POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
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 55
1) THE SYMBOLISM OF 'GOOD"
(a) Question (R. Chanina ben Agil): Why does it say "Good" in
the second version of the 10 Utterances, but not in the
2) BEASTS AND BIRDS
(b) R, Chiya bar Aba: I am not sure if it is says 'good'
(perhaps the version in Parshas va'Eschanan does not
correspond to the second version)!
(c) Answer (R. Tanchum bar Chanila'i): Because the first
Tablets would be broken.
(d) Question: Is that a reason not to say 'good'?
(e) Answer (Rav Ashi): Hash-m did not want a sign that 'good'
would cease from Yisrael.
(f) (R. Yehoshua ben Levi): One who sees the letter 'Tes'
(the first letter of 'good') in a dream - this is a good
(g) Question: But some ominous verses also begin with 'Tes'!
(h) Answer: The first 'Tes' in the Torah is in the word
(i) (R. Yehoshua ben Levi): One who sees 'eulogy' in a dream
- this shows that he was fit to die, but Hash-m had mercy
and saved him.
1. This only applies when the word was written.
(a) (Mishnah): The laws also apply to Chayos and birds.
(b) (Reish Lakish): From our Mishnah we learn that chickens,
peacocks and partridges are forbidden together.
(c) Question: This is obvious!
(d) Answer (Rav Chaviva): One might have thought, since they
grow up together, they are 1 species - we hear, this is
(e) (Shmuel): Geese and wild geese are forbidden together.
(f) Question (Rava bar Rav Chanan): Why is this?
1. If because one has a long neck (Aruch; Rashi -
beak), the other's is short - if so, Persian and
Arabian camels should also be forbidden together,
for one has a long neck, the other's is short!
(g) Answer #1 (Abaye): Rather, because the testicles of one
are seen externally, of the other, they are not.
(h) Answer #2 (Rav Papa): One carries only 1 egg at a time,
the other carries many at a time.
(i) (R. Yirmeyah): One who mates diverse species of
sea-creatures is lashed.
(j) Question: Why is this?
(k) Answer (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): We learn a Gezeirah Shavah
"le'Minehu-le'Minehu" from land animals.
(l) Question (Rachbah): May one use a goat and a fish to pull
1. Since goats never go in the sea, and fish never go
on the land (so they will not mate together), it is
(m) Question (Ravina): (If this would be forbidden) - would
one be liable for planting wheat and barley by each
other, 1 in Eretz Yisrael and the other in Chutz
2. Or - since he is working with them, it is forbidden.
(n) Answer: That is different - one is only liable for
planting diverse seeds in Eretz Yisrael, but the
prohibition to work with different species applies on
land and water!
***** PEREK HA'KONES *****
3) GUARDING PROPERLY
(a) (Mishnah): Reuven brought his flock into a Dir (a fenced
off area for animals to fertilize the land) and locked in
front of them properly; they got out and damaged - he is
1. If he locked in front of them improperly and they
went out and damaged - he is liable.
(b) If the wall broke at night, or if thieves broke it and
the flock went out and damaged, he (and the thieves) are
1. If thieves took the flock out and they damaged, the
thieves are liable.
(c) If Reuven left his flock in the sun, or gave them over to
a deaf person, lunatic or child to watch and they got out
and damaged - he is liable;
1. If he gave them over to a shepherd to watch, the
shepherd is liable in place of Reuven.
(d) If they fell into a garden and benefited - Reuven pays
for the benefit;
1. If they went down normally and damaged - Reuven
pays for the damage.
(e) (Gemara - Beraisa) Question: What is considered proper
2. To evaluate the damage, we estimate how much a Beis
Sa'ah (an area 50 Amos by 100 Amos) of the field was
worth, and the decrease now that 1 patch was
3. R. Shimon says, if it ate finished fruit, it pays
for finished fruit; if it ate 1 Sa'ah, it pays for 1
Sa'ah; if it ate 2 Sa'ah, it pays for 2 Sa'ah.
(f) Answer: A door that can stand in a normal wind - this is
proper; if it cannot, this is improper.
(g) (R. Mani bar Patish): Our Mishnah is as R. Yehudah, who
says that a poor guarding suffices for a Mu'ad.
1. (Mishnah - R. Meir): Reuven tied his ox with a rope,
and locked in front of it properly, and it escaped
and damaged - he is liable, whether it is Tam or
(h) Rejection: The Beraisa can even be as R. Meir - Shen and
Regel are different, the Torah said they need not be
guarded so well.
2. R. Yehudah says, a Tam is liable, a Mu'ad is exempt
- "If he will not guard it", and this is guarded!
3. R. Elazar says, a Mu'ad cannot be guarded, it must
1. (R. Elazar): The Torah minimized the guarding needed
for 4 things: a pit, fire, Shen and Regel.
(i) (Rabah): We may also derive this from our Mishnah!
i. A pit: "A man that will open a pit or dig a pit
and not cover it" - had he covered it, he is
ii. Fire: "The one who burned will pay" - only if
he was (negligent) as one who burns;
iii. Shen: "It will consume in another's field" -
only if it is as one who makes it consume;
iv. Regel: "And he will send" - only if it is as
one who sends.
v. (Beraisa): "And he will send" - this is Regel -
"Sending the Regel of oxen and donkeys".
vi. "And it will consume" - this is Shen - "As the
Galal (tooth) will consume"
vii. He is liable only if it is as one who sends and
1. Until now, the Mishnayos spoke of an ox - it
switched to 'flock' (which do not gore, they only
damage through Shen and Regel);
i. The Torah said that a weak guarding suffices,
even though (others explain - because) they are
Mu'ad from the beginning.