with Nemushos?
(d) What objection does Rav Ada bar Masna raise to Abaye's explanation?
Answers to questions
(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan argues with Shmuel.
Rebbi Yochanan interpret 'Gadol' and 'Katan' in our Mishnah?
(b) According to him, on what basis is ...
- ... a Katan who does not eat at his father's table permitted to keep the Metzi'os that he finds?
- ... even a Gadol who eats at his father's table obligated to hand whatever he finds to his father?
(a) What does the Tana of the Beraisa say regarding a worker who is employed
to do whatever work his employer asks of him, and who picks up a Metzi'ah?
(b) How does Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan establish our Mishnah,
which permits an Eved Ivri to keep the Metzi'os that he picks up, in order
to reconcile our Mishnah with the Beraisa?
(c) Rava establishes the case when the Eved Ivri picked up the Metzi'ah in
the course of his work.
How does that solve the problem?
(d) How does Rav Papa establish the Beraisa to reconcile it with our
(a) We also learned in our Mishnah that an Amah Ivriyah may also keep what
Why can the Tana not be referring to an Amah who is a Gedolah?
(b) If on the other hand, she is a Ketanah, what she finds goes to her
father (who must compensate the master for any work-loss).
That being the
case, in which case does the Tana of our Mishnah say that she may keep her
(c) But did Resh Lakish not learn from a 'Kal va'Chomer' that an Amah
Ivri'ah goes free with the death of her father?
(d) Is our Mishnah, which permits her to keep what she finds (and does not
mention anything about her Metzi'os going to her father) a further disproof
of Resh Lakish's ruling?
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah also rules that what a divorced woman finds
belongs to her.
Why is that not obvious? How do we therefore establish the
(b) And the Chidush is based on a statement by Rebbi Zeira Amar Shmuel.
What does he rule with regard to Mezonos in such a case?
(c) Then why does the woman not have to hand what she finds to her husband
in exchange for her Mezonos (like she did when she was definitely married)?
(a) What distinction does Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah draw, in a case where
someone finds a Sh'tar Chov, between whether the Sh'tar contains Acharayus
Nechasim or not? What is 'Acharayus Nechasim'?
(b) What do the Chachamim say?
(c) What is the basis of their Machlokes?
(a) What would we have thought the Din would be if the debtor ...
Answers to questions
(b) Then how does our Mishnah speak? Why do both Tana'im agree that a Sh'tar
with Acharayus may not be returned?
- ... admits that the found Sh'tar with Acharayus is valid?
- ... denies that the found Sh'tar without Acharayus is forged?
(c) Why do we then not suspect every Sh'tar that comes before Beis-Din of
being a Sh'tar Mukdam (post-dated)?
(d) The Mishnah in Bava Basra permits the debtor to write a Sh'tar Chov even
without the lender being present.
Why is the Tana not afraid that he might
write it in Nisan, and borrow the money only in Tishri?