REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Metzia 81
BAVA METZIA 81-85 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the
Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal
(a) What does Rav Nachman bar Papa extrapolate from the Beraisa 've'Chulan
she'Amru Tul es she'Lecha ve'Havei Ma'os, Shomer Chinam' that clashes with
Rav Chisda, who just said that once the days of Shemirah have come to an
end, the Shomer is no longer even a Shomer Sachar?
(b) We answer that the inference from the Beraisa is 'Ha Havei Ma'os ve'Tul
es she'Lecha, Shomer Sachar', but 'Gemartiv' has the same Din as 'Tul es
she'Lecha ve'Havei Ma'os'.
In that case, why did the Tana not present the
bigger Chidush of 'Gemartiv'? Why did he see fit to present the case of
'Tul es she'Lecha ve'Havei Ma'os'?
(c) Why does the case in our Mishnah require the Uman to inform the owner
'Gemartiv', whereas a Sho'el does not?
(a) In the second Lashon, Rav Nachman bar Papa comes (not to ask a Kashya on
Rav Chisda, but) to support his statement, to which end, he asks 'Mai La'av,
Hu ha'Din Gemartiv'?
How do we refute his proof?
(b) Assuming that 'Gemartiv' is equivalent to 'Tul es she'Lecha ve'Havei
Ma'os' (like the conclusion of the first Lashon), Huna Mar bar Mereimar
asked Ravina how to reconcile this with the Mishnah 've'Chein be'Sha'ah
she'Machzirah', which implies that as long as the owner has not asked the
Sho'el to return the article, he remains liable.
How did Rafram bar Papa
Amar Rav Chisda resolve the problem?
(a) They asked whether, when Rafram bar Papa said 'Patur', he meant Patur
from being a Sho'el, but he remains a Shomer Sachar, or whether he is not
even a Shomer Sachar either.
What did Ameimar reply?
(b) The Beraisa discusses the case of someone who purchases vessels from a
factory, intending to send them as gifts to his betrothed.
What does he
stipulate with the manufacturer?
(c) What will be the Din if the vessels are destroyed by means of an O'nes
that occurred ...
(d) What does Shmuel say (in Bava Basra) about someone who buys vessels on
the understanding that if, after inspection, they meet with his approval,
and if not, he will return them, if an O'nes then occurs, and they are
- ... on the outward journey?
- ... on the way back? What reason does the Tana give for this ruling?
(a) In any case, we have proved Ameimar's ruling, as we explained.
there even a 'Kal va'Chomer' from there on to the case of a Sho'el?
(b) In a case similar case, where Reuven stipulated that if he was unable to
sell a donkey (or wine), he would return it, what did Rav Nachman rule, when
an O'nes occurred on the return journey?
(c) What did Rav Nachman reply when Rava asked him how this case differed
from the previous one, where he was Patur from Onsin on the return journey?
(a) Our Mishnah rules 'Sh'mor Li ve'Eshmor Lach, Shomer Sachar'.
forces Rav Papa to explain this to mean 'You guard for me today and I will
guard for you *tomorrow*'? Why not *today*?
(b) We repeat the same Kashya on the Beraisa 'Sh'mor Li ve'Eshmor Lach,
Hash'ileini, ve'Ash'ilcha (with reference to borrowing vessels), Sh'mor Li
ve'Ash'ilcha ... ', 've'Ha Havi Shemirah be'Ba'alim?' (like we asked on the
Mishnah, and Rav Papa repeats the same answer).
Why can the Kashya only
pertain to the first case, and not to the other cases?
(a) In the case of those Ahalu'i, it was customary for one of them to bake
each day for all of them.
What, besides a kind of washing soap, might the
'Ahalu'i' have sold?
(b) What did one of their group respond, when they asked him to bake that
(c) When the coat was stolen, due to the Ahalui's negligence, Rav Papa
obligated the Ahalu'i to pay.
Why must the coat have been stolen
specifically due to their negligence?
(a) What did the Rabbanan point out that caused Rav Papa to become
Answers to questions
(b) What did they discover that removed Rav Papa's embarrassment?
(c) This answer will not work out however- according to those who hold
'Peshi'ah be'Ba'alim' is not included in the P'tur of Shemirah be'Ba'alim.
What is the problem, according to them?
(d) How do we therefore amend the case to turn the 'Ahalu'i' into Shomrei
Sachar, rather than Shomrei Chinam? What other adjustment do we have to make
to the case?
(a) In the case of the two co-travelers, the tall man was riding a donkey
whilst the short one walked. The tall one had 'a Sadina', and the short one,
'a Sarb'la'. When they had to cross a river, the short man put on the Sadin
and placed the Sarb'la on the donkey.
Why did he do that?
(b) What did Rava rule when they came to him for a Din Torah, after the
(c) If Rava was embarrassed when the Rabbanan pointed out that it was
Shemirah be'Ba'alim (because the man on the donkey was transporting his
Sarb'la at the time, what did he subsequently discover that set his mind at
(a) Reuven rented Shimon a donkey, warning him to take the route of Neresh,
and not of Nahar Pakud.
(b) Shimon took the forbidden route and the donkey died.
What argument did
he present upon his return?
(c) On what grounds did Rabah want to exempt him from paying?
(d) Why did Abaye object?
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that 'Sh'mor Li, ve'Amar Lo, Hanach Lefanai,
What does Rav Huna say about a case of 'Hanach Lefanecha'?
(b) What do we try and infer from our Mishnah ('Sh'mor Li, ve'Amar Lo Hanach
Lefanai, Shomer Chinam')? What She'eilah do we attempt to resolve from here?
(c) We refute the proof from there by citing Rav Huna.
How does Rav Huna's
ruling repudiate the proof?
(d) So what do we do when the inference from the Reisha clashes with the
inference from the Seifa?
(a) We learned in a Mishnah in Bava Kama (concerning a potter who takes his
pots into Reuven's field and Reuven's ox subsequently breaks them) 'Im
Hichnis bi'Reshus, Ba'al Chatzer Chayav'.
Why is that?
(b) What does Rebbi say?
(c) What do we try to prove from this Machlokes Tana'im?
(d) How do we refute the proof.
Why might ...
- ... the Rabbanan's ruling be confined to the case of Chatzer, but will not extend to our case of placing the article in the street?
- ... Rebbi's ruling too, be confined to the case of Chatzer?
(a) Rebbi Eliezer says in a Beraisa 'ha'Malveh es Chaveiro al ha'Mashkon,
ve'Avad ha'Mashkon, Yishava ve'Yitol Ma'osav'.
Answers to questions
Why is that? What does he
(b) What does Rebbi Akiva say?
(c) In which case does Rebbi Eliezer concede that if he loses the Mashkon,
he loses his money?
(d) Who (do we initially think) will then be the author of our Mishnah,
'Hilveihu al ha'Mashkon Shomer Sachar'?