REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 24
BAMA KAMA 23 & 24 - This daf has been dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Esther Chaya
Rayzel bas Gershon Eliezer, upon her Yahrzeit and Yom Kevurah, by her
daughter and son-in-law, Jeri and Eli Turkel. Esther Friedman was a woman of
valor who was devoted to her family and gave of herself unstintingly,
inspiring all those around her.
(a) Bearing in mind the Pasuk "T'mol, Shilshom ve'Lo Yishmerenu" (Rebbi
Yehudah's source for saying that Mu'ad depends on days), how can Rebbi Meir
renders an animal a Mu'ad even on the same day?
On what basis does Rebbi Meir choose to include the number of days in the
Hekesh of women to men, and not the number of sightings?
(b) What were the Chachamim referring to when they retorted 'Zavah
(c) And what did Rebbi Meir mean when, to counter this, he quoted the Pasuk
"ve'Zos Tih'yeh Tum'aso be'Zovo"? What is the significance of "ve'Zos"?
(d) On the other hand, what does the Tana learn from "ve'ha'Zav es Zovo
(a) In another Beraisa, Rebbi Yossi holds like Rebbi Yehudah with regard to
an animal becoming a Mu'ad, but like Rebbi Meir with regard to its regaining
its status of Tam. Rebbi Shimon has a fourth opinion.
What is it?
(b) Why did Rav Nachman Amar Rav Ada bar Ahavah rule like Rebbi Yeduhah with
regard to Mu'ad, and like Rebbi Meir with regard to regaining its status of
(c) Why did not he take the reverse stance, following the opinion of Rebbi
Shimon, giving Rebbi Meir two votes in the Reisha and Rebbi Yehudah two, in
(a) They asked a She'eiah whether the three days warning are for the benefit
of the ox or the owner.
What difference does it make which one?
(b) We try to resolve this She'eilah from a Beraisa.
What does the Beraisa
say about the warning taking place in front of the owner and in front of
(c) What does the Tana mean when he says that if two different witnesses
warned the ox each of the three times that it gored, they are considered ...
(d) Seeing as the defendant is now Patur from paying Nezek Shalem, does it
now follow that the first pair of witnesses (and subsequently the second
pair, should they become Zomemin, too) are obligated to pay him for the full
damage that they attempted to make him pay?
- ... three sets of witnesses?
- ... one set of witnesses as far as Hazamah is concerned?
(a) What will happen in the event that the third pair too, are proved to be
Answers to questions
(b) How do we now try to prove from here that it is the ox that becomes a
Mu'ad (and not the owner)?
(c) How does Rav Kahana counter this (by asking basically the same Kashya if
we say that they come to make *the ox* a Mu'ad)?
(a) We therefore establish the Beraisa when all three pairs of witnesses
were signalling to each other, a clear sign that they had all joined forces
to declare the ox a Mu'ad.
What similar answer does Rashi Ashi give to
prove that they must have known about each other?
(b) What have we now proved, according to both answers?
(c) Ravina establishes the Beraisa when the third set of witnesses only knew
the owner, but not the ox.
In that case, what do they testify?
(d) According to him, do the witnesses come to declare the ox a Mu'ad or the
(a) We ask what the Din will be in a case where Levi incites Shimon's ox to
Regarding whom is the She'eilah?
(b) Seeing as Shimon did not do anything, why might he nevertheless be
(c) And why is Levi not liable for inciting the dog against Reuven?
(a) Rebbi Zeira cites our Mishnah 've'Tam, she'Yehei Tinokos Memashmeshin Bo
How does he try to resolve the current She'eilah from
(b) Abaye refutes this proof however, on the grounds that the Tana does not
even hint that the owner would have been Chayav if the ox had gored the
If he would not be liable anyway, what difference does the fact
that the ox did not gore make?
(a) We try to resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa 'Shisah Bo es ha'Kelev,
Shisah Bo es ha'Nachash, Patur'? What do we infer from there that would
(b) How do we negate this inference by making a slight amendment to the
(c) Even assuming that the owner of the dog is liable in the previous case,
what does Rava say regarding a case where Reuven himself incited Shimon's
dog, which subsequently bit him?
(d) With whose opinion did Rav Papa think that Rava conforms?
(a) Resh Lakish says that if one cow passes another cow that is crouching in
the street, and the latter kicks the former, it is liable for damages.
does he rule in the reverse case, if the walking cow damaged the crouching
one and damages it?
(b) What did Rava tell Rav Papa? What does he really hold in this latter
(a) According to the Rabbanan, the owner of an ox that gored in the Nizak's
domain pays Chatzi Nezek.
Do the Rabbanan accept Rebbi Tarfon's explanation?
How much must he pay according to Rebbi Tarfon?
(b) He learns this from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Keren in the Reshus ha'Rabim.
How does he derive it from there?
(c) What Pircha do the Rabbanan ask on the 'Kal va'Chomer'?
(d) How does Rebbi Tarfon counter their Pircha?
Answers to questions