REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 115
(a) If Shimon sold to Levi what he stole from Reuven, Rav quoting Rebbi
Chiya rules 'ha'Din Im ha'Rishon'.
What does he mean by that? What if the
owner were to claim from Levi?
(b) What does Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Yanai say?
(c) How does Rav Yosef reconcile the two opinions? What does 'Lifnei Yi'ush'
and 'le'Achar Yi'ush' mean?
(d) What does Rav Yosef mean when he adds that both opinions hold like Rav
Chisda? What does Rav Chisda say about 'Gazal ve'Lo Nisya'ashu ha'Ba'alim'?
(a) And how do we reconcile Rav Chisda's ruling with 'Takanas ha'Shuk',
which authorizes the purchaser from the Ganav to recoup what he paid for the
article from the owner?
(b) Abaye queries Rav Yosef's view (that Rav agrees with Rebbi Yochanan,
that before Yi'ush, the Ganav can claim his article from Levi) from the
Mishnah in Chulin. What does the Tana say in a case where someone buys ...
(c) How does Rav qualify this Mishnah? What will be the Din in a case where
it was not the purchaser who took the stomach and gave it to the him?
- ... the entire stomach of a cow, which still contains the Keivah (one of the Matanos)?
- ... parts of the cow by weight, including the stomach?
(d) What does Abaye extrapolate from here? Why does he assume that the Tana
is speaking before Yi'ush?
(a) How do we reconcile Rav Yosef with Rav's statement in Chulin? What does
Rav mean when he says 'ha'Din Im ha'Tabach'?
(b) What is the Chidush? Why might we have thought that the Kohen must claim
from the purchaser and not from the butcher?
(c) According to Abaye, who maintains that Rav argues with Rebbi Yochanan,
in what point does he argue with him?
(d) Rav Z'vid establishes Rav and Rebbi Yochanan when the owner was Meya'esh
after the purchaser had already bought the article.
What will then be the
basis of their Machlokes?
(a) According to Rav Papa, Rav agrees that the purchaser must return the
article, in the event that the owner asks him for it.
How does he
(b) According to Rav Z'vid and Rav Papa, do Rav and Rebbi Yochanan hold like
Rav Chisda or not?
- ... Rav's ruling 'ha'Din Im ha'Rishon'?
- ... Rebbi Yochanan's ruling 'ha'Din Im ha'Sheini'?
(c) What are the ramifications of Rebbi Yochanan ruling like Rav Chisda
(according to whom the purchaser cannot say 'I did not steal from you. Go
and claim from the Ganav!', seeing as the owner is obligated to pay him
(a) Chanan Biysha stole a coat and sold it.
What did Rav say to the owner?
(b) Why does this pose a Kashya o Rav? What is the connection between Rav
Huna and Rav?
(c) Rava rules that the Chachamim did not decree Takanas ha'Shuk in the case
of a well-known Ganav.
(d) Then why did Rav Huna apply Takanas ha'Shuk in the case of Chanan
Biysha, who was infamous for his wickedness?
(a) Why did Chazal not decree Takanas ha'Shuk in the case of Reuven who
borrowed money from Shimon or who bought from him on credit, and he
subsequently payed off his debt with an object that he stole?
(b) If Reuven gave Shimon a stolen article worth two hundred Zuz as a
security against a loan of a hundred Zuz, the Chachamim did decree Takanas
ha'Shuk (since the money was in fact given against the object). But if the
security was worth a hundred Zuz, says Ameimar, they did not (even though
Mar Zutra disagrees).
(c) According to Rav Sheishes, if Reuven sells Shimon an article worth a
hundred Zuz for two hundred, they did not decree Takanas ha'Shuk, (even on
the second hundred [although Rava disagrees]).
(d) What is the Halachah in all of the above cases? Which are the only two
to which Takanas ha'Shuk does apply?
(a) When Avimi bar Nazy lent a certain man four Zuz, what did the latter go
and do? Who was Avimi bar Nazy?
