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 78
(a) Question: Rabah taught, wherever the Torah says "Seh",
this excludes Kilayim - to what does he refer?
1. If by Kodshim - "An ox or lamb" excludes Kilayim!
(b) Answer: Rabah taught regarding a firstborn donkey.
2. If by Ma'aser (of animals) - we learn from a
Gezeirah Shavah "Tachas-Tachas" from Kodshim!
3. If by a firstborn (which is automatically a
sacrifice) - we learn from a Gezeirah Shavah
"Ha'avara-Ha'avara" from Ma'aser!
i. Alternatively, we can learn from Nidmeh to
ii. A firstborn Nidmeh is not sanctified - "Only
the firstborn of an ox" - the ox and its
firstborn must both look like oxen;
iii. All the more so, a firstborn Kilayim is not
1. (Mishnah): The following are not considered as a Seh
to redeem a firstborn donkey (even if they are worth
less than the donkey): a calf; a Chayah; a
slaughtered Seh; a Treifah; Kilayim; a Koy (a
crossbreed of a deer and goat).
(c) Question: According to R. Elazar (who holds that one may
redeem a firstborn donkey with Kilayim), what does
Rabah's rule teach?
1. (Mishnah - R. Elazar): One may redeem a firstborn
donkey with Kilayim, because it is a Seh.
(d) Answer: Rabah's rule excludes a Tamei species born from a
Tamei father and Tahor mother.
1. Rabah's rule is not needed according to R. Yehoshua.
(e) Question: Can a Tahor animal really become pregnant from
a Tamei animal?
i. R. Yehoshua learns from "Seh of sheep (plural)"
and "Seh of goats" that the child is only
considered a Seh if both parents are sheep (or
both are goats).
(f) Answer: It can become pregnant from a (Tahor) animal
which has uncloven hooves. (R. Shimon calls such an
animal Tamei, and forbids eating it.)
2) COMPENSATION FOR A STOLEN SACRIFICE
(a) Question (Rava): Reuven accepted on himself to bring a
burnt-offering; he separated an ox for this, and it was
stolen. According to Chachamim, can the thief exempt
himself by returning a lamb; according to R. Eliezer ben
Azaryah, can the thief exempt himself by returning a
3) A DEFECTIVE SALE OR SLAUGHTER
1. (Mishnah): 'I accept on myself to bring a
burnt-offering' - he must bring a lamb (or another
(b) Answer (Rava): The thief can exempt himself by returning
a lamb (according to Chachamim) or a bird (according to
R. Eliezer ben Azaryah).
i. R. Eliezer ben Azaryah says, he may bring a
pigeon or dove.
2. Summation of question: Do we say that Reuven never
specified what type of burnt-offering he will bring,
so the thief may return any valid species?
i. Or - can Reuven say, I intended to do an ideal
Mitzvah (a big sacrifice, you must return a big
(a) (Mishnah): A thief pays double, not 4 or 5, in all the
following cases: he sold the animal, except for 1 part in
4) STEALING A DEFECTIVE ANIMAL
1. He was a partner in it before stealing it;
(b) (Gemara) Question: What does it mean, except for 1 part
2. He slaughtered it improperly, making it Neveilah;
3. He did Nechirah or Ikur (he tore or uprooted the
foodpipe and windpipe).
(c) Answer #1 (Rav): Except for something that is permitted
(d) Answer #2 (Levi): (Even) except for its shearings.
1. Support (Beraisa): (Even) except for its shearings.
(e) Question (Beraisa): A thief does not pay 4 or 5 if he
sold it except for its foreleg, hind leg, horn or
1. Rebbi says, he only pays 4 or 5 if he sold
everything necessary for slaughter (i.e. he did not
retain anything whose removal would make the animal
(f) Answer: Rav holds as the following Tana.
2. R. Shimon ben Elazar says, if he retained its horn,
he does not pay 4 or 5; if he retained the
shearings, he pays 4 or 5.
3. Levi is as the first Tana - but Rav is not as any
1. (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar): A thief does not
pay 4 or 5 if he sold it except for its foreleg or
hind leg; he does pay if he retained its horn or
(g) Question: On what do the Tana'im argue?
(h) Answer: The first Tana learns "And he slaughtered it" -
all of it; "or he sold it" - all of it;
1. Rebbi learns "And he slaughtered it" - whatever is
necessary for slaughter; "Or he sold it" - this is
as slaughter (he must sell whatever is necessary for
2. R. Shimon ben Elazar (in the first Beraisa) holds
that the horn is a remnant (rendering the sale
incomplete, which exempts him), for it was not
standing to be cut off from the animal;
i. The shearings are not remnants, for they were
standing to be cut off (so it is as if he sold
the entire animal).
3. R. Shimon ben Elazar (in the second Beraisa) holds
that the legs are remnants, because they are only
permitted through slaughter; the horns and shearings
are not remnants, because they are permitted without
4. Question: R. Shimon ben Elazar contradicts himself!
5. Answer: The Tana'im (of the 2 Beraisos) argue on
what R. Shimon ben Elazar held.
(a) (Beraisa): A thief is liable for all the following
animals: it is missing a limb, or lame, or blind; the
animal of partners;
1. Partners that stole are exempt.
(b) Contradiction (Beraisa): Partners that stole are liable!
(c) Answer #1 (Rav Nachman): A man that stole from his
partner is exempt; a partner that steals from someone
else is liable.
(d) Question (Rava - Beraisa): One might have thought, a man
that stole from his partner, or partners that stole would
be liable - "And he slaughtered it", he is only liable if
he slaughtered an entirely stolen animal.
(e) Answer #2 (Rav Nachman): Rather, 2 partners stole, 1 of
them slaughtered. If the other authorized him to
slaughter, both are liable; if not, they are exempt.
(f) Questions (R. Yirmeyah): What is the law in the following
cases: he sold the animal except for 30 days (during
which the thief may work with it);
1. He retained the right to collect any work done with
it (but the buyer may slaughter it whenever he
(g) These questions are unsettled.
2. He retained its fetus.
3. This last question is not according to the opinion
that a fetus is as a limb of its mother - he surely
exempts the thief, as if he retained a limb of the
mother. The question is according to the opinion
that a fetus is not as a limb of its mother:
4. [Version #1: Do we say, since it is connected to the
mother, it is a remnant (rendering the sale
i. Or - since it is standing to separate from the
mother, it is not a remnant?]
5. [Version #2: Do we say, since it is not as a limb of
its mother - therefore, it is not a remnant?
i. Or - do we say, since it needs to become
permitted through slaughter of the mother, it
is a part of the mother (and is a remnant)?]
(h) Question (Rav Papa): A thief stole an animal, cut off a
limb and sold the (rest of the) animal - what is the law?
1. Do we say - since he did not sell the entire animal
he stole, he is exempt (from 4 or 5)?
2. Or - since he did not retain anything for himself in
what he sells, he is liable?
3. This question is unsettled.