REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 84
(a) Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai learns that "Ayin Tachas Ayin" must mean Mamon,
from the case of a blind man who blinded his friend or a lame one who made
(b) On what grounds do we reject Rebbi Shimon's proof?
(c) How do we support our argument from a T'reifah who murdered somebody?
(d) Why can a T'reifah not be sentenced to death?
(a) How does de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learn 'Mamon' from the Pasuk in Emor
"Kein *Yinasen* Bo"?
(b) How do we reconcile this with the fact that (in the previous phrase,
("Ka'asher *Yiten* Mum ba'Adam") "Yiten" certainly does not mean Mamon?
(c) Then why does the Torah use the word "Yiten" there?
(a) What does de'Bei Rebbi Chiya learn from the Pasuk there (in connection
with Eid Zomem) "Yad be'Yad"?
(b) Seeing as "Regel be'Ragel" cannot be explained in the same way, on what
grounds do we Darshen "Yad be'Yad" like that?
(c) Then why does the Torah write "Regel be'Ragel"?
(a) Abaye learns 'Mamon' from Tana de'Bei Chizkiyah.
What does Tana de'Bei
Chizkiyah extrapolate from "Ayin Tachas Ayin, Nefesh Tachas Nefesh"?
(b) We reject Abaye's proof too, supporting our point from the Mishnah in
What does the Mishnah there say with regard to assessing someone
(c) What does this prove?
(a) Rav Z'vid in the name of Rava learns 'Mamon' from the D'rashah of "Petza
Tachas Patza", and Rav Papa in the name of Rava learns it from the D'rashah
of "ve'Rapo Yerapei".
What two D'rashos do we learn from these two
(b) How do Rav Z'vid and Rav Papa learn 'Mamon' from there?
(c) And how do we reject their respective proofs?
(a) The last proof for 'Mamon' is that of Rav Ashi. who initially learns
from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Ayin Tachas Ayin", "Shalem Yeshalem Shor Tachas
ha'Shor" (that just as the latter Pasuk refers to Mamon, so too, the
former). We query this however, on the grounds that it would more likely to
derive the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from Adam.
To which Pasuk does this refer?
(b) Why might we nevertheless prefer to learn the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from the
Pasuk by Shor?
(c) Due to the doubt from which "Tachas" to learn it, Rav Ashi switches to a
third "Tachas", which refers to both Adam and Mamon.
Which Pasuk is that?
(a) Rebbi Eliezer states in a Beraisa "Ayin Tachas Ayin" Mamash.
obviously wrong with this statement?
(b) Rabah explains Rebbi Eliezer to mean that the Mazik is not assessed like
What does Abaye ask on this?
(c) So how does Rav Ashi explain Rebbi Eliezer?
(a) What did Rav Papa bar Shmuel rule when the case of a child whose hand
had been bitten off by a donkey was brought before him?
(b) He explained to Rava that he meant four besides Nezek.
What did he
tell Abaye when he pointed out that the damage had been done by a donkey
(and not by a human)?
(c) And what did he rule when the father refused to assess him like an Eved
because he considered it undignified?
(d) And what did the father have to say to that?
(a) When the case of the child whose hand had been chewed by an ox came
before Rava, he ruled that they should assess the child like an Eved. They
queried him however, on the basis of another statement of his.
Answers to questions
What did he
say with regard to anyone who needs to be assessed like an Eved?
(b) How does Rava reconcile his current ruling with his other statement?
(c) Rava's latter statement tallies with another statement of his.
did he say with regard to the damage done to ...
(d) Why can the reason of the latter ruling not be ascribed to the fact that
the Torah uses the word "Elohim" ("Ad ha'Elohim Yavo D'var Sheneihem" [which
in this context, means 'expert judges'])?
- ... an ox by an ox or to an ox by a human?
- ... a human by a human or ro a human by an ox?
(a) Why do we assume that there are no expert judges in Bavel? What is the
definition of an expert judge?
(b) We suggest that 'the damage to an ox by an ox and to an ox by a human'
is Chayav because of 'Shelichusaihu ka'Avdinan' like by Hoda'os and
What does this mean? What are 'Hoda'os and Halva'os'?
(c) We think at this stage that the reason that 'the damage of a human by a
human and to a human by an ox' is Patur in Bavel is because the amount needs
to be assessed. We reject this explanation on two scores, one of them
because in the former case, as well as in the latter, it is easy to go and
find out the market value of the Nizak in the market (so that *the initial
lack of knowledge of his value is not really a criterion*).
grounds do we reject it *even if it were*?
(d) Neither is the criterion solely the fact that we do not judge K'nasos in
Bavel, because 'the damage of a human by a human and to a human by an ox' is
not a K'nas. Perhaps we suggest, whatever is uncommon, is not judged in
Bavel, but we refute that too, on the basis of Rav Papa.
What did Rav Papa
rule when a case involving Bo'shes came before him?
(a) Rav Papa is proved wrong however, from a statement of Rav Nachman (who
was famed for his expertise in money-matters).
What did Rav Nachman send
to Rav Chisda, when he consulted him about how much Bo'shes to pay in a
certain case that came before him (in Perek ha'Meni'ach)?
(b) We finally conclude that we only claim in Bavel cases (of Mamon, but not
of K'nas) with two specifications.
(c) How does that explain why, in Bavel, we do not claim ...
(d) When Rava said that a Shor that damaged is not subject to claim in
Bavel, how do we know that he meant 'Shor de'Azik Shor'?
- ... 'the damage of a human by a human and to a human by an ox'?
- ... Bo'shes?
(a) How do we reconcile this statement of Rava with his previous statement
(that Shor de'Azik Shor does pay in Bavel)?
(b) Rava also said that there is no such thing as a Mu'ad in Bavel.
(c) To explain the discrepancy that on the one hand, there is no such thing
as a Shor Mu'ad in Bavel, and on the other, Rava speaks about claiming from
a Mu'ad in Bavel, we try to establish the case of a Mu'ad in Bavel when
either the Mu'ad ox or the Beis-Din of Semuchin was brought from Eretz
Yisrael to Bavel.
On what basis do we reject both suggestions?
(d) So what is the case of an ox that is a Mu'ad in Bavel to which Rava
(a) Rebbi argues with ben Azai in a Beraisa. Assuming that Rebbi interprets
"Kevi'ah" to mean a burn without a real wound, what does ...
(b) This is the opinion of Rava.
- ... he mean when he says 'Kevi'ah Ne'emrah Techilah'?
- ... ben Azai (who interprets ''Kevi'ah'' to mean a burn with a wound) then mean when he says 'Chaburah Ne'emrah Techilah'?
According to Rava, who is therefore the
author of our Mishnah?
(c) Rav Papa refutes Rava's explanation with the words 'Ipcha Mistavra'.
What does he mean by that?
(d) Based on the fact that Rebbi interprets "Kevi'ah" to mean a burn with a
wound, what does ...
- ... he now mean when he says 'Kevi'ah Ne'emrah Techilah'?
- ... ben Azai mean when he says 'Chaburah Ne'emrah Techilah'?
Who is therefore the author of our Mishnah, according to Rav Papa?
(a) Alternatively, according to both opinions, Kevi'ah could mean either a
burn with a wound or a burn without one, and they argue over a 'K'lal
u'P'rat' which are not together.
Answers to questions
What is the K'lal in this case, and what
is the P'rat?
(b) What would we Darshen if they were together?
(c) ben Azai considers them as if they were together, and the burn must
incorporate a real wound.
What do the Rabbanan say?
(d) According to Rebbi, why does the Torah need to write "Chaburah?