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 83
1) WHEN IS IT PERMITTED TO SPEAK CHOCHMAS YEVANIS?
(a) Question: But Chochmas Yevanis is permitted!
2) RAISING DOGS
1. (Beraisa - Rebbi): In Eretz Yisrael, one should not
speak Sursi, rather Hebrew or Yevanis.
(b) Answer: Yevanis, the language, is permitted - Chochmas
Yevanis is different, it is forbidden.
2. (R. Asi): In Bavel, one should not speak Arami,
rather Hebrew or Persian.
(c) Question: Is Chochmas Yevanis really forbidden?!
1. (Rav Yehudah citing R. Shimon ben Gamliel): "My eye
wails, from all the daughters of my city" - of 1000
children in my father's house, 500 learned Torah,
500 learned Chochmas Yevanis; only me and my cousin
(d) Answer: Since R. Gamliel's house was close to the king,
they were permitted; otherwise, it is forbidden.
1. (Beraisa): One who cuts his hair Kumi (a.k.a.
Beloris, cutting the front and letting it grow in
back) transgresses the prohibition of going in the
ways of the Emori;
i. Avtulmus bar Reuven was permitted to do this,
because he was close to the king.
ii. Since R. Gamliel's house was close to the king,
they were permitted to speak Chochmas Yevanis.
(a) (Mishnah): One may not raise a dog unless it is tied on a
3) BIRD TRAPS
(b) (Beraisa): One may not raise a dog unless it is tied on a
chain; one may raise a dog in a city near the border - he
ties it by day, unties it at night.
(c) (Beraisa - R. Eliezer ha'Gadol): Raising dogs is as
(d) Question: Why must he make this comparison (he could just
say, it is forbidden)?
(e) Answer: To teach that he is cursed.
(f) (Rav Yosef bar Minyomi): Bavel has the law of a city near
1. He was referring to Neharda'a.
(g) (R. Dosta'i of Biri): "Return, Hash-m the 10,000's,
1,000's of Yisrael" - this teaches that the Divine
Presence does not rest on less than 22,000 Yisraelim.
1. If there was 1 less than this amount, and a woman
was pregnant, about to complete the number, and she
miscarried as a result of a dog's bark - this would
cause the Divine Presence to depart from Yisrael!
2. Leah was pregnant; she went to bake in Rivka's
house. A dog in Rivka's house barked at her.
i. The owner: Don't worry - its teeth were
ii. Leah: The fetus already died.
(a) (Mishnah): We do not spread traps for doves...within 4
Mil of a settled area.
(b) Question: Do they really go so far?!
1. (Mishnah): Dovecotes must be at least 50 Amos from
(c) Answer (Abaye): They eat their fill within 50 Amos, but
they can fly up to 4 Mil (from their nest).
(d) Question: Can they really go only 4 Mil?!
1. (Beraisa): One may not set dove traps even 100 Mil
from a settled area.
(e) Answer #1 (Rav Yosef): That is when the area in between
is settled with vineyards.
(f) Answer #2 (Rabah): That is when the area in between is
settled with dovecotes.
1. Question: If so, it is forbidden to set traps on
account of the dovecotes!
2. Answers: The intermediate dovecotes are owned by
Nochrim, or are Hefker, or belong to teach that he
one setting the traps.
***** PEREK HA'CHOVEL *****
4) THE FIVE PAYMENTS FOR DAMAGES
(a) (Mishnah): Reuven damaged Shimon - he may be liable for 5
categories of payment: Nezek, pain, medical expenses,
unemployment (compensation for loss of wages until he can
work again), and embarrassment.
5) HOW WE KNOW THAT MONEY IS TO BE PAID
1. To evaluate Nezek: If he blinded his eye, cut off
his hand, or broke his leg - we evaluate the loss of
Shimon's value (if he would be sold as a slave).
2. To evaluate pain: If he burned him with a spit or
nail, even on his fingernail (so no wound will
result), we evaluate how much a person of Shimon's
nature would ask to receive on condition that he
will be pained thusly.
3. Medical expenses: He bears all costs of healing him;
i. If sores developed - Reuven is liable only if
they are on account of the blow.
4. To evaluate unemployment: We view what Shimon would
be earning as one who guards gourds, for Nezek
already compensates Shimon for not being able to
hold a high-paying job that requires use of his arm
5. We evaluate embarrassment according to the one who
embarrassed and the one who was embarrassed.
(a) (Gemara) Question: Why does Reuven pay money - the Torah
says, "An eye in place of an eye", he should lose his
(b) Answer (Beraisa) Suggestion: If Reuven blinded Shimon's
eye, cut off his hand, or broke his leg, the same should
be done to Reuven!
(c) Rejection: It says "One who strikes a man" and "One who
strikes an animal" - just as one who strikes an animal
pays money, also one who strikes a man.
1. If you prefer - it says "Do not take ransom for the
soul of a murderer, he is evil and should die" - we
do not take ransom for a murderer, but we take
ransom for extremal limbs that do not grow back.
(d) Question: Why does it say 'if you prefer' (why would one
object to the previous answer)?
2. Question: Which verse "One who strikes a man" does
the Beraisa cite?
i. Suggestion: If "One who strikes an animal will
pay, and one who strikes a man will die" - that
speaks of killing!
3. Answer: Rather, "One who strikes the soul of an
animal will pay for it, a soul for a soul"; and the
next verse says "A man that will put a blemish in
his fellow man - as he did, so will be done to him".
4. Question: But the latter verse does not say 'strike'
(as it says in the Beraisa)!
5. Answer: The Beraisa learns the concept of striking
from animals to people.
i. Just as one who strikes an animal pays, also
one who strikes a man.
6. Question: But it says, "One who strikes any soul of
a man will die"!
7. Answer: That means, he will pay.
8. Suggestion: Perhaps it literally means, he is
9. Rejection #1: The Torah equates this to "One who
strikes an animal will pay for it" (the previous
10. Rejection #2: The next verse says "As (a man) will
put a blemish in a man, so will be given to him" -
this means money.
(e) Answer: The Tana asked as follows:
1. Question: Why learn (the law of a man that wounds a
man) from damage to an animal - we should learn from
a man that kills a man!
(f) (Beraisa): If you prefer - it says "Do not take ransom
for the soul of a murderer, he is evil and should die, he
will die" - we do not take ransom for a murderer, but we
take ransom for extremal limbs that do not grow back.
2. Answer: It is preferable to learn damages from
damages, and not from murder.
3. Question: To the contrary - it is preferable to
learn (striking a) man from man, and not from
(striking an) animal!
i. That is why the Tana wanted another answer.
(g) Question: We expound a different law from this verse,
that we do not kill the murderer and make him pay!
(h) Answer: We learn that from "According to his evilness" -
we only give 1 punishment for his evilness, not 2.
(i) Question: Still, we need the verse "Do not take ransom",
that he may not pay to exempt himself from death!
(j) Answer: The Torah could have taught that by saying "Do
not take ransom for one who is evil and should die"; "the
soul of a murderer" is extra, to teach that we do not
take ransom for a murderer, but we take ransom for limbs.
(k) Question: Since we have this verse, why do we need the 2
verses equating one who strikes an animal and one who
strikes a man?
(l) Answer: Without that verse, one might have thought that
the damager can choose to pay with money or his limb;
1. The verse teaches that he is as one who strikes an
animal, he must pay money.