REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 111
(a) Rebbi Yehudah states in the Beraisa 'Nasan Asham li'Yehoyariv, ve'Kesef
Li'Yedayah, Yachzir Kesef Eitzel Asham'.
What do the Chachamim say?
(b) Why can the Beraisa not be speaking when the Gazlan gave the Asham to
Yehoyariv during their Mishmar and the money to Yeda'ayah during their
(c) Rava therefore establishes the Beraisa when he gave both during the
Mishmar of Yehoyariv. If the Chachamim's reason is because Yehohariv should
not have accepted the Asham before the Gazlan had returned the money (as we
learned in our Mishnah in a case where he gave the money to Yedayah during
their Mishmar), what is Rebbi Yehudah's reason?
(a) What does Rebbi in a Beraisa say about the above case if Yehoyariv
atually brought the Asham before Yedayah returned the money to them?
(b) What does Rebbi mean when he says that Yehoyariv may keep the Asham that
they have? Of what use is a Pasul Asham?
(c) In that case, when does Rebbi Yehudah say 'Yachzir Kesef Eitzel Asham'?
(a) In a second Beraisa, Rebbi states that, according to Rebbi Yehudah, if
the Asham is still alive, 'Yachzir Asham Eitzel Kesef' (meaning that
Yehoyariv must give the Asham to Yehoyada to bring.
But did Rebbi Yehudah
not say 'Yachzir Kesef Eitzel Asham'?
(b) In yet another Beraisa, Rebbi states that, according to Rebbi Yehudah,
if the Asham is still alive, 'Yachzir Kesef Eitzel Asham'.
But surely that
is precisely what Rebbi Yehudah said?
(c) What is Rebbi coming to teach us?
(d) What is the point of returning the money to the Yehoyariv? Seeing as
their Mishmar has already come to an end, when will they bring the Asham?
(a) What does Rava learn from the Pasuk in Naso "ha'Asham ha'Mushav
la'Hashem la'Kohen, mi'L'vad Eil ha'Kipurim Asher Yechaper Bo Alav"?
(b) Assuming that Rava learns this from "mi'L'vad Eil ha'Kipurim"' which, he
maintains, implies that the Asham comes later, what Kashya does this pose on
the Pasuk in Pinchas "mi'L'vad Olas ha'Boker Asher le'Olas ha'Tamid", which
is written immediately after the Korban Musaf?
(c) What does Rava himself Darshen from the word "ve'Arach Aleheh *ha'Olah*"
(written in Vayikra, in connection with the Korban Tamid)?
(d) So from where does Rava really learn that the Gazlan must return the
Gezel ha'Ger before bringing the Asham?
(a) The Torah writes in Vayikra, in connection with Me'ilah (the
misappropriation of Hekdesh) "ve'ha'Kohen Yechaper Alav be'Eil ha'Asham
The Tana concludes that we learn Hekdesh from Hedyot (the Parshah of Me'ilah
from that of Gezel ha'Ger), and vice-versa.
What does "ha'Asham refer to"?
(b) In that case, what does the Beraisa learn from ...
(c) Is the Chomesh Me'akev, too?
- ... "be'Eil ha'Asham ve'Nislach Lo"?
- ... the order of the words "be'Eil ha'Asham"?
What do we learn ...
***** Hadran Alach ha'Gozel Eitzim *****
- ... by Hekdesh from Hedyot?
- ... by Hedyot from Hekdesh?
Answers to questions
***** Perek ha'Gozel u'Ma'achil *****
(a) Our Mishnah exempts the heirs of a Gazlan who fed them or left them what
In which case does the Tana concede that they will are Chayav?
(b) What does Rav Chisda say in a case where someone eats what a Gazlan
stole before the owner has been Meya'esh?
(c) Why is that?
(d) How does Rav Chisda then establish our Mishnah, which exempts the heirs
who ate what their father left them from paying?
(a) What does Rami bar Chama extrapolate from the previous statement of Rav
Chisda (from the fact that the heirs acquire the object with Yi'ush and
(b) We are clearly assuming that Yi'ush alone is not Koneh.
How do we know
that this is what the Tana of our Mishnah holds?
(a) Rava interprets our Mishnah differently.
Why according to him, are the
heirs Patur from paying (even if we were to hold like Rav Chisda's basic
(b) The heirs can only be Patur, according to Rava - if they ate the stolen
object after their father's death.
Why is that? What would be the Din if
the object was still available?
(c) Our Mishnah concludes 've'Im Hayah Davar she'Yesh Bo Acharayus, Chayavin
How do we currently interpret this?
(d) In that case, it seems that the Reisha speaks when the stolen object is
still available (a Kashya on Rava).
How will Rava therefore explain the
Mishnah? How does he amend the Seifa 've'Im Hayah Davar she'Yesh Bo
'Acharayus ... '?
(a) We ask on this however, from a statement that Rebbi made to Rebbi Shimon
How did Rebbi explain to his son 'Davar she'Yesh Bo Acharayus'?
(b) In response, Rava said that when he died, Rebbi Oshaya would come out to
Why did he say that?
(c) How does Rebbi Oshaya interpret ...
- ... 'Hini'ach Lahem Avihem Peturim mi'Le'shalem'?
- ... 've'Im Hayah Davar she'Yesh Bo Acharayus, Chayavin Le'shalem'?
(a) We just established our Mishnah according to Rebbi Oshaya to read
'Gezeilah Kayemes, Chayavin Le'shalem. Ein Gezeilah Kayemes, Peturin'. How
Answers to questions
(b) What have we proved from here? From which point have we now retracted,
with regard to Rami bar Chami?
- ... Rav Chisda, who learned earlier that the third person (who ate the object) is Chayav, explain 'Ein Gezeilah Kayemes, Peturin'?
- ... How will Rami bar Chama, who holds 'Reshus Yoresh ki'Reshus Loke'ach Dami', explain 'Gezeilah Kayemes, Chayavin Le'shalem', seeing as according to him, the heirs ought to acquire the object with Yi'ush and Shinuy Reshus?
(c) Why are the Gazlan's heirs not Koneh the Gezeilah anyway, according to
Rami bar Chama, because of Shinuy Reshus?