REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 78
(a) We just explained that the word "O" in the Pasuk by Kodshim "Shor O
Kesev" comes to exclude Kil'ayim.
What do we learn regarding ...
(b) An alternative D'rashah to the latter is a direct Limud from the Pasuk
in Korach "Ach Bechor Shor".
- ... Ma'aser Beheimah, from the Gezeirah-Shavah "*Tachas* ha'Shevet" "*Tachas* Imo" (written by Kodshim)?
- ... Bechor, from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "*ve'Ha'avarta* Kol Petter Rechem la'Hashem" "Kol Asher *Ya'avor* Tachas ha'Shavet"?
What do we learn from there?
(a) Having found independent D'rashos for all of the above Halachos, to
which case does Rava's Binyan Av of "Seh" (invalidating Kil'ayim) pertain?
(b) This is the source of the Mishnah in Bechoros, which invalidates a lamb
of Kil'ayim with regard to Petter Chamor. The Tana there, also invalidates a
calf, a wild animal, a Shechted lamb and a Coy.
What is ...
- ... a Coy?
- ... the reason for the P'sul of a lamb that has been Shechted?
(a) What does Rebbi Elazar say about redeeming a Petter Chamor with a lamb
(b) According to Rebbi Elazar therefore, we suggest that Rava's Binyan Av
pertains to a non-Kasher animal whose father is not Kasher either, but whose
mother is (e.g. a horse born from a cow, whose father is a horse [though we
are dealing specifically with a lamb]).
What problem do we have with this
(c) How do we solve the problem? What is a Kalut?
(a) Why can this explanation not go according to Rebbi Yehoshua?
Answers to questions
(b) In which point does Rebbi Yehoshua argue with Rebbi Shimon?
(a) The Tana Kama in the Mishnah in Temurah requires someone who declares a
Neder to bring an Olah, to bring at least a lamb.
What does Rebbi Elazar
ben Azaryah say?
(b) In light of this Machlokes, what She'eilah does Rava ask in the case of
Reuven who stole the ox that Shimon had designated for his Olah?
(c) Perhaps he may, because at the end of the day, the Ganav is paying back
an Olah, with which the owner fulfils his obligation.
Why might he
nevertheless be obligated to return an ox?
(d) Rava concludes that he may indeed return a lamb or even a bird.
is Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ika's version of Rava's statement?
(a) If the Ganav sells the stolen article 'except for a hundredth part of
it', or if he is a part owner to begin with, he is Patur from Daled ve'Hey.
Why is that?
(b) What will be the Din if, instead of Shechting it, he simply kills it?
(c) The same applies if he made Nechirah or Akirah.
What is ...
- ... Nechirah?
- ... Akirah?
(a) Rav interprets 'except for a hundredth part of it' to mean except for
any part of the animal which is permitted through Shechitah.
(b) What does Levi say?
(c) Levi's opinion tallies with that of the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, who
says 'Machrah Chutz mi'Yadah ... Raglah ... Karnah ... Gizosehah, Einah
Meshalem Arba'ah va'Chamishah'. The Beraisa continues 'Rebbi Omer, Davar
ha'Me'akev bi'Shechitah, Eino Meshalem'. How does ...
(d) The final opinion in the Beraisa is that of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar.
According to him, 'Chutz mi'Karnah', pays Daled ve'Hey; 'Chutz
mi'Gizosehah', does not.
- ... the Tana Kama interpret a. "u'Tevacho; b. ' O Mecharo"?
- ... Rebbi interpret a. "u'Tevacho; b. ' O Mecharo"
What is his reason?
(a) How do we reconcile Rav (who differentiates between 'Chutz mi'Yadah
ve'Raglah' and Chutz mi'Karnah ve'Gizosehah') with the fact that none of the
opinions of the Beraisa hold like him?
(b) What is the reason of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar in the second Beraisa (and
Rav), where he differentiates between the feet of the animal on the one
hand, and its horns and fleece on the other?
(c) How can Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar state two conflicting opinions in two
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa states that if someone steals an animal with a
foot missing or which is lame or blind and Shechts it, he is Chayav Daled
Considering that the animal is incomplete, why is this not a
question of "u'Tevacho" 'Kulo'?
(b) The Beraisa also obligates someone who steals an animal belonging to
What does the Tana hold with regard to partners who steal?
(c) Rav Nachman tries to reconcile this Beraisa with another Beraisa
'Shutfin she'Ganvu, Chayavin', by establishing the latter, by a partner who
stole from a third party, and the former, by one who stole from his partner.
What is the reason for this distinction?
(d) Rava refutes Rav Nachman's explanation on the basis of another Beraisa
which exempts a partner even when he steals from a third party, because it
does not conform with "u'Tevacho" 'Kulo be'Isura'.
In which case does the
Tana then obligate him?
(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah asked whether a Ganav is Chayav Daled ve'Hey if he stole
an ox and sold it barring thirty days (during which time he retained the
right to work with it, or 'bar mi'Melachtah'.
What is the difference
between the two cases?
(b) He also asked whether he would be Chayav if he sold a pregnant cow but
retained the Ubar.
According to which opinion is this not even a
(c) According to those who hold Ubar La'av Yerech Imo Hu, the Ganav might be
Chayav Daled ve'Hey because the Ubar is intrinsically attached to the
Why might he nevertheless be Patur?
(d) What other reason might there be to obligate the Ganav to pay Daled
(a) Rav Papa asked whether the Ganav will have to pay Daled ve'Hey if he
subsequently cut off a limb and sold it. On the one hand, he did not sell
the entire animal that he stole.
Answers to questions
What is the other side of the She'eilah,
that might nevertheless obligate him to pay?
(b) What is the outcome of the She'eilah?