REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 96
BAVA METZIA 96 (14 Adar) - l'Iluy Nishmas Harav Ze'ev Wolf Rosengarten of
Zurich, Switzerland, host to the Brisker Rav and a person of "Sheleimus" in
every way. Dedicated in honor of his Yahrzeit by his nephew and Talmid, Mr.
Eli Rosengarten of Zurich.
(a) We just concluded that, in order to be considered She'eilah be'Ba'alim,
the owner must work for the Sho'el at the time of the She'eilah, but not
necessarily when the O'nes occurs. And we learn this from a superfluous
What problem do we have with this conclusion?
(b) Seeing as the She'eilah would not obligate the Sho'el without the O'nes,
on what grounds do we place the criterion on the She'eilah?
(c) How does Rav Ashi extrapolate the same thing from the Pasuk "ve'Chi
Yish'al Ish me'Im Re'eihu ... Shalem Yeshalem"?
(d) According to Rav Ashi, why does the Torah then need the two Pesukim
"Be'alav Ein Imo ... " and "Im Be'alav Imo"?
(a) Rami bar Chama asks a series of She'eilos.
What does he ask about ...
(b) What must this latter She'eilah assume in the case of the previous
She'eilah, where he borrowed a cow to work for less than a Perutah?
- ... someone who borrowed an animal for sinful purposes? Why might he be Patur from Onsin?
- ... someone who borrowed it in order to appear wealthy so that merchants should sell him goods on credit? On what grounds may he be exempt from paying for Onsin?
- ... someone who borrowed two cows to work to the value of one Perutah.
What are two sides of the She'eilah?
(c) He also asks what the Din will be if someone borrows from two partners
together with one of the partners, whether "Be'alav" must be total or the
borrower will at least be Patur from the half pertaining to the partner who
is working for him. In the reverse case, where partners borrowed someone's
cow together with the owner who was to work for only one of them, what will
be a major difference between the work of the cows and that of the owner?
(a) Finally, Rami bar Chama asks two She'eilos. One of them, is 'Sha'al min
ha'Ishah, ve'Nish'al Ba'alah, Mahu'.
What is the case?
(b) What exactly is the She'eilah?
(c) What is his last She'eilah?
(d) What did Ravina ask Rav Ashi about someone who instructed his Sheli'ach
to lend someone the owner's cow together with himself? In view of the
principle 'Shelucho shel Adam Kamoso', why might this not be considered
'She'eilah be'Ba'alim'? Why might the borrower nevertheless be liable?
(a) Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ivya remarked to Rav Ashi that each of the two
previous (sets of) She'eilos is rooted in a Machlokes. The last set of
She'eilos of Rami bar Chama is in fact a Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan
and Resh Lakish.
What is the bone of contention regarding Bikurim in the
case where Reuven sells Shimon his field for two or three years?
(b) Rebbi Yochanan says 'Meivi ve'Korei'.
Why is that?
(c) What does Resh Lakish say?
(d) How does this tie up with Rami bar Chama's last set of She'eilos?
(a) Ravina's She'eilah is rooted in the Machlokes between Rebbi Yonasan and
What does Rebbi Yoshiyah learn from the Pasuk in Matos (in
connection with an Apotropus whom a man appoints to annul his wife's
Nedarim) "Iyshah Yekimenu, ve'Iyshah Yeferenu"?
(b) What does Rebbi Yonasan say?
(c) How will this determine how each one will hold in the case of 'ha'Omer
li'Shelucho Tzei ve'Hisha'el Im Parasi' (see Tosfos DH 'Sheli'ach')?
(a) Rav Ilish asked Rava what the Din will be if a man says to his Eved
'Tzei ve'Hisha'el Im Parasi'.
Answers to questions
Why might this ...
(b) What did Rava reply?
- ... not be considered She'eilah be'Ba'alim even according to Rebbi Yonasan?
- ... be considered She'eilah be'Ba'alim even according to Rebbi Yoshiyah?
(a) Rami bar Chama asks whether a man is considered a Sho'el or a Socher on
his wife's property.
What objection does Rava raise to the She'eilah?
(b) He answers by establishing the case where a man hired a cow from a woman
and then married her.
How does he then explain the She'eilah?
(c) On what grounds do we object to this explanation too?
(a) We finally establish the case of Rami bar Chama's She'eilah, where a
woman hired a cow from a third party, and after she married, an Ones
occurred, and the She'eilah is according to Rebbi Yossi in Hamafkid.
does Rebbi Yossi say" What is the She'eilah?
(b) Why will the She'eilah not apply according to the Rabbanan of Rebbi
Yossi? What do they hold?
(c) Rava resolves the She'eilah by citing Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina.
What does he quote the Chachamim in Usha as having ruled (with regard to a
woman who sold her Nechsei Milug during her husband's lifetime)?
(a) Rami bar Chama asks who is Mo'el if a man who receives his wife's
property contained some Hekdesh.
What is ...
(b) Rava ruled that neither of them is Mo'el.
- ... the case?
- ... the She'eilah?
(c) Then why are Beis-Din (who are responsible for all Takanos in their
generation) not Mo'el, for placing the woman's property in her husband's
(d) Does this mean that there is no Me'ilah at all on the property in
(a) They asked in the Beis-Hamedrash whether if a borrowed animal becomes
worn out through regular work, the Sho'el is liable to pay.
What did Rav
Chilkiyah B'rei de'Rav Ivya infer from the She'eilah?
(b) Why was he surprised by it?
(c) So what did Rava conclude?
(a) What did Rava rule regarding a borrower who broke the borrowed ax?
Answers to questions
(b) In a similar case where there were no witnesses, Rav obligated the
borrower to replace the broken ax with a new one.
What was the reaction of
his Talmidim, Rav Kahana and Rav Asi?
(c) And how did Rav react to that?
(d) What is the Halachah?