REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 10
(a) Rav Nachman and Rav Chisda both hold 'ha'Magihah Meti'ah la'Chavero, Lo
What reason do they give for this ruling?
(b) What does the Beraisa say about an employee who picks up a Metzi'ah,
assuming he is employed ...
(c) What Kashya did Rava ask Rav Nachman from the Seifa?
- ... to dig or to weed, shall we say?
- ... for the day to do whatever is required of him?
(a) When Rav Nachman answered Rava that an employee is different, because
his hand is like the hand of his employer, Rava initially rejected it on the
basis of a statement by Rav.
What did Rav say about an employee being able
(b) How did Rav Nachman reconcile his ruling with Rav? What did he learn
from the Pasuk in Behar "Ki Li B'nei Yisrael Avadim, Avadai Heim"?
(c) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan 'ha'Magbihah Metzi'ah
la'Chavero, Kanah Chavero'.
Then why, according to the Tana of our
Mishnah, does Shimon acquire the article that he picked up at Reuven's
(a) What does our Mishnah say about someone who sees a Metzi'ah and falls on
(b) Resh Lakish quoting Aba Kohen Bard'la rules that the four Amos in which
a person stands acquire for him automatically. Why is that?
(c) What are the ramifications of this Takanah?
(a) The Mishnah in Pe'ah says that a poor man who threw Pe'ah that he had
already acquired on some standing Pe'ah (or Leket or Shik'chah) in order to
acquire it, has nothing (not even the Pe'ah that he already acquired and
Answers to questions
What does the Tana say about a case where he threw his Talis on
the standing Pe'ah to acquire it?
(b) What did Rebbi Chiya bar Yosef ask from this Mishnah on Resh Lakish?
(c) We answer that the Mishnah speaks when the poor man did not specifically
declare that he wanted the four Amos to acquire for him.
Why should such a
declaration be necessary? Why will the Takanas Chachamim not suffice?
(a) Rav Papa does not require any such declaration. According to him, the
Chachamim only issued the Takanah of four Amos in certain locations.
(b) But did the Torah not already grant the poor rights in the rich man's
(c) Seeing as the Torah already gave him some rights in the field, why did
the Rabbanan not add the Takanah of four Amos there too, like they did in
(a) Rav Ya'akov bar Idi asked the same Kashya on Rav Nachman as Rebbi Chiya
bar Yosef, but from our Mishnah (why if someone falls on a Metzi'ah, our
Tana rules that he does not acquire it? Why do his four Amos not acquire it
anyway?). Our Sugya follows the same pattern as in the previous case, only
Rav Sheishes answer differs slightly from that of Rav Papa.
mind that the case of Metzi'ah is not talking about a field, what does he
(b) What is the reason for this?
(a) According to Resh Lakish quoting Aba Kohen Bard'la, a Ketanah has
neither the Din of Chatzer nor of four Amos.
What are the ramifications of
these two Halachos?
(b) What does Rebbi Yochanan say in the name of Rebbi Yanai?
(c) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei (in connection with Get)
(d) How does 'Yad' come to have connotations of Chatzer"?
(a) From where do we know that ...
(b) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Im *Himatzei Simatzei*
- ... a Ketanah has a 'Yad'?
- ... a Ketanah cannot appoint a Sheli'ach?
- ... a Gedolah can appoint a Sheli'ach to receive her Get?
(c) What problem do we have with this if Chatzer stems from the Din of
(d) How does Ravina resolve this problem? Why will 'Ein Sheli'ach li'D'var
Aveirah' not apply to a Chatzer?
(a) Are a woman and an Eved who steal obligated to pay?
(b) Does this mean that, according to Ravina, if they steal on behalf of a
man, he is obligated to pay?
(c) Rav Sama resolves the above problem differently than Ravina.
he restrict 'Ein Sheli'ach li'D'var Aveirah"? How does he resolve
the problem with Chatzer?
(a) One of the differences between Ravina's explanation and that of Rav Sama
is a Kohen who asks a Yisrael to betroth a divorcee on his behalf (where the
Sheli'ach is not obligated and therefore Patur [Ravina], but he is able to
desist and Chayav [Rav Sama]).
What is the other difference?
(b) What is the significance of the fact that the person whose Pei'os the
woman was asked to cut off was a Katan?
(a) The Torah writes in Ki Seitzei (in connection with a Get) "ve'Nasan
be'Yadah". "be'Yadah" means literally 'in her hand'.
What does "ve'Nasan"
come to include?
(b) How does this prove that Chatzer must be a Din in Yad (and not in
(c) What prompts us to make such a D'rashah from the word "ve'Nasan"?
(d) In that case, how will we justify Rebbi Yochanan, who holds that a
Ketanah has a Chatzer?
(e) On what grounds does Resh Lakish then hold that a Ketanah does not?
(a) Others maintain that even Resh Lakish concedes that a Ketanah has a Din
Chatzer, because we learn Metzi'ah from Yad.
Answers to questions
Then in what regard did he
say 'Ketanah Ein Lah Yad'? What did he really mean?
(b) And when, as a third alternative, we suggest that Rebbi Yochanan and
Resh Lakish are not even arguing, what do we mean by that?