REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 14
(a) What does the Beraisa quoted by Rav Yosef say about 'Chatzar ha'Shutfim
ve'ha'Pundak', with regard to Shen ve'Regel?
(b) How does Rebbi Elazar, who holds Patur, reconcile his own opinion with
(c) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar presents four categories of locations. He
renders all damages liable in the Reshus of the Nizak, and all damages Patur
in the Reshus of the Mazik.
What does he say about ...
(d) Why ...
- ... a Chatzer ha'Shutfin ve'ha'Bik'ah?
- ... a Chatzer that belongs to neither of them?
- ... according to some, is one Patur on Shen va'Regel even in the Reshuyos that he is Chayav Keren?
- ... according to others, is one nevertheless Chayav?
(a) According to Rebbi Elazar, the Beraisa of Rav Yosef (which holds
partners liable for Shen ve'Ayin in a Chatzer ha'Shutfin) and Rebbi Shimon
ben Elazar in the second Beraisa (who exempts them), argue.
How do we
nevertheless reconcile the two Beraisos?
(b) And how do we prove this from the accompanying case in each respective
(c) Rebbi Zeira asked why they are Chayav for Shen va'Regel, in Rav Yosef's
Beraisa, because, seeing as it is designated for the use of each one's
fruit, it is not 'S'dei Acher'.
What did Abaye reply?
(d) Rav Acha from Difti asked Ravina whether perhaps we could reconcile Rav
Chisda and Rebbi Elazar in the same way as we just reconciled the two
What were Ravina's two answers?
(a) What do we extrapolate from Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar's words 'Kol she'Hu
Reshus le'Nizak ve'Lo le'Mazik, Chayav ba'Kol'? Like which earlier Tana does
Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar then hold?
(b) What would he have had to write, had he merely been coming to teach us
that the Mazik is Chayav for Shen as well as for Keren?
(a) In the Seifa, Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar says 'Lo la'Zeh ve'Lo la'Zeh,
K'gon Chatzer she'Eino shel Sheneihem, Chayav bah Al ha'Shen ve'Al
Why can he not mean that the Chatzer belongs to neither of
(b) So he must mean that it belongs to one of them and not to both.
(c) How will we then reconcile the continuation 'Tam Meshalem Chatzi Nezek,
u'Mu'ad Nezek Shalem' with the Reisha, which we just established like Rebbi
(d) Is it acceptable to present the Reisha of a Beraisa like one Tana, and
the Seifa, like his disputant?
(a) Ravina establishes the entire Beraisa like Rebbi Tarfon.
Answers to questions
How does he
explain 'Lo la'Zeh ve'Lo la'Zeh', in order to do this?
(b) What problem do we have with Ravina's interpretation of the Seifa?
(c) How does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak resolve it?
(a) What does the Tana of our Mishnah mean when he says ...
(b) The Beraisa establishes 'Shum Kesef' in a case where a cow first damaged
a cloak and then the cloak damaged the cow (see Tosfos).
- ... 'Shum Kesef'?
- ... 'Shaveh Kesef'?
What are the
respective Avos involved here?
(c) Where did these two damages occur?
(a) How does the Beraisa interpret 'Shaveh Kesef'?
(b) What happens if the Nizak seized Metaltelin?
(c) On what grounds so we reject Rabah bar Ula's interpretation that 'Shaveh
Kesef' implies something that ...
(d) What are the ramifications of the Halachah that Karka, Avadim and
Sh'taros are not subject to Ona'ah?
- ... is worth any amount of money, implying Karka, because it is not subject to Ona'ah (overcharging)?
- ... can be acquired with money, implying Karka?
(a) So how does Rav Ashi finally extrapolate from 'Shaveh Kesef' that the
Tana means to preclude Metaltelin?
(b) How does Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua reconcile our Mishnah with the
Beraisa "Yashiv", 'Lerabos Shaveh Kesef ke'Kesef, va'Afilu Subin'?
(c) What is the basis of this Halachah?
(d) If we are talking about Yesomim, how can the Beraisa then say that if
the Nizak seized Metaltelin, Beis-Din will allow him to claim his debt from
them? Why should an illegal seizure be legalized?
(a) What do we mean when we initially interpret 'Bifnei Beis-Din' (mentioned
in our Mishnah) to mean that Beis-Din will only claim Nezikin from property
that is available, and has not been sold?
(b) On what grounds do we reject this interpretation?
(c) So what *does* 'Bifnei Beis-Din' mean?
(a) And how do we interpret the Mishnah 'Al-Pi Eidim'?
Answers to questions
(b) On what grounds do we query this interpretation?
(c) We therefore explain the need to insert 'Al-Pi Eidim' by citing the
continuation of our Mishnah '(Al-Pi Eidim) B'nei Chorin u'B'nei B'ris'.
What does the Tana mean to preclude when he says ...
(d) Why does the Tana need to mention both? Had he mentioned only ...
- ... 'B'nei Chorin'?
- ... 'B'nei B'ris'?
- ... B'nei Chorin, why might we have thought that Nochrim are eligible to testify?
- ... B'nei B'ris, why might we have thought that Avadim are eligible to testify?