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 88
1) HITTING SLAVES
2) A DEAFMUTE, LUNATIC OR CHILD
1. (Mishnah): Reuven hit Shimon's Kena'ani slave - he
is liable...(R. Yehudah says, embarrassment does not
apply to slaves).
(b) Question: What is R. Yehudah's reason?
(c) Answer: "When men will fight, a man with his brother" -
this refers to people that have (according to Torah law)
brothers, to exclude slaves.
1. Chachamim argue - since a slave is also commanded to
keep Mitzvos, he is called a brother of a free man.
(d) Question: According to R. Yehudah, Zomemim witnesses that
tried to kill a slave should not be killed - it says, "As
he plotted to do to his brother"!
(e) Answer (Rava): "You will eradicate the evil from your
midst" includes this case.
(f) Question: Chachamim should say that a slave is qualified
to be king (even though a king must be appointed from
1. Counter-question: All agree that a convert is called
your brother, but he may not be appointed king!
(g) Answer (to both questions): "From the midst of your
brothers" - from the best (lineage) of your brothers.
(h) Question: Chachamim should say that a slave is qualified
to testify - "He testified falsely about his brother"!
(i) Answer #1 (Ula): A Kal va'Chomer disqualifies slave from
1. Even women, who may marry a Yisrael, cannot testify
- all the more so slaves, who cannot marry into
(j) Answer #2 (Mar brei d'Ravina): "Fathers shall not be put
to death due to children " - one is not sentenced to die
through testimony of fathers that have no connection
(lineage) to their children.
2. Question: But women are not fit for circumcision -
perhaps slaves, who are fit for circumcision can
3. Answer: We see that minors cannot testify, even
though they are fit for circumcision.
4. Question: But children are exempt from Mitzvos -
perhaps slaves, who are commanded in the Mitzvos,
5. Answer: Women are commanded in the Mitzvos, yet they
cannot testify (showing that this is not the
i. The stringent sides of women and children are
dissimilar; we learn from the common side: they
are not commanded in all the Mitzvos, and
cannot testify - the same applies to slaves!
6. Question: But (women and children) are not men - we
cannot learn to disqualify slaves that are men!
7. Answer: We learn from a robber (just as he cannot
testify, also a slave).
8. Question: But his sin disqualified him - we cannot
learn to a slave!
9. Answer: We learn from the common side of a robber,
and a woman or minor.
1. The verse cannot mean that fathers will not die
though testimony of their children - if so, it
should have said 'Fathers shall not be put to death
due to *their* children'!
(k) Question: If so, we should similarly expound "Children
shall not be put to death due to fathers" - one is not
sentenced to die through testimony of children that have
no lineage to their fathers, to disqualify converts (and
this is false)!
2. Rather, it means as above.
(l) Answer: No - converts have no lineage to their parents,
but they have lineage to their children; the verse
excludes slaves, who have no lineage, not to their
parents nor to their children.
1. If converts were disqualified, the verse would read
as follows: 'Children shall not be put to death due
to their fathers' - a father is not sentenced to die
through testimony of his children;
(m) Question: The Torah should have written ' And children
shall not be put to death due to *their* fathers' -
writing ''And children shall not be put to death due to
fathers' connotes that no one is sentenced to die through
testimony of people that have no lineage to their
2. ''And children shall not be put to death due to
fathers"' - this would teach 2 laws:
i. Children are not sentenced to die through
testimony of their fathers;
3. We would then learn a Kal va'Chomer: if converts are
disqualified, even though they have lineage to their
children, all the more so slaves, who have no
lineage to their parents or children, are
ii. No one is sentenced to die through testimony of
people that have no lineage to their fathers
i. Since the Torah did not write this. It must be
that converts can testify, only slaves are
(n) Answer: Since the verse starts, "Fathers shall not be put
to death due to children", the verse continues "Children
shall not be put to death due to fathers".
(a) (Mishnah): One loses through encounters with a deaf
person, lunatic or child.
