REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 92
BAVA METZIA 91-95 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi
publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(a) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah permits a laborer to eat even a Dinar's
worth of cucumbers.
How much does he allow him to eat if he is employed to
pick Kosvos (a species of date)?
(b) Rebbi Elazar Chisma restricts him to the equivalent of his wages.
does he derive this from the word "ke'Nafshecha" (written in this regard)?
(c) What advice would Beis-Din give the gluttonous laborer?
(d) Who is the author of this piece of advice? What forces us to say this?
(a) Alternatively, the Tana Kama and the Chachamim argue over a statement by
What did Rav Asi say about a laborer who has been hired to pick
only one bunch of grapes?
(b) The Tana Kama agrees with this.
What does Rebbi Elazar Chisma then
(c) And what do the Chachamim hold?
(d) Rav Asi also stated that, even if the laborer has only picked one bunch
he is permitted to eat it.
What is he saying? In which way does this
statement differ from his first one?
(a) Having issued ...
(b) As a third alternative, we base the Machlokes between the Tana Kama and
the Chachamim on a Megilas S'tarim (a hidden scroll) that Rav found in Rebbi
- ... the first statement, why did Rav Asi find it necessary to issue the second one? Why might we have thought otherwise?
- ... the second statement, why did Rav Asi find it necessary to issue the first one?
What is a 'Megilas S'tarim'?
(c) The statement on the Megilah was by Isi ben Yehudah.
How did Isi
interpret the Pasuk "Ki Savo be'Kerem Rei'echa"?
(d) What did Rav comment on Isi's D'rashah?
(a) Which Tana in our Mishnah now holds like Isi, and which one doesn't?
(b) How do we know that it is not the other way round?
(c) So what is now the gist of the Chachamim's statement?
(d) When Rav Ashi reported Rav's comment to Rav Kahana, he suggested that
maybe Isi obligated whoever helped himself to fruit to pay for what he ate
How would Rav counter that suggestion?
(a) We ask whether what a laborer eats is his own, or Hashem's (who
permitted him to eat).
What are the ramifications of this She'eilah?
(b) How do we try and resolve it from the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, who
permits him to eat a Dinar's worth, even though it is more that what he
picked (like Rav Asi)?
(c) How do we counter this argument?
(d) We try and resolve the She'eilah by making it dependent upon a Machlokes
Tana'im in our Mishnah.
(e) We conclude however, that both Tana'im hold 'be'she'Lo Hu Ochel', and
the basis of their Machlokes is how to Darshen "ke'Nafshecha". Rebbi Elazar
Chisma Darshens it as we explained in our Mishnah.
How do the Chachamim
(a) What does the Beraisa say about a Nazir laborer who asks someone to hand
his wife and children some fruit?
(b) What do we try and prove from there?
(c) How do we counter the proof? Why else might we not listen to him?
(a) And how do we counter the proof from a similar Beraisa to the previous
one, which says the same about a Po'el?
Answers to questions
(b) If 'Po'el' means Nazir, why does the Tana need to mention them both?
(c) In yet another Beraisa, the Tana uses the word 'Po'el', but cites the
Pasuk "ve'el Kelyecha Lo Siten".
What does this seem to prove?
(d) How do we counter this proof too?
(a) Another Beraisa discusses someone who hires a worker 'Li'ktzos
What does this mean?
(b) On what grounds is he Patur from Ma'asering the drying fruit that he
(c) If he stipulates for himself and his son to eat, he remains Patur from
Ma'asering what he eats.
What do we try and prove from the Tana's ruling
that he is Chayav to Ma'aser what his son eats?
(d) How do we counter this proof? Why *is* he Chayav?
(a) If someone hires a laborer to work in his field of Neta Revai (the fruit
of the fourth year, following the three years of Orlah), the laborer is not
permitted to eat.
(b) In a case where the hirer failed to inform the laborer that the fruit
was Neta Revai, the Tana of the next Mishnah rules that he must redeem the
fruit and give some to the laborer.
How do we try and prove from here that
'be'Shelo Hu Ochel'?
