REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Basra 92
BAVA BASRA 91-95 - Sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor.
Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and
prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.
***** Perek ha'Mocher Peiros *****
(a) If Shimon plants the fruit that Reuven sold him and it failed to grow,
the Tana Kama exempts Reuven from responsibility.
What did Reuven stipulate
at the time of the sale?
(b) What is the basis of this ruling?
(c) Will it extend to flax? Why might it not?
(a) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel precludes garden seeds from this ruling.
(b) Why is this case even more obvious than one where Reuven sells Shimon
wine and it turns out to be beer (where the sale is also invalid)?
(c) What does the Tana Kama hold? How can he argue with Raban Shimon ben
(d) Why is Shimon not obligated to at least pay Reuven the price of
firewood, since all he can do with the seeds is burn them?
(a) According to Rav, if Reuven sells Shimon an ox which turns out to be a
goring ox, the sale is invalid.
Why is that?
(b) What does Shmuel say?
(c) Why will even Sumchus, who rules 'Cholkin' (in Bava Kama, in the case
where an ox gored a cow, and we find a stillborn calf beside the dead cow),
concede here that the sale is valid?
(d) According to Shmuel, why is this different than 'Yayin ve'Nimtza
Chometz', where the sale is invalid?
(a) Why do we not just not ascertain whether Reuven usually sells for eating
or for plowing (whether he is basically a butcher or a farmer)?
(b) How might the price indicate what he sold it for?
(c) What do the Rabbanan rule in the previous Perek, in the case where
Reuven sold a plow, and the price indicates that the ox was included in the
(d) Then why here will they concede that it is?
(a) Why do we not look at the price in our case to determine whether Shimon
bought the ox for eating or for plowing?
(b) If, as we just explained, the purchaser received what he paid for, then
what difference does it make whether the sale is valid or not?
(a) Why must Rav and Shmuel be speaking when Reuven actually has money with
which to pay?
Answers to questions
(b) What can we extrapolate from here with regard to Rav Huna's D'rashah
"Yashiv", 'le'Rabos Shaveh Kesef ke'Kesef' (the source of the previous
(c) Perhaps this extrapolation only goes as far as returning the actual
money that Shimon paid Reuven, but not to other money (which would not
preclude Reuven from the right to pay Metaltelin)?
(d) What is now the Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel?
We just concluded that Rav and Shmuel argue over whether a Rov can extract
money from the defendant. Even Shmuel agrees however, that a Rov determines
in matters of Isur, such as the case of nine shops.
What is the case of
(a) What does the Mishnah in Kesuvos rule with regard to a widow or a
divorcee who claims that she was a Besulah when she married (and is
therefore entitled to a Kesuvah of two hundred Zuz), whereas the husband
claims that she was a widow (who only receives a hundred)?
(b) What does this imply that poses a Kashya on Rav?
(c) Initially, we answer that most women marry as Besulos and all Besulos
have a Kol that they did, and that consequently, since the woman under
discussion did not have a Kol, unless she has witnesses, she only receives a
hundred Zuz (since the fact that there is no Kol outweighs the Rov).
what grounds do we refute this answer?
(d) So how do we amend the previous answer in order to answer the Kashya?
Why do we not after the majority there (even according to Rav)?
(a) What does the Beraisa say about Reuven who sold Shimon an Eved who
turned out to be ...
Answers to questions
(b) According to Shmuel (who does *not go after the majority* in
money-matters) why ought the sale to be invalid in the Reisha too?
- ... a Ganav or a kidnapper?
- ... an armed robber or a murderer who is wanted by the government?
(c) In that case, why is the sale valid, if not because we *do*)?