REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 51
(a) Since Rav Nachman currently holds that there is Chavatah by less than
ten Tefachim, we ask on him from a Beraisa.
According to the Tana there,
how high was the Beis ha'Sekilah (from which they would throw down a man who
was Chayav Sekilah)?
(b) So what is the Kashya on Rav Nachman from there?
(c) We retort that everyone agrees that there is Chavatah at ten Tefachim,
so why did they need to make the Beis ha'Sekilah more than ten Tefachim. We
answer this with a statement by Rav Nachman.
What did Rav Nachman Amar
Rabah bar Avuhah learn from the Pasuk in Kedoshim "ve'Ahavta le'Re'acha
(d) In that case, why did they not make it higher still, to ensure that he
(a) What does the Tana of the Beraisa Darshen from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei
(in connection with Ma'akeh) "Ki Yipol ha'Nofel *Mimenu*"?
(b) Here too, we ask on Rav Nachman, why the Tana needs to specify that the
house from which the Nizak fell , obligating the owner to pay, was ten
Tefachim tall, seeing as, in his opinion, there is Chavatah at even less
than ten Tefachim.
What do we answer?
(c) How does this answer help us, considering that a house whose roof is ten
Tefachim from the ground, after deducting the roof and the plaster, is not
ten Tefachim from the inside (and therefore not considered a house)?
(d) What is the problem with this answer?
(a) So we retract from our previous explanation of Rav Nachman.
grounds did Rav Nachman really declare the ox a T'reifah, even though the
canal was less than ten Tefachim deep?
(b) Then why does our Mishnah specify ten Tefachim (and not less)? Why does
it not take into account the space between the animal's belly and the
(a) What does the Tana of our Mishnah say about a pit belonging to two
partners, if first one partner, and then, the other, passed by the pit
without covering it?
(b) According to Rebbi Akiva (who holds that a Bor bi'Reshus ha'Yachid is
Chayav) it is easy to figure out the case of a pit belonging to two
partners. But it is not so easy to find the case by a Bor bi'Reshus
Why can the case not be when ...
(c) There is one case of Bor shel Shutfin where each one dug five Tefachim,
according to Rebbi.
- ... Reuven and Shimon asked a Sheli'ach to dig a pit in the street on behalf of both of them?
- ... Reuven dug five Tefachim, and then Shimon added another five?
What is it?
(d) Rebbi Yochanan finally teaches us the case of a Bor shel Shutfin in a
Reshus ha'Rabim by Nizakin even according to the Rabbanan, and even by
Miysah according to Rebbi.
What is it?
(a) According to the Tana Kama in the Beraisa, if Reuven digs a pit of five
Tefachim, and Shimon adds another five, it is the latter one who is liable,
not only for Miysah, but for damages, too.
What does Rebbi say?
(b) The Rabbanan derive their opinion from the Pasuk "Ki Yiftach Ish Bor"
... "ve'Chi Yichreh Ish Bor".
What does Rebbi learn from there?
(c) The Rabbanan too, agree with that D'rashah. So we change their source to
"ve'Chi Yichreh *Ish* Bor" ('Echad, ve'Lo Shenayim'). What does Rebbi
learn from "Ish Bor"?
(d) Here again, the Rabbanan agree with this D'rashah. So from where do they
learn to obligate only the last digger and to exempt the first?
(e) How does Rebbi explain the second "Ish Bor"?
(a) And how do the Rabbanan know that it is the last digger who is liable
rather than the first?
(b) From where does Rava learn that a Bor is Patur if a Shor Pesulei
ha'Mukdashin falls into it? What is a Shor Pesulei ha'Mukdashin?
(c) Why does Rava speak specifically about a Shor Pesulei ha'Mukdashin, and
not an unblemished ox of Hekdesh?
(d) In any event, seeing as we need the Pasuk "ve'ha'Meis Yihyeh Lo" to
teach us Rava's Din, how can the Rabbanan learn from it that it is the last
digger who is liable?
(a) In a case where the first digger digs a pit of ten Tefachim, the second,
digs down to twenty, and the third, down to thirty Tefachim, the Beraisa
considers them all liable for damages.
Answers to questions
How do we initially reconcile this
with another Beraisa, which obligates only the last digger who plastered the
wall of a pit which someone else had dug, with paintings?
(b) Rav Z'vid however, establishes both Beraisos like the Rabbanan.
does he then explain the first Beraisa, which obligates all the diggers?
