REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 34
(a) We just cited Rami bar Chama's Kashya on our Mishnah, where the owner
grants the Shomer the right to the Kefel, even though it appears to be a
'Davar she'Lo Ba le'Olam', which is not acquirable.
How does Rava
initially answer the Kashya? When does the owner actually 'give' the Shomer
(b) What problem does Rebbi Zeira then have with the shearings and the
(c) How do we know that he doesn't take them?
(d) So he amends Rava's answer, adding 'Chutz mi'Gizosehah u'V'ladosehah'.
How does he justify this distinction between the Kefel itself and the Gizos
(a) What is the second version of Rava's answer?
(b) Beside the fact that it dispenses with Rebbi Zeira's Kashya, what other
difference exists between the two versions?
(c) Why is the initial Meshichah that he made when receiving the cow for
safeguarding not good enough?
(a) Does the Shomer have to actually pay in order to acquire the Kefel? What
if he declares willingness to pay, but, before he has a chance to do so, the
Ganav is found?
(b) Why is the Reisha of our Mishnah 'Shilem ve'Lo Ratzah Lishava ... ' not
a proof that he has to actually pay?
(c) What does the Beraisa say about a Socher who admits that the Pikadon was
stolen (and who therefore has to pay) rather than swear that an O'nes
(a) What does Rav Papa say about ...
(b) Why does the owner not also grant the Sho'el the Kefel, since he could
have claimed 'Meisah Machmas Melachah' (that it died naturally due to
- ... a Shomer Chinam who admits that he was negligent?
- ... a Shomer Sachar who admits that the Pikadon was stolen?
- ... a Sho'el who offers to pay?
(c) What does Rav Papa say in the second Lashon?
(d) Rav Z'vid, quoting Abaye disagrees.
On what grounds does he hold that
the owner does not grant a Sho'el the Kefel until he has actually paid?
(a) What do we prove from the Beraisa which states 'ha'Sho'el Parah
me'Chaveiro ve'Nignevah, ve'Kidam ha'Sho'el ve'Shilem ve' ... Nimtza
ha'Ganav, Meshalem ... Kefel le'Sho'el'?
Answers to questions
(b) This Beraisa certainly poses no problem with the first Lashon of Rav
Papa (see Tosfos DH 'le'Lishna').
What is the problem with the second?
(c) How do we refute the suggestion that ...
- ... just like our Mishnah says 'Shilem', yet we interpret it to mean 'Amar', so too can we interpret the Beraisa in the same way?
- ... the change in Lashon does not prove anything, since the Beraisos may have been learned by two different Tana'im (one of whom uses the Lashon 'Shilem', the other, 'Kidem ve'Shilem')?
(a) The Halachah in the case of a Shomer who first denies liability, and
then admits that he is Chayav is clear-cut.
What is it? Does he receive
the Kefel or not?
(b) What She'eilah do we ask in the reverse case? Why might he receive the
Kefel even though he currently denies liability?
(c) We ask what the Din will be if, after the Shomer admitted that he is
Chayav, he dies and his sons deny liability.
What is the She'eilah? How
does it reflect on the previous one?
(d) On the assumption that the sons really mean to retract, what She'eilah
do we ask next?
(a) And what She'eilah do we ask in a case where the owner died, and the
Shomer paid (or agreed to pay) his sons?
(b) Assuming that, in these two cases, the owner or his son is Makneh the
Kefel, what do we ask next? Why might the Din here differ from the previous
(c) We ask whether, if a Sho'el paid half the animal, he receives half the
Kefel. What must we assume in that case, when we then do on to ask what
the Din will be if he paid for one of two animals? Why might the Din in this
case be different?
(d) What do we then ask about ...
- ... a Sho'el who paid one of the joint owners his half?
- ... one of the joint borrowers who paid the owner for his half?
(a) Finally, we ask what the Din will be if someone borrowed a cow of
Nichsei Milug belonging to a woman from her husband and pays the husband, or
if a woman borrowed a cow to plow her Nichsei Milug and her husband pays.
What is the ...
(b) What is the outcome of all these She'eilos?
- ... first She'eilah? Why might the Sho'el receive or not receive the Kefel if the Ganav is found?
- ... second She'eilah?
(a) What does Rav Huna say in all of the above cases where the Shomer
volunteers to pay?
(b) In a case where the creditor loses the security he received against the
loan and claims that the loan was a Sela, and the security was worth a
Shekel (half a Sela), what does the Beraisa rule if the debtor counters that
it was worth ...
(c) And what does the Tana say in a case where the debtor claims that the
security was worth two Sela'im (in which case it is the creditor who owes
him a Sela), and the creditor counters that it was worth only ...
- ... a Sela, and that he therefore owes him nothing?
- ... three Dinrim and he owes him only one Dinar?
(d) What sort of a Shomer does this Tana consider a creditor to be vis-a-vis
- ... one, and that they are quits?
- ... five Dinrim and that he therefore owes him only one Dinar?
(a) The Beraisa concludes that it is the creditor who swears how much the
security is worth, and not the debtor.
Answers to questions
What reason does the Tana give for
(b) Why can this final statement not refer to the (Seifa of the) Seifa?
(c) Then to which case does it refer?
(d) What Kashya does this pose on Rav Huna?