REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 74
(a) Abaye learns that the Reisha speaks about two pairs of witnesses (and
not three) from the Seifa, as we shall now see.
Why does Rava nevertheless
prefer to establish the Reisha by three pairs of witnesses? What will be the
problem with establishing it by two?
(b) What does the Tana rule in the Seifa, where two witnesses testify that a
man knocked out first his Eved's tooth and then his eye, (which pleases the
Eved) and then become Zomemin?
(c) How do we know that the second pair of witnesses (the Mazimin) concede
that the master wounded the Eved?
(d) So how must the Beraisa be speaking? What do the second witnesses claim
(a) In the current case (the Seifa), how do we know that ...
(b) Which Beis-Din are we talking about? What is the case?
- ... the second witnesses predated the incident of the first stroke that set the Eved free?
- ... the Tana must also be speaking when the Beis-Din had already ruled that the Eved was to go free?
(c) Why can Rava not establish the Seifa when a pair of witnesses testified
that the master had knocked out first the Eved's eye and then his tooth,
before the second pair reversed the two episodes and then became Zomemin?
(a) Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ika asked Rav Ashi from where Rava learned that
'Hakchashah Techilas Hazamah Hi'. The Seifa, we learned earlier, speaks when
there were no witnesses who preceded the Zomemin.
Why can we not learn it
from the Reisha (as we originally thought)? On what grounds would we not
call it Hakchashah?
(b) Rav Ashi replied that Rava established the Seifa like the Reisha, by
three pairs of witnesses.
What will then be the case?
(c) How does Rava prove his point from there?
(a) Abaye disagrees on the grounds that he prefers to establish the Seifa by
two pairs of witnesses, and not three.
Answers to questions
Why does he concede that the Reisha
is speaking about three pairs of witnesses (although that is not what he
said earlier [see the beginning of the Amud])?
(b) Then why does he nevertheless establish the Seifa by two pairs of
(a) What problem does Rebbi Zeira have with the fact if the master knocks
out both the Eved's tooth and his eye, he goes free on account of the former
and pays compensation on account of the latter?
(b) What does Abaye extrapolate from the Pesukin "Tachas Eino" and "Tachas
(c) We assume (as we did above) that our Mishnah 'Ganav al-Pi Shenayim
ve'Tavach u'Machar al-Pihem, ve'Nimtze'u Zomemim, Meshalmin Lo es ha'Kol'
follows the natural order (that they first testified on the Geneivah, and
then on the Tevichah u'Mechirah, and they then became Zomemin, first on the
first testimony and then on the second).
What does Rav Idi bar Avin try to
prove from here?
(d) How do we refute his proof?
(a) Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar indulge in the same Machlokes as Abaye
and Rava regarding 'Eidim she'Hukcheshu ve'li'be'Sof Huzmu'. One says
'Neheragin', and one says 'Einan Neheragin'.
What does Rebbi Elazar say
about 'Eidim she'Hukcheshu be'Nefesh'?
(b) What does he mean? What is the case?
(c) What do we prove from this ruling with regard to the Machlokes over
'Eidim she'Hukcheshu ve'li'be'Sof Huzmu'?
(d) Considering that it is a matter of two against two, we ask, on what
basis do we give Malkos to the witnesses who testify that Reuven did kill
What happened according to Abaye?
(a) What is one obligated to pay if he steals a sheep ...
(b) Is someone who steals a sheep from his father and Shechts or sells it
after his father's death Chayav to pay fourfold?
- ... through two witnesses and admits that he Shechted or sold it?
- ... and Shechts it on Shabbos or to Avodah-Zarah?
(c) Why is one exempt from Daled ve'Hey for Shechting or selling an animal
that he stole and declared Hekdesh?
(d) What does Rebbi Shimon say?
(a) 'Ganav al-Pi Eid Echad O al-Pi Atzmo ... Eino Meshalem Arba'ah
va'Chamishah'. 'al-Pi Eid Echad' is necessary to teach us 'Modeh bi'K'nas
Patur', but why does the Tana find it necessary to add 'O al-Pi Atzmo'? What
Chidush is he coming to teach us?
(b) This comes to preclude from Rav Yehudah Amar Rav.
What did Rav Yehudah
Amar Rav say regarding 'Modeh bi'K'nas ve'Aschar-Kach Ba'u Eidim'?
(c) The Tana relates how Rebbi Yehoshua once discovered Raban Gamliel in a
happy frame of mind.
Why was that? What had he just (inadvertently) done
to Tavi his Eved?
(d) On what grounds did Rebbi Yehoshua dampen his elation?
(a) What do we infer from Rebbi Yehoshua's words 'Ein bi'Devarecha K'lum,
*she'K'var Ein Lecha Eidim'*, which pose a Kashya on Rav?
Answers to questions
(b) We answer that Raban Gamliel's confession took place outside of
Beis-Din, and was therefore not taken into account.
But was Rebbi Yehoshua
not the Av Beis-Din?
(c) Another Beraisa quotes Rebbi Yehoshua as saying 'Ein bi'Devarecha K'lum,
How do we initially establish the Machlokes between the
(d) We conclude however, that both Beraisos hold 'Modeh bi'K'nas
ve'Achar-Kach Ba'u Eidim Patur.
Then what is the basis of their Machlokes?