REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 35
(a) We just established our Mishnah when the ox wanted the fire just like
the man did.
How will we know that?
(b) How do we know that such a thing is possible? What did that donkey with
toothache that belonged to Rav Papa do?
(c) What problem do we have with establishing the ox similar to the man from
the Din in the Mishnah 'Shoro she'Biyesh Patur, ve'Hu she'Biyesh Chayav'?
(a) Initially, we answer this Kashya by reinterpreting 'Niskaven le'Vayesh',
according to the Sugya in 'Keitzad ha'Regel'.
What does 'Niskaven
le'Vayesh' really mean?
(b) Rava answers the Kashya by citing Tana de'Bei Chizkiyah.
Tana de'Bei Chizkiyah learn from the Pasuk in Emor, which compares "Makeh
Adam" to "Makeh Beheimah"?
(c) If the Hekesh teaches us that even Shogeg and Eino Miskaven is Patur
from paying, what is the significance of 'Bein Derech Yeridah le'Derech
Aliyah'? What makes one more obvious than the other?
(d) How does Rava then interpret the Lashon of our Mishnah 'Mipnei she'Hu
Nadun (or Mischayev) be'Nafsho'?
(a) What does the Tana of our Mishnah rule in a case where an ox that was
being chased by another ox ended up being injured, if the owner of the
injured ox blames the ox that was chasing it, where the owner of the latter
counters that it hurt itself on a rock?
Answers to questions
(b) And what does the Tana say in the equivalent case, but where the injured
ox had been chased not by one, but by two oxen (where we know for sure that
the ox was by killed by one of them)?
(c) Under which circumstances would the latter be liable to pay?
(a) The Mishnah discusses a case where one of the two oxen that had been
chasing the ox that was killed, was a big ox or a Mu'ad and the other one, a
small ox or a Tam, and the Nizak now claims that it was the big ox or the
Mu'ad that caused the damage, whereas the Mazik argues that it was the small
ox or the Tam.
What difference does it make whether the damage was caused
(b) What does the Tana rule in this case?
- ... the big ox or the small one?
- ... the Mu'ad or the Tam?
(c) What is the final set of cases in the Mishnah?
(d) What does the Tana rule there?
(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba points out that the author of our Mishnah cannot be
What would Sumchus say in all the cases in our Mishnah?
(b) Rebbi Aba bar Mamal asked Rebbi Chiya bar Aba whether Sumchus issued his
ruling even in a case of Bari u'Bari (where both the claimant and the
defendant state their case with certainty).
What was his reply?
(c) How does Rebbi Chiya bar Aba know that our Mishnah is speaking even when
the Mazik is Bari (we are not really concerned with the Nizak as we shall
(d) Does this mean that, according to Sumchus, every claimant receives half
his claim? Does Sumchus not hold of Chazakah?
(a) Assuming that the entire Mishnah speaks by Bari u'Bari, Rav Papa asks
from the Seifa on Rabah bar Nasan, who says that if Reuven admits that he
owes Shimon barley when Shimon has claimed wheat, he is Patur. Why is
(b) What Kashya does Rav Papa ask from the Seifa of our Mishnah ('Hayah
Echad Gadol ve'Echad Katan ... ', which is really the Metzi'a) on Rabah bar
Nasan? What would he say in those cases?
(c) So we are forced to learn the Seifa by Bari ve'Shema.
Who is the Bari
and who is the Shema?
(d) How do we know that it is not the other way round?
(a) Having concluded that the Seifa speaks when the Nizak is Shema, and the
Mazik, Bari, why can the Reisha not speak likewise?
(b) So how do we establish the Reisha?
(c) Since the Reisha and the Seifa are not similar anyway, why can Rebbi
Chiya bar Aba then not establish the Reisha by Bari u'Bari (only), like he
(a) In light of the Mishnah in Shevu'os 'Ta'ano Chitin ve'Hodeh Lo
bi'Se'orim Patur', what is Rabah bar Nasan coming to teach us? How might we
interpret the Mishnah in a way that renders his statement necessary?
(b) In the first case in the Seifa 'Hayu ha'Nizakin Shenayim, Echad Gadol
ve'Echad Katan ... ', our Mishnah rules 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro, Alav
What do we initially infer from there? What will happen in
the event that he does bring a proof?
(c) How do we reconcile this with Rabah bar Nasan?
(d) And how do we reconcile this answer with the Beraisa, which specifically
states 'Harei Zeh Mishtalem al ha'Katan min ha'Gadol u'le'Gadol min
(a) We ask the same two Kashyos on Rabah bar Nasan from the second case
'Hayah Echad Tam ve'Echad Mu'ad ... '.
Answers to questions
How do we answer them?
(b) Why do we not answer these Kashyos by establishing the case by Bari
ve'Shema, like we did in the Reisha and the Metzi'a of the Mishnah?
(c) And why did Rabah bar Nasan not establish the Reisha and the Metzi'a by
Bari u'Bari, and when the Tana says 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro ... ', there too,
he means to say that in the event that he does bring a proof, he ought to
get, but doesn't (because of Rabah bar Nasan's Din)?