REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 112
BAVA METZIA 112-115 - these Dafim have been dedicated anonymously l'Iluy
Nishmas Tzirel Nechamah bas Tuvya Yehudah.
(a) The Beraisa's second Lashon (regarding the Pasuk "ve'Eilav Hu Nosei es
Nafsho") reads 'Kol ha'Kovesh S'char Sachir, Ke'ilu Notel Nafsho Mimenu'.
Rav Huna and Rav Chisda argue over the meaning of 'Nafsho'.
What are the
two possible interpretations of the word?
(b) How does each one now explain the latter half of the Pasuk?
(c) The one proves his point from the Pasuk in Mishlei "Such is the way of
anyone who robs, he takes the soul of the owner", which he interprets to
mean literally 'the soul of the poor man'.
How does the other one explain
(d) The other one proves his point from the Pasuk there "Do not rob a poor
man ... because Hashem will take his part and will rob the soul of *the one
who robbed him*".
How does the first one interpret this last phrase?
(a) From where does the Tana of the Beraisa learn that the La'av of "Lo
Salin" is subject to the laborer claiming his wages?
Rabah proves his ruling from our Mishnah, which states that in such a case,
the hirer does not transgress, implying that he may retract (since the Tana
does not say to the contrary).
(b) He also learns from "Itcha" that the hirer only transgresses if he has
the money with which to pay.
What third D'rashah does he learn from there?
(c) According to Rav Sheishes, once the laborer has agreed to receive his
wages from the storekeeper, he cannot retract.
What are the ramifications
of this statement?
(d) What does Rabah say?
How does Rav Sheishes counter this proof?
How does he interpret the Mishnah's statement?
(a) They asked Rav Sheishes whether Kablanus is subject to 'bal Talin' or
What did they mean by 'Kablanus'?
(b) Given that the She'eilah is based on whether 'Uman Koneh bi'Sh'vach
K'li' or not, what are the two sides of the She'eilah?
(c) Rav Sheishes replied 'Over'.
How did he then establish the Beraisa
which says 'Eino Over'?
(a) What does another Beraisa say about someone who gives his cloak to a
craftsman, if he ...
(b) What do we try to prove with this?
- ... completed the job and informed the owner that it is ready?
- ... returned the cloak at midday?
(a) Rav Mari B'rei de'Rav Kahana refutes the proof by establishing the
Beraisa by a teasler (whose job is to soften the cloth).
Answers to questions
How does this
ostensibly refute the proof?
(b) We ask on this however, that when all's said and done, the garment is
improved, inasmuch as it is warmer, and we therefore establish the Beraisa
when the owner gave the Uman the garment 'le'Bitushi'.
What does this
(c) And how does this answer the Kashya? Why would 'Uman Koneh bi'Sh'vach
K'li not apply here in any case?
(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Sachir bi'Zemano Nishba ve'Notel'. What
problem do we have with ...
(b) Rav Nachman finally cites Shmuel, who answers 'Takanos Kevu'os Shanu
Ka'an'. What does 'Kevu'os' mean?
- ... this ruling?
- ... with Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's initial explanation 'Halachos Gedolos Shanu Ka'an'? What does 'Halachos' imply?
- ... his second answer 'Takanos Gedolos Shanu Ka'an'?
(c) We initially ascribe this switch to the need for the Sachir to earn a
What is wrong with this answer?
(d) And what is wrong with answering that ...
- ... the Socher himself is only too pleased with this Takanah, because it will encourage potential laborers to hire themselves out?
- ... we cannot use this argument with regard to the laborer, because he has no option but to hire himself out?
(a) So to what do we finally attribute the Takanah? Why *did* Chazal switch
(b) In that case, why is a Shevu'ah necessary? Let the laborer claim without
(c) Then why did Chazal not dispense with the need to swear, by requiring
the Socher to pay ...
- ... with witnesses (failing which, the Sachir will be believed)?
- ... in the morning before he begins working (in which case, the Sachir will certainly not have been paid yet)?
(a) Whom does the Tana of the Beraisa believe in a case where the Sachir
claims two Dinrim, and the Socher says that he promised him only one?
Answers to questions
(b) How do we explain this in light of the statement 'Socher Tarud
be'Po'alav'? Perhaps he forgot here too?
(c) And why did the Tana of our Mishnah then say 'Avar Zemano, Eino Nishba
ve'Notel'? Why did the Chachamim not believe the laborer there, too?
(d) Why do we believe the Socher in this case more than the Sachir? Surely
if he already received his wages, he would not claim a second time?