Answers to questions
(b) When, after Avimi made him a second loan, the Ganav was discovered,
Ravina ruled that whereas the first loan was a case of 'Ganav u'Para
be'Chovo', the second loan was made against the stolen coat, and that the
owner was therefore obligated to pay Avimi when he retrieved it. Rebbi Avahu
however, ruled like Rav Kohen.
What did Rav Kohen say?
(c) A Narsha'ah stole a Sefer which he sold to a Papuna'ah for eighty Zuz,
and the Papuna'ah then sold it to a bar Mechuza'ah (all place names, like
saying 'a Yerushalmi' or 'a New Yorker') for a hundred and twenty Zuz. Then,
the Ganav was discovered.
What objection did Rava raise to Abaye's ruling,
that the owner should pay eighty Zuz to the bar Mechuza'ah for his coat, and
the bar Mechuza'ah had to reclaim the remaining forty from the Papuna'ah?
(d) So what did Rava's rule?
(a) If Reuven, who is transporting a barrel of wine, collides with Shimon
who is transporting a barrel of honey, the honey begins to spill through a
crack in the barrel, and Reuven pours out his wine in order to save Shimon's
honey, what is he entitled to claim from Shimon, according to the Tana of
(b) In which case would he be entitled to recoup his entire loss?
(c) Which other case does the Tana cite which has the equivalent Halachah?
(a) What does the Beraisa say about someone who is carrying jars of wine or
oil when he notices that they are breaking and that all the contents are
about to spill?
(b) This indicates that, in such a case, the contents of the container are
considered Hefker. In that case, the owner of the wine in our Mishnah should
be permitted to keep the honey. The reason that he is not, is because of
How does Rebbi Yirmiyah establish a similar Beraisa?
(a) Another Beraisa prohibits a traveler who sees a robber coming towards
him, from transferring the Kedushah of Ma'aser-Sheini fruit that he has at
home on to the money that he has with him.
What would be the Din if he
did? Would the transfer be valid?
(b) Then how do we account for the fact that the Tana in the previous
Beraisa disqualifies the Ma'asros that the owner designated, even Bedi'eved?
(c) What does the Tana of another Beraisa say about someone who notices that
one of ten barrels of wine of Tevel Tamei that he is transporting is
breaking or became uncovered?
(d) How does Rebbi Yirmiyah reconcile this Beraisa with the previous
Beraisa, which forbids the transfer of Kedushas Ma'aser-Sheini on to the
money that is being threatened by the approaching robber?
(a) Wine that is spilling is fit to be used for Ziluf (as an aromatic). We
have a problem however, with wine that became uncovered, which we
substantiate with a Beraisa.
What does the Tana say about water that became
(b) We answer the Kashya by establishing the Beraisa like Rebbi Nechemyah.
What use does uncovered wine have, according to him?
(c) The Tana Kama forbids an uncovered strainer outright.
What does Rebbi
(d) But did Rebbi Si'mon Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi not forbid a strainer
even according to Rebbi Nechemyah, there where someone mixed them (because
then, the snake's venom slips through the strainer)?
(a) The Tana Kama of a Beraisa permits Ma'asering from Tahor on to Tahor,
Tamei on to Tamei and Tahor on to Tamei.
What does Rebbi Nechemyah say?
(b) In that case, how can we establish the Beraisa which permits Ziluf by
uncovered wine, seeing as the Tana is talking about Ma'asering Tevel Tamei
on to Tevel Tamei?
(c) The same Tana who permits Ma'asering the wine of Tevel Tamei, forbids it
if the barrels contain oil.
Why is that?
(d) Does this mean that Ziluf is not important and is therefore not
considered a loss to the Kohen?
(a) We therefore establish the Beraisa by new wine that is not so good for
Answers to questions
Why is not possible to wait until the wine becomes old?
(b) Why are we not similarly afraid of Takalah in the case of oil?
(c) If one can place oil in an old vessel (to ensure that one does not use
it together with food), why can one not do the same with wine?