(b) The mother of Rav Shmuel bar Aba of Hegronya wrote a
document giving her Milug property to Rav Shmuel. After
she died, R. Yirmeyah bar Aba, ruled that Rav Shmuel gets
(c) Rav Yehudah: Shmuel taught, if a woman sold her Milug
property in her husband's lifetime, and she died, her
husband takes the property from the buyer.
(d) R. Yirmeyah: I ruled like a Mishnah!
1. (Mishnah): Reuven wrote a document giving his
property to his son after Reuven's death. The son
may not sell the property, because it is in the
father's jurisdiction; the father may not sell it,
for he gave a document giving it to his son.
(e) (R. Yochanan): If the son sold the property and then died
in the father's lifetime, the buyer never gets it;
2. If the father sold it - the sale stands until the
father dies; if the son sold it - the buyer does not
get it until the father dies.
i. When the father dies, the buyer gets it, even
if the son died before the father, and the son
never received the property - this is as Reish
(f) (Reish Lakish): The buyer gets it (after the father
1. According to R. Yochanan, when the Mishnah says, if
the son sold it, the buyer does not get it until the
father dies - this is when the father died before
the son, and the property passed to the son;
(g) Both R. Yirmeyah bar Aba and Rav Yehudah hold as Reish
2. If the son died before the father, the property
never passed to the son, the buyer never gets it.
3. Inference: He holds, ownership of the produce (the
father owns the produce as long as he is alive) is
as owning the land itself, so the son sold something
he does not own.
4. According to Reish Lakish, the Mishnah says that the
buyer gets it when the father dies - this is even if
the son died before the father, and the property
never passed to the son.
5. Inference: He holds, ownership of the produce is not
as owning the land itself; the son was considered
the owner when he sold it, so the sale stands.
1. R. Yirmeyah bar Aba holds, we cannot say that
ownership of the produce is as owning the land
itself - if so, when the son died before the father,
the buyer would not never get the property, for the
son never owned it.
(h) Rav Yehudah (citing Shmuel): The case (of the mother who
wrote a gift to her son) is not as the Mishnah.
(i) Question: Why is it different?
(j) Answer #1 (Rav Yosef): Had the Mishnah said that Shimon
wrote a document giving his property to his father after
Shimon's death, we could indeed learn that ownership of
the produce is as owning the land itself.
1. But the case of the Mishnah is when Reuven gave his
property to his son - (perhaps) the son's sale
stands because he is fitting to inherit his father!
(k) Objection (Abaye): Also a father is fitting to inherit
1. Surely, a man that gave his property to his father
intended that his own children should not inherit it
- likewise, a man that gave his property to 1 son
intended that his other children should not inherit
(l) Answer #2 (Abaye): The case of Rav Shmuel's mother is
different because of the enactment of Usha.
2. (The reason that the son's sale stands is not
because he is fitting to inherit his father - he was
only fitting to inherit part! Rather, we must say
that ownership of the produce is as owning the land
1. (R. Yosi bar Chanina): In Usha, they enacted that if
a woman sells her Milug property and dies in her
husband's lifetime, he takes the property from the
(m) (Rav idi bar Avin): A Beraisa teaches this!
1. (Beraisa): 'Two witnesses testified that Reuven
divorced his wife and paid her Kesuvah'; she is
still living with him as his wife. They were found
to be Zomemim - they do not pay to her the full
value of her Kesuvah, only the Tovas Hana'ah.
(n) Rejection (Abaye): This is no proof of the enactment of
Usha; granted, without an enactment, she could sell Milug
property (for which the husband has no responsibility, he
just has rights to eat the produce during the marriage);
2. Question: What is the Tovas Hana'ah?
3. Answer: We estimate how much someone (Shimon) would
pay for the following proposition: if she is
divorced or widowed, he will receive her Kesuvah; if
she dies before her husband, her husband inherits
her (Shimon receives nothing).
4. Summation of answer: If not for the enactment of
Usha, why does her husband inherit her - she should
be able to sell (property she brought into the
marriage which is written in) her Kesuvah
1. But Tzon Barzel property (for which the husband has
responsibility to restore to her its initial value
when she brought it into the marriage), even without
an enactment, she could not sell it!