(c) What is the basis for this distinction?
(d) Why do the Rabbanan need the Pasuk "Ki Yichreh Ish Bor" to learn that
only one of the diggers is Chayav and not both? Why can they not learn this
from "ve'ha'Meis Yihyeh Lo" (seeing as they anyway learn from there that the
second digger is Chayav)?
(a) How do we reconcile the Reisha of the Beraisa, where, as we just
explained, all the diggers are liable because they each dug sufficient to
kill, with the Seifa, which obligates only the last 'digger', who plastered
the wall of a pit which someone else had dug, with paintings, despite the
fact that the first digger had dug a ten-Tefachim pit?
(b) In the second Lashon, Rav Z'vid establishes the entire Beraisa like
How does he then establish the Seifa, which obligates only the
(c) According to this Lashon, what would the Rabbanan hold in the Reisha of
the Beraisa, where each digger dug a Shi'ur Miysah?
(d) This is fine according to Rav, who holds 'le'Havla ve'Lo le'Chavatah'
(and whose opinion Rav Z'vid appears to follow).
How would Shmuel
establish the Seifa, for the author to be Rebbi?
(a) Rava states that someone who completes a pit of ten Tefachim deep by
adding a stone on top, involved himself in the Machlokes between Rebbi and
the Rabbanan (whether the original digger alone is liable for damages too,
or whether he is only liable for causing an animal's death).
difference does it make whether he dug at the bottom or built at the top?
(b) Rava asks what the Din will be if the person who dug the tenth Tefach or
who completed a pit of ten Tefachim by placing a stone on top, subsequently
filled in what he dug or removed the stone that he placed.
What are the
two sides to the She'eilah?
(c) What is the outcome of the She'eilah?
(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rav Shmuel bar Marsa states that someone who
digs a pit to a depth of eight Tefachim, but which contains two Tefachim of
water, is liable should an animal fall into it and die.
Why is that?
(b) What do we then ask about a case where someone digs a pit ...
(c) What is the outcome of these two She'eilos?
- ... of nine Tefachim, containing one Tefach of water? Why might this be different than the previous case?
- ... seven Tefachim, containing three Tefachim of water? Why might this case be different than the original one?
(a) Rav Shizbi asked Rabah whether someone who widened the mouth of a
ten-Tefachim pit is Chayav.
Considering that he reduced the Hevel in the
pit, why might he nevertheless be liable?
(b) In the first Lashon, Rav Ashi resolves the She'eilah based on how the
How does he do that?
(c) What alternative method does he use to resolve the She'eilah?
(d) One does not contend with the vapor of a pit that is wider than it is
deep, only with the knock (according to Shmuel). Rabah and Rav Yosef
disagree over what Rabah bar bar Chanah said in the name of Rebbi Mani,
though we do not know who said what.
What are the two opinions?
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if first partner passes by the well
without covering it, and then the second one, the second one is liable.
What does the Tana mean when he says 'passes by'? Why can this not be taken
(b) Here too, Rabah and Rav Yosef also disagree over what Rabah bar bar
Chanah said in the name of Rebbi Mani regarding from which point the first
partner becomes Patur. One of them says he is Patur if he leaves whilst the
second partner is using it.
What does the other one say?
(c) We connect their Machlokes to a Machlokes Tana'im, who present the same
opinions in a case where Reuven is drawing water from a pit, and Shimon asks
to be allowed to draw. Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov holds that Reuven is only
Patur once he has handed Shimon the bucket to cover the pit.
What do the
(d) What is the basis of their Machlokes.
On what grounds ...
- ... do the Rabbanan exempt Reuven from the moment he sees Shimon using the pit?
- ... does Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov consider him liable even then?
(a) Ravina connects this Machlokes Tana'im with another Machlokes between
the same disputants in a Mishnah in Nedarim.
Answers to questions
The Tana Kama there forbids
two partners who made a Neder forbidding Hana'ah from each other, to enter
their shared Chatzer.
What does Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov say?
(b) What are their respective reasons?
(c) Rebbi Elazar states that if Reuven sells Shimon a water-pit, he acquires
it as soon as Reuven hands him the bucket, and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi
states the same with regard to handing Shimon the key, when he is purchasing
Why can they not be referring to where Shimon is acquiring the
pit or the house with money?
(d) Then in which case are they speaking?