REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 75
(a) Rav holds 'Modeh bi'K'nas ve'Achar-Kach Ba'u Eidim, Patur'.
(b) How does Rava bar Ahila'i extrapolate Rav's opinion from "Im Himatzei
(c) How does Rav know that the Pasuk does not come to teach us 'Modeh
bi'K'nas Patur' (when no witnesses came afterwards)?
(d) What does Shmuel then learn from "Im Himatzei Simatzei"?
(a) The Tana of a Beraisa discusses a case where a Ganav who saw witnesses
about to appear in Beis-Din, quickly admitted that he had stolen a sheep but
declared that he did not Shecht or sell it.
On what grounds does the Tana
exempt him even from Daled ve'Hey should the witnesses testify that he did
in fact, Shecht or sell the animal?
(b) How does Shmuel initially attempt to reconcile his opinion with the
Beraisa? How does he establish the Beraisa?
(c) How do we disprove Shmuel's explanation from Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi
Shimon, who says 'Yavo'u Eidim ve'Ye'idu'? What must the Tana Kama therefore
(d) How does ...
- ... Shmuel finally vindicate himself?
- ... Rav reconcile his opinion with Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon?
(a) What distinction does Rav Hamnuna, commenting on Rav's Din, draw between
a case where the Ganav confesses to having stolen before the witnesses
arrived, and one where he denies that he had stole, but where, after the
witnesses obligated him to pay the Keren and Kefel, he admitted that he had
Shechted or sold the animal before the witnesses corroborated it?
(b) What is the reason for this distinction? Why might we not say 'Modeh
bi'K'nas ve'Achar-Kach Ba'u Eidim Patur', in the latter case?
(c) How did Rava, based on Rav Chisda's Kashya to Rav Huna from the Beraisa
of Raban Gamliel and Tavi (which we cited earlier), prove Saba de'Bei Rav
wrong? Who is Saba de'Bei Rav?
(d) What did Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan say on the subject?
(a) What did we learn above from the fact that the Tana added the case
''Ganav al-Pi Shenayim ve'Tavach u'Machar *al-Pi Eid Echad* O al-Pi Atzmo,
Meshalem Kefel ve'Eino Meshalem Daled ve'Hey'?
Answers to questions
(b) What does Rav Ashi now extrapolate from the fact that the Beraisa
presents the case of 'Ganav al-Pi Shenayim ve'Tavach u'Machar al-Pi Echad
... ', rather than 'Ganav ve'Tavach u'Machar al-Pi Eid Echad ... '?
(c) Rav Ashi also tries to prove Rav Hamnuna right from the Beraisa that we
quoted earlier 'Ra'ah Eidim she'Memashmeshin u'Bo'in ve'Amar Ganavti Aval Lo
Tavachti u'Macharti, Eino Meshalem Ela Keren.
How does Rav Ashi's attempt
to support Rav Hamnuna from there?
(d) How do we refute Rav Ashi's proof from the Beraisa? Why else might the
Tana present the case of 'Ganavti Aval Lo Tavachti ... ', rather than 'Lo
Ganavti ... ve'Chazar ve'Amar Tavachti u'Macharti'?
(a) The Tana Kama of a Beraisa discusses a case where two separate pairs of
witnesses testify that someone stole and Shechted or sold an animal.
do they rule in a case where ...
(b) Sumchus says 'Hein Meshalmin Kefel ve'Hu Meshalem Tashlumei Sheloshah
le'Par ... '.
- ... the first pair of witnesses became Zomemin? Who pays Daled ve'Hey?
- ... the second pair of witnesses became Zomemin? Who pays Kefel and who pays Daled ve'Hey?
Why is it impossible to establish Sumchus either on the
Reisha or on the Seifa of the Beraisa, as it stands?
(c) So we establish the Machlokes when the Ganav conceded to the first
witnesses that he had stolen the animal (as well as having Shechted or sold
it), but not in their presence, and he promptly brought witnesses who
declared them Zomemin. The owner however, then brought a second set of
What did they testify?
(d) How do we initially establish the Machlokes Tana'im? Why do ...
- ... the Rabbanan exempt the Ganav from Daled ve'Hey?
- ... Sumchus obligate him to pay?
(a) Rav Acha Brei de'Rav Ika rejects this suggestion however. According to
him, both Tana'im hold that in the above case he would be Chayav to pay
Why is that?
(b) And he establishes their Machlokes when the Ganav concedes to the first
pair of witnesses that he stole (as well as having Shechted ... ), though
not in front of them, but in front of other witnesses. Then he subsequently
brought witnesses who declared the first witnesses Zomemin, and the second
pair of witnesses turned up and corroborated his confession.
What is the
radical difference between this case and the previous one (which serves as
the basis of the Machlokes Tana'im)?
(c) What is now the reason of ...
(d) How does this also affect who becomes the recipient of the Kefel?
- ... the Tana Kama, who absolves the Ganav from Daled ve'Hey?
- ... Sumchus, who obligates him to pay?
(a) How do we reconcile Sumchus' ruling with the fact that it is unamimously
accepted that 'Eidus she'I Atah Yachol le'Hazimah, Lo Havya Eidus'?
Answers to questions
(b) What is the problem with Sumchus' statement 'Hein Meshalmin Tashlumei
Kefel', bearing in mind that the Ganav himself admitted to having stolen the
(c) How do we therefore amend this statement?