(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Bava Kama 47


(a) (Rava): (In the beginning of the Mishnah, a dead calf was found by a gored cow) we do not evaluate the cow by itself and the calf by itself - rather, we evaluate how much the calf increased the value of the mother.
1. To evaluate it by itself would make the damager pay too much.
(b) Similarly: if Reuven cut off the hand of Shimon's slave, or damaged his field (we do not estimate the act of damage itself, rather we evaluate the loss in value of the slave and field).
(c) Question (R. Acha brei d'Rava): Why is it considered 'too much' if that is what the damager should pay?
(d) Answer (Rav Ashi): The damage was done to a pregnant cow, so that is what we evaluate.
(e) Obviously: if Reuven owns the cow and Levi owns the calf, Reuven gets the compensation for the increased fattiness;
(f) Question: Who gets paid for the increased value due to the larger volume (it looks fatter and healthier)?
(g) Answer #1 (Rav Papa): Reuven.
(h) Answer #2 (R. Acha brei d'Rav Ika): They share it.
1. The law is, they share it.
(a) (Mishnah): Shimon brought his pots or fruit into Reuven's yard without permission; Reuven's animals broke or ate them - he is exempt;
1. If Reuven's animals were damaged by the pots or fruit, Shimon is liable.
2. If Shimon had permission to bring them in, Reuven is liable.

(b) Shimon brought his ox into Reuven's yard without permission; Reuven's animals damaged it - he is exempt;
1. If the ox damaged Reuven's animals, or fell into a pit and dirtied the water, Shimon is liable;
2. If Reuven's father or son was inside the pit, Shimon pays Kofer;
3. If Shimon had permission to bring his ox in, Reuven is liable.
(c) Rebbi says, in all cases one is not liable unless he accepted responsibility for the other's property.
(d) (Gemara) Inference: Shimon is liable because he had no permission - if he had permission, he would be exempt when Reuven's animals were damaged;
1. We do not say that Shimon accepted to guard Reuven's animals - this is as Rebbi, who says that normally, one does not accept responsibility for another's animals.
(e) Question: The Mishnah continues - if Shimon had permission to bring his pots in, Reuven is liable - this is as Chachamim, who say that normally one accepts responsibility for to guard himself from damaging another's property!
1. The Mishnah concludes with Rebbi's opinion - can the beginning and end of the Mishnah be as Rebbi, and the middle as Chachamim?!
(f) Answer #1 (R. Zeira): Different Tana'im taught the Mishnah (the Tana of the middle clause holds that Chachamim do not argue on Rebbi).
(g) Answer #2 (Rava): The entire Mishnah (until Rebbi's opinion) is as Chachamim; when Reuven gives permission, he accepts to guard Shimon's property even from falling in the wind!
(a) (Mishnah): Shimon brought his fruit into Reuven's yard...
(b) (Rav): Shimon is only liable for damage to Reuven's animal if they slipped on the fruit; but if they got sick by eating the fruit, Shimon is exempt.
(c) Question: Why is this?
(d) Answer: The animals should not have eaten them.
(e) Question: (Rav Sheshes - Beraisa): Levi put poison in front of Yehudah's animal - Beis Din cannot make him pay, but Hash-m holds him accountable.
1. Inference: This is only by poison, which animals do not normally eat - but fruit, which they normally eat, even Beis Din forces him to pay!
2. According to Rav, he should be exempt, the animal should not have eaten!
(f) Answer #1: Even by fruit, Beis Din cannot make him pay;
1. The Mishnah spoke of poison to teach that even though animals normally don't eat it, Hash-m holds him accountable.
(g) Answer #2: The Mishnah speaks of a poisonous fruit (which is normal for animals to eat - even so, Beis Din does not make him pay).
(h) Question (Beraisa): A woman, without permission, brought wheat into Reuven's premises to grind it. Reuven's animal ate it - he is exempt.
1. If Reuven's animal was damaged, she is liable.
2. According to Rav, we should say that Reuven's animal should not have eaten!
(i) Answer: Just as Rav explains that the Mishnah is when the animal slipped on the fruit - also the Beraisa!
(j) Question: This is obvious - the one who asked, what did he think?
(k) Answer: The Mishnah says, 'Reuven's animal was damaged Bahen (through them)' - this can mean, it slipped on them;
1. But the Beraisa only says, 'Reuven's animal was damaged' - this connotes, it ate them!
2. Rav says, both can be explained to mean that it slipped on them.
(l) (Beraisa): Shimon brought his ox into Reuven's yard without permission; it ate wheat, fell sick and died - Reuven is exempt;
1. If Shimon had permission to bring his ox in, Reuven is liable.
2. According to Rav, we should say that Shimon's animal should not have eaten!
(m) Answer (Rava): You cannot compare when there was permission to when there was not!
1. One who gives permission accepts responsibility, even if the animal chokes itself!
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,