REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 30
(a) What does our Mishnah say in a case where Reuven ...
(b) Rav limits the damage in the first case to his clothes. Why will Reuven
not be liable for injuries that Shimon himself sustains?
- ... pours water into the street and Shimon is damaged by them?
- ... hides a thorn or a piece of broken glass in the street, places a fence of thorns alongside the street or if his stone wall falls into the street and Simon gets hurt on any of them?
(c) Will Reuven be liable if Shimon sullied himself on the waste that he
threw into the street (assuming that he did not declare it Hefker)?
(d) Then why is he not liable in this case? Why can it not be because Reuven
declared it Hefker?
(a) Why does the Tana need to present us with two Mishnahs to teach us that
Reuven is liable for the damage done to Shimon's clothes?
(b) What makes the Din of winter a bigger Chidush than that of summer?
(c) What does Rebbi Yochanan mean when he confines the Din of 'ha'Goder es
Gidro be'Kotzim' in our Mishnah to Mafri'ach (to preclude Metzamtzem)?
(d) What reason does Rav Acha Brei de'Rav Ika give for this?
(a) What does the Beraisa say about a case where Reuven hides his thorns and
pieces of broken glass in Shimon's wall, which fly into the street and
injure Levi when Shimon demolishes his wall?
(b) On what grounds does Rebbi Yochanan confine this Din to a rickety wall?
What is the difference between a rickety wall and a solid one in this
(c) What does Ravina extrapolate from our Mishnah (where the owner of the
thorn and the glass is liable) with regard to Shimon retrieving his bucket,
which Reuven had 'borrowed' to cover his pit?
(d) Why does this inference need to be taught to us by Ravina? Why is it not
(a) What did the early Chasidim used to do with their thorns and pieces of
(b) Rav Sheishes would burn them.
What would Rava do with them?
(c) Rav Yehudah suggests that to become a Chasid, one should fulfill the
laws of Nezikin.
What does Rava (or Ravina) suggest?
(d) And what do Amri Lah add?
(a) What does the Tana add to the fact that if Reuven takes his straw and
stubble into the street to make manure and Shimon injures himself on it, he
(b) What does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel say about anyone who causes damage in
the Reshus ha'Rabim?
(c) He might be coming to add that he is liable even though he acted with
What else might he be coming to add to the Tana Kama's
(d) What does the Mishnah finally say about someone who is turning over
manure in the street?
(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, what Takanah did Yehoshua
institute about taking one's manure into the street to mature?
Answers to questions
(b) Would it therefore be correct to establish our Mishnah (which obligates
the owner to pay for any subsequent damages) not like Rebbi Yehudah?
(c) How would we then reconcile this Mishnah with Rebbi Yehudah in ha'Kones,
who exempts the owner of a Chanukah lamp which caused damage outside in the
(d) Assuming the author of our Mishnah to be Rebbi Yehudah (as we just
explained), we reconcile our Mishnah with Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa who
absolves anyone with permission from liability, we establish our Mishnah
outside the manure season (when one does not have permission to place one's
manure in the street.
Rav Ashi points out that our Mishnah is speaking
about straw and stubble.
So what if it is?
(a) According to Rav, the Seifa of the Mishnah permits anyone to help
himself to the entire batch of straw, and not only to the value of the
What does Ze'iri say?
(b) Our Mishnah does not specifically permit anyone to help himself to the
manure that Reuven turned in the street.
Why not? What do we try to prove
(c) How do we refute this proof?
(d) How will we then explain the Beraisa which states, with reference to
this Mishnah, 'Asurin Mishum Gezel'?
(a) We reject this explanation however, on the basis of another Beraisa,
which permits 'theft' in the Reisha, but forbids it in the Seifa (in the
case of manure).
How does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak finally reconcile Rav
with the Beraisa concerning manure?
(b) What She'eilah did they ask according to Rav, who holds that they fined
the article because of the improvement?
(c) How do we refute the proof from the Kashya on Rav from manure (from
which it is clear that Chazal fined the article immediately, even when there
is no improvement)?
(a) In a Beraisa in Bava Metzi'a, Rebbi Meir fines a creditor who lent money
on interest both on the interest and on the actual debt.
What do the
(b) How do we initially link the Machlokes between Rav and Ze'iri on the one
hand, and Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim on the other?
(c) Why in fact, might ...
- ... Rav hold like the Rabbanan?
- ... Ze'iri hold like Rebbi Meir? What do we learn from the Pasuk "Lo Sasimun Alav Neshech"?
(a) We then try to link the Machlokes between Rav and Ze'iri with the
Machlokes in our Mishnah between Raban Shimon ben Gamliel (regarding the Din
of 'ha'Motzi Tivno ve'Kasho ... ').
How do we first explain the (apparent
discrepancy in) the words of the Tana Kama 'Kol ha'Kodem Bahen Zachah' and
'Asurin Mishum Gezel'?
(b) In that case, what does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel hold? In which point
does he argue with the Tana Kama?
(c) We conclude that Ze'iri definitely holds like the Tana Kama and not like
Raban Shimon ben Gamliel.
Assuming on the other hand, that both Tana'im
hold like Rav ('Kansu Gufan Atu Sh'vachan'), what will then be the basis of
(d) Rav Huna Amar Rav holds 'Halachah ve'Ein Morin Kein'.
What does Rav
Ada bar Ahavah say?
(a) Rav Huna declared Hefker peeled barley that someone had placed in the
Answers to questions
In a separate incident, what did Rav Ada bar Ahavah declare
(b) Rav Ada bar Ahavah followed his previous ruling, but how do we reconcile
Rav Huna's ruling here with *his* previous ruling?