REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 104
(a) What does Rav Chisda mean when he says 'Sheli'ach she'As'o be'Eidim,
Havi Sheli'ach'? What is the case?
(b) And what are the ramifications of Rav Chisda's statement?
(c) What does Rabah say?
(d) Rav Chisda's reason is because, it is evident from the fact that the
creditor appointed the Sheli'ach in front of witnesses, that he intended to
appoint him his official Sheli'ach.
How does Rabah counter this?
(a) What does the Mishnah in 'ha'Sho'el' say about Reuven who asks to borrow
a cow from Shimon, who sends it to him through a son, an Eved, or a
Sheli'ach belonging to either of them, and the cow died on the way? What
does this prove?
(b) How do we know that the Sheli'ach was appointed in front of witnesses?
(c) We learned in our Mishnah that the Ganav may not send the stolen article
on which he swore via the owner's son or Sheli'ach, from which we can
extrapolate the same as we extrapolated from the Mishnah in 'ha'Sho'el'.
How does Rav Chisda establish the Mishnah in 'ha'Sho'el' in order to
reconcile his opinion with it?
(d) 'Sechiro' means a paid worker. 'Lekito' might mean a man who gathers in
What else might it mean?
(a) How do we reconcile the Mishnah in ha'Sho'el with Rav Chisda?
(b) It transpires that, according to Rav Chisda, the Tana of our Mishnah
will hold that, had the owner appointed the Sheli'ach with witnesses, the
Ganav would be permitted to send the stolen article with him.
Then why, in
the Seifa, does he jump to a Sheli'ach Beis-Din? Why does he not present the
case of a Sheli'ach who was appointed with witnesses?
(c) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar in a Beraisa disagrees with this ruling.
does he say about a Sheli'ach Beis-Din who is appointed at the instigation
of either the Ganav or the owner only?
(a) Like whom do Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar rule, like Rav Chisda or
Answers to questions
(b) Then, aside from Rav Chisda's answer ('bi'Sechiro u'Lekito'), how do
they establish our Mishnah?
(a) What does Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel mean when he says 'Ein Meshalchin
(b) Nor will it make any difference if witnesses sign on the letter to back
the request, according to him.
What does Rebbi Yochanan say?
(c) What would be the problem if the debtor would hand the Sheli'ach the
(a) To get round the problem of claiming a debt from someone who lives in
another town, Shmuel cited the incident of Rebbi Aba who was owed money by
Rav Yosef bar Chama (though this is difficult, seeing as Shmuel lived long
before Rav Yosef).
What request did he make of Rav Safra?
(b) What did Rav Yosef's son Rava, advise his father to do before handing
Rav Safra the money?
(c) What caused Rava B'rei de'Rav Yosef to retract from his previous ruling?
(d) So he advised Rav Safra to tell Rebbi Aba to do what Rav Papa would do
at a later date.
With Rav Shmuel bar Aba as the Sheli'ach, what did Rav
Papa do ...
- ... to retrieve his debt from the Bei Chuza'i?
- ... upon Rav Shmuel bar Aba's return with the money, demonstrating his joy at receiving his debt?
(a) What do we infer from the fact that the Tana of our Mishnah found it
necessary to exempt the Ganav from taking the Chomesh to Madai together with
(b) How do we prove this again from ...
(c) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Asher Gazal va'Asher
Ashak" that a son does not need to pay a Chomesh for what his father stole
if neither his father nor he swore.
- ... the continuation of our Mishnah 'Nasan Lo es ha'Keren ve'Nishba al ha'Chomesh'?
- ... a Beraisa? What does the Beraisa say about someone who steals and swears, and then dies?
What does the Tana then go on to add
(d) How does Rav Nachman reconcile the previous Beraisa (which obligates a
son to pay Keren ve'Chomesh for the father's theft) with this Beraisa?
(a) What can we infer from the latter Beraisa, which only speaks about a
(b) How does this pose a Kashya on Rav Nachman, who just establishes this
Beraisa when the father did not admit to having sworn falsely?
(a) What does another Beraisa say about a son having to pay Keren for the
father's theft, irrespective of whether either of them swore or not?
(b) The Beraisa concludes 'Talmud Lomar Gezeilah, ve'Oshek, Aveidah.
u'Pikadon; Yesh Talmud'.
What did Rabah bar Rav Huna ask his father, who
had just quoted this Beraisa, about the last two words? What is the
alternative text to 'Yesh Talmud'?
(c) What is the difference between the two texts?
(d) What did Rav Huna reply to his son's She'eilah?
(a) The latter Beraisa, which is a continuation of the previous one, is a
further proof that this Tana does obligate the sons to pay the Keren, which
makes no sense if there was no admission.
How do we therefore qualify the
'Lo Hodeh' of Rav Nachman?
(b) If the son swore and then admitted, why does he not pay a Chomesh on his
(c) Then why does he pay the Keren?
(d) Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua explains that he is nevertheless exempt
from paying the Chomesh, because one never pays Chomesh for any denial that
Why is that?
(a) According to some texts, we ask that even if the father did leave Karka,
it is no better than an oral loan.
What is the Kashya? Why ought the son
then not be obligated to pay even the Keren?
(b) What do we answer?
(c) On what grounds do we reject this text in view of ...
(d) What other problem do we have with the answer 'be'she'Amad ba'Din'?
- ... the Kashya? What does the Sugya later say about an oral loan where the father left Karka?
- ... the answer? Why would it be ineffective?
(a) Rava has another way of explaining why the Beraisa obligates the son to
pay the Keren but not the Chomesh. He establishes the case 'K'gon she'Haysah
Diskaya shel Aviv Mufkedes be'Yad Acheirim'.
Answers to questions
What does this mean?
(b) How does this explain why the son ...
- ... pays the Keren?
- ... does not pay the Chomesh?