REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 52
(a) Resh Lakish Amar Rebbi Yanai states that if Reuven sells Shimon a flock
of sheep, Shimon acquires it as soon as Reuven hands him the Mashchuchis
(something with which one draws the entire flock, and which will be
explained shortly). Whether he was acquiring the flock with Meshichah or
with Mesirah, we ask why would he need to hand him the Mashchuchis.
is the difference between Meshichah and Mesirah? Under which circumstances
will Mesirah be necessary?
(b) How do we answer the Kashya that we asked concerning the Mashchuchis?
What is the purpose of handing Shimon the Mashchuchis?
(a) Some say that 'Mashchuchis' is a Karkashta.
What is s Karkashta?
(b) How does Rebbi Ya'akov interpret 'Mashchuchis'?
(c) We substantiate Rebbi Ya'akov's interpretaion of Mashchuchis with a
saying of a certain Galilean 'above' Rav Chisda.
What did that Galilean
say about a shepherd who is angry with his flock?
(a) Under which circumstances does the Tana of our Mishnah obligate Shimon
and not Reuven, for using the water-pit?
(b) If the owner covered his pit properly and an ox or a donkey fell in, he
If he covered it properly, how did the animal manage to fall in
(c) The owner is not liable to pay if a normal ox falls into his pit,
because a healthy animal is expected to look where it is going.
is he liable if the ox fell forwards into his pit due to the noise of
someone working with tools inside the pit to widen it?
(d) Why is the owner of the pit liable and not the worker?
(a) What does the Tana say in a case where an ox or a donkey falls into a
pit together with its accessories, and those of the ox break or those of the
(b) Why does the Tana change from 'break' by the ox to 'tear' by the donkey?
(c) And what the Tana say with regard to ...
(d) Why does the Tana choose to mention a child rather than just a person?
- ... a 'Shor Chashu' which fell into a pit?
- ... a child or an Eved or Shifchah who fell into a pit?
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if Reuven covered the water-pit after
use, Shimon and not Reuven, is subsequently liable once he uses it.
According to Rav, Reuven is only Patur until such time as he sees for
himself that the pit is uncovered.
What does Shmuel say?
(b) Some interpret Shmuel as being more lenient than Rav.
What do they
(c) We already explained that it is possible for an animal to fall in the
pit even though the owner covered it properly, when the cover became wormy,
as Rebbi Yitzchak bar bar Chanah explains. We ask what the Din will be if
the owner covered the pit properly against oxen falling in, but not against
What is the case? What exactly happened?
(d) If passing camels are common, then he was careless (and is liable), we
ask, and if they are not, then he is an O'nes (and is Patur).
How do we
establish the case?
(a) We try and resolve the She'eilah (that ka'Ra'uy for oxen but not for
camels and a camel weakened the cover ... ) from our Mishnah 'Kisahu
ve'Nafal Shamah Shor O Chamor, u'Meis, Patur'.
Answers to questions
What does that prove?
(b) We counter the proof by establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Yitzchak bar
bar Chanah? What does Rebbi Yitzchak bar bar Chanah say?
(a) We then try and prove that the owner is Chayav in the case currently
under discussion, from the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Lo Kisahu ka'Ra'uy',
ve'Nafal le'Tochao Shor O Chamor, u'Meis Chayav'. Using the same argumets as
we just used to explain the Reisha of the Mishnah, how do we establish 'Lo
(b) We counter thisas too, by establishing 'Lo Kisahu ka'Ra'uy' to mean
that it was not properly guarded, either against camels falling in or
Then what is the Chidush of the Seifa?
(c) According to the second Lashon, the case where the pit was guarded
against oxen but not against camels that passed from time to time is not
even a She'eilah.
Why not? What do we now hold in that case?
(d) The new format of the She'eilah is that, although the pit was guarded
against oxen falling in but not against camels, in fact, neither transpired.
What *did* happen? What are now the two sides of the She'eilah?
(a) We try to resolve the She'eilah from Rebbi Yitzchak bar bar Chanah (who
establishes our Mishnah ['Kisahu ka'Ra'uy ... Patur'] when the cover became
How do we try and prove our point from there?
(b) We counter this proof by establishing our Mishnah when in fact, the
cover was strong enough to guard the pit against both oxen and camels from
Then what is the Chidush? What could the owner have done?
(c) We then try to resolve the She'eilah from the Seifa 'Lo Kisahu ka'Ra'uy
... Chayav', which must speak when the cover was Ra'uy for oxen but not for
camels, but in the end, the cover became wormy, to teach us that we say
'Migu' (otherwise there would be no Chidush).
How do we counter this
proof? How else might the Tana be speaking?
(a) We finally resolves the She'eilah from a Beraisa.
Answers to questions
What does the Tana
there say about ...
(b) What does this prove?
- ... a Chashu ox, one that is blind or a healthy ox that fell into a pit during the night?
- ... a healthy ox that fell into a pit during the day?