(c) How do we counter that?
(a) The Tana continues 'Nisparsu Igulav Nispatchah Chaviyosav, Harei Eilu Lo
What is the laborer hired to do in the case of ...
(b) And he is forbidden to eat (or drink) as he works because they have
already reached the staged of G'mar Melachah for Ma'asros.
- ... 'Nisparsu Igulav'?
- ... 'Nispatchah Chaviyosav'?
What is the
G'mar Melachah for ...
(c) There too, the Tana concludes 've'Im Lo Hodi'o, Me'aser ve'Nosen Lo';
and there too, we try to bring the same proof that 'be'Shelo Hu Ochel'.
- ... Ketzi'os?
- ... barrels of wine?
Why can we not simply answer like we answered the previous Kashya 'Mishum
de'Mechzi ke'Mekach Ta'us'?
(a) Rav Sheishes therefore establishes the Mishnah by barrels of wine,
which, after the lids were removed, were emptied into the wine-pit.
is this answer ineffective according to the Rabbanan?
(b) It *is* effective however, according to Rebbi Akiva, who considers the
G'mar Melachah of wine in a pit as 'mi'she'Yeired le'Bor ve'Yikpeh'.
does that mean?
(c) Why do we not expect the laborer to have asked whether the skins had
already been removed or not?
(a) According to Tani Rav Z'vid de'Bei Rebbi Hoshaya, the Tana Kama of the
Beraisa requires 'mi'she'Yashleh be'Chaviyos ve'Nikpeh' (when the previous
process took place but after it was placed in the barrels).
Rebbi Akiva say?
(b) Consequently, it is no longer necessary to establish the previous
Beraisa when the wine had been poured back into the pit.
Why do we not
expect the laborer to have asked whether the dregs had not already been
removed from the barrel?
(c) The Tana of the above Mishnah permits a laborer to accept money instead
of eating fruit on behalf of himself, his grown-up children, his grown-up
Avadim and his wife.
Why is that?
(d) What does he say with regard to his young children and Avadim, and his
(a) What do we prove from the fact that the above stipulation is not valid
on behalf of Ketanim, assuming that he is feeding them?
(b) How do we refute this proof ?
(c) If, on the other hand, the Tana speaks when he is not feeding them, then
how will we account for the fact that his stipulation is valid with regard
to Gedolim, but not to Ketanim?
(d) In which point does the Beraisa, which also lists all the above cases,
differ from the Mishnah?
(a) So we revert to our original suggestion, that both Tana'im are speaking
when he is providing them with Mezonos.
How then, do we initially attempt
to explain the Machlokes by Avadim Ketanim? Why does the Tana of ...
(b) We counter this however, by establishing both Tana'im by 'mi'Shelo Hu
- ... the Mishnah forbid stipulating on behalf of Avadim Ketanim?
- ... the second Beraisa permit it?
Then what is the basis of their Machlokes?
(c) If the Beraisa speaks when he is feeding his young children, how will we
explain the fact that the laborer cannot stipulate on their behalf?
(d) Regarding our Mishnah, we ascribed the fact that the laborer is not
authorized to stipulate on behalf of his Avadim Ketanim to the fact that he
is not feeding them.
What problem do we have with this? What do some
opinions hold with regard to feeding one's Eved Cana'ani?
(a) So we propose that the Machlokes Tana'im is - whether a master can say
to his Eved 'Asei Imi ve'Eini Zancha' (the Beraisa) or not (the Mishnah).
Answers to questions
Why will this create a problem with Rebbi Yochanan, who permits it?
(b) So we suggest that both Tana'im hold 'mi'Shel Shamayim Hu Ochel'.
does the Tana of the Beraisa then mean when he says 'Kotzetz'?
(c) Why does this then present a problem with his ruling 'Aval Lo al-Yedei
(d) So we finally establish that the Beraisa holds 'be'Shelo Hu Ochel'.
Does the Tana speak when the laborer is feeding the Avadim Ketanim or not?
(e) How does the Tana of the Mishnah hold? And how does *he* speak?