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 67
BAVA KAMA 67 - Dedicated by Mr. and Mrs. D. Kornfeld (Yerushalayim)
in honor of the Bat Mitzvah of their granddaughter, Malkie,
this past Yom Kipur. "May you Hashem bless you as Sarah,
Rivkah, Rachel and Le'ah!"
1) A REVERSIBLE CHANGE
(a) Answer #3 (R. Zeira): A change which can be reversed is
not a change, regarding a change in name.
2) DOES CHANGE ACQUIRE?
(b) Question: This implies that a change which cannot be
reversed is a change, regarding a change in name!
1. But a pipe - it was called a piece of wood before it
was hollowed out!
(c) Answer: The law that water that was in a vessel
disqualifies a Mikvah is mid'Rabanan (and Chachamim were
2. (Mishnah): If a pipe was hollowed out and then
affixed (for water to flow through it into a Mikvah
- it is considered a vessel, water which goes
through it) disqualifies the Mikvah; if it was
affixed and then hollowed out, it does not
disqualify the Mikvah.
(d) Question: If so, even when it was hollowed out first,
they should be lenient!
(e) Answer: There, it was a vessel before it was attached.
(f) Question (Beraisa): A thief, robber, or extortionist -
what he makes Hekdesh, Terumah or Ma'aser takes effect
(this proves, one acquires through despair)!
(g) Answer: No, he acquires because of the change in name
from Tevel to Terumah, from Chulin to Hekdesh.
(a) [Version #1 (Rav Chisda): We learn that change acquires
from "He will return the stolen item that he stole" - the
extra words teach, he only returns it if it is as what he
stole; if not, he returns the value.
(b) Question: We need that verse to teach that one does not
add a fifth for stealing from one's father (and swearing
to deny it)!
(c) Answer: That could have been taught by saying 'He will
return his stolen object'; "That he stole" is extra, to
also teach that change acquires.]
(d) [Version #2 (Rav Chisda): We learn that change does not
acquire from "He will return the stolen item" - in any
(e) Question: But it says "that he stole"!
(f) Answer: We need that verse to teach that one does not add
a fifth for stealing from one's father.]
(g) (Ula): We learn that change does not acquire from "And
you will offer a stolen animal, a lame, a sick animal" -
this equates a stolen animal to a lame one;
1. Just as a lame animal cannot become acceptable, also
a stolen animal, even after the owner despairs!
(h) (Rava): We learn from "His sacrifice" - not a stolen one.
3) FOUR AND FIVE IS ONLY BY AN OX OR SEH
1. Question: When does this apply?
(i) Question: But Rava earlier answered, that the thief stole
a sacrifice (here also, the verse is no proof)!
i. Suggestion: If before despair - this is
obvious, no verse is needed!
2. Answer: Rather, it is after despair - we see,
despair does not acquire.
(j) Answer #1: Rava retracted.
(k) Answer #2: One of these was not said by Rava, rather by
(a) (Mishnah): The payment of 4 and 5 (only applies to an ox
(b) Question: Why don't we learn from Shabbos, where it says
"ox", and it even applies to wild animals and birds?
(c) Answer (Rava): It says "ox" and "Seh" twice - the
repetition teaches, only ox or Seh, nothing else.
(d) Question: Which are extra?
1. Suggestion: The latter - it could have written 'If a
man will steal an ox or Seh and slaughter it or sell
it, he will pay 5 cattle in place of it, and 4 flock
in place of it.'
(e) Answer #1: The first "ox" and "Seh" are extra - it could
have written 'If a man will steal and slaughter it or
sell it, he will pay 5 cattle in place of the ox, and 4
flock in place of the Seh.'
2. Rejection: If so, one might have thought that he
pays 9 animals for either!
i. Suggestion: One 'in place of it' is extra, to
show that this is not so.
ii. Rejection: The extra 'in place of it' teaches a
iii. (Beraisa): One might have thought, one who
steals a very expensive ox may pay dying oxen
in place of it - "Tachas" teaches, this is not
so (and "Tachas" written by flock teaches the
same law by flock).
(f) Question: If so, one might have thought that he only pays
when he steals and slaughters an ox and a Seh!
(g) Answer: From the word 'slaughter it', we see that is not
(h) Question: One might have thought that he must steal both,
slaughter 1 and sell the other!
(i) Answer: From 'slaughter it or sell it', we see, that is
(j) Question: One might have thought that he must steal both,
slaughter or sell 1, and keep the other!
(k) Answer #2: The latter "ox" and the first "Seh" are extra
- it could have written 'If a man will steal an ox and
slaughter it or sell it, he will pay 5 cattle in place of
it, and 4 flock in place of the Seh';
1. From the extra "ox" at the end of the verse, and the
extra "Seh" at the beginning, we hear, 4 and 5
applies only to cattle and flock.