ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 9
(a) If Reuven sells a field to Shimon without Acharayos, and someone claims
that it is his, Shimon may retract, according to Abaye, as long as he has
not made a Chazakah, which in this regard means - if the purchaser has
walked round the borders of the field.
(b) He can no longer retract, once he has made a Chazakah - because the
seller can say to him 'So you bought a sack full of knots. But you thought
it over and accepted it!'
(c) But if Shimon purchased the field with Acharayus - he may retract even
after having made the Chazakah.
(d) Others disagree. They maintain that even then, he cannot retract -
because the seller can say to him 'When you show me the claimant's document
of claim, I will reimburse you!'
(a) When Rav Huna says 'O Kesef O Meitav', he is coming to resolve the
above-mentioned discrepancy between the Pesukim '*Kesef* Yashiv li'Be'alav",
and "Meitav *Sadeihu*" (though this is not quite how we asked the Kashya
(b) According to Rav Huna, the Mazik is permitted to pay oats (because of
the D'rashah "Yashiv" 'Lerabos Shaveh Kesef, Afilu Subin'), but only if he
has no money and no Karka.
(c) Nevertheless, we need a Beraisa to teach us this - because he has the
alternative of selling the oats and paying creditor the money.
(a) Rav Asi says 'Kesafim, Harei Hein ke'Karka'. We initially decline to
explain this with regard to Meitav - because then, the text should have read
've'Chein Amar Rav Asi'.
(b) So we try to establish it by two brothers who divided their father's
property (one, the Karka, the other, the Metaltelin), in which case Rav Asi
will be coming to teach us that if their father's creditor claimed a field
from the son with the Karka - his brother is obligated to reimburse him for
half his losses.
(c) There are two versions of the reason for refuting this explanation. One
of them is because it is obvious - since he is no less a son than his
brother (and just as much obligated to pay his father's debts).
(d) The second version is - that it is obviously wrong, since he can argue
that *he* took Metaltelin on the understanding that if it is stolen, he will
not be reimbursed, and that, by the same token, his brother took Karka on
the understanding that if their father's creditor claims it, he will not be
(a) So we try to establish Rav Asi where the two brothers divided their
father's Karka, and the creditor claimed from one of them (this will be
explained shortly). We reject this interpretation of Rav Asi's statement -
because he has told us the same thing on another occasion.
(b) When Rav says in the same case, 'Batlah Machlokes', he means - that the
original division is annulled and we re-divide the property.
(c) Shmuel says 'Viter' (which means that he loses [and has no claim against
1. Rav says 'Batlah Machlokes' - because he holds that brothers who divide
their father's property, remain heirs (who are both obligated to pay their
(b) When Rav Asi says 'Notel Revi'a be'Karka u'Revi'a be'Ma'os' ...
2. Shmuel say "Viter' - because he holds that they have the Din of
purchasers (as if they had purchased the other one's rights in half the
property - but without Acharayus).
1. ... according to Rashi's first explanation - he means that he takes
either a quarter in Karka or a quarter in Metaltelin (because he is
uncertain whether they have the Din of Yorshin or of Lekuchos without
Acharayus) See Tosfos DH 'Rav Asi'.
(c) The principle that governs Rav Asi's ruling is - 'Mamon ha'Mutal
be'Safek Cholkin' ('Money about which there is doubt, and on which neither
has a Chazakah, is divided equally').
2. ... according to Rashi's second explanation - he means that he takes a
quarter in Karka (like Yorshin) and a quarter in Metaltelin (like Lekuchos
[because he is uncertain whether they have the Din of Yorshin or of
Lekuchos, but with Acharayus]).
(d) We finally amend the text of Rav Asi's statement ('Kesafim Harei Hein
ke'Karka') to read - 've'Chein Amar Rav Asi' (like Rav Huna).
(a) We refute the suggestion that, when Rav Asi Amar Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav
Huna says 'be'Mitzvah ad Shelish', he means that a person is obligated to
spend as much as a third of his money to buy a Lulav, Tzitzis or a
Sefer-Torah - on the grounds that it is unlikely that the Torah would
obligate a person to give away all his money to perform three Mitzvos (see
Tosfos DH 'Ilu').
(b) What he must therefore mean is - that in order to perform a Mitzvah more
beautifully (Hidur Mitzvah), one is obligated to pay an extra third than the
cost of the object concerned.
(c) Rav Ashi asked whether ...
1. ... 'Sh'lish mi'Legav' meaning - a third of the value of the object
(which we too, call a third).
(d) In Eretz Yisrael, in the name of Rebbi Zeira, they added - that up to
one third is an obligation, for which one receives no reward in this world
(as the Torah writes in Va'eschanan "Ha'yom La'asosam", 've'Lo Ha'yom Liytol
Secharam'). Whereas whenever one spends more than a third, he will be
rewarded in this world too (see Tosfos DH 'Mishel').
2. 'Sh'lish mi'Lebar" meaning - a third part (added on the two current
halves [which we would call a half]).
(a) When the Tana of our Mishnah says ...
1. ... 'Kol she'Chavti bi'Shemiraso, Hechsharti es Nizko' - he means that
someone who is guilty of not guarding an article responsibly, has prepared
the resulting damage (or that he must put it right - by paying).
(b) One is not obligated to pay for damaging property that belongs to ...
2. ... 'Hechsharti be'Miktzas Nizko, Chavti be'Tashlumei Nizko ke'Hechsher
Kol Nizko' - he means that if he prepared part of the damage (even according
to the second interpretation of 'Hechsharti' in the previous piece), he is
Chayav to pay as if he had prepared the entire damage (as we will explain
1. ... Hekdesh.
(c) One is also only obligated to pay for damages to 'Nechasim
ha'Meyuchadim' - which have an owner (to preclude property that is Hefker,
which will be explained later).
2. ... Nochrim.
(d) The Mazik is exempt from paying if the damage occurred in his own
domain - because he can say to the Nizak 'What is your ox doing in my
(a) According to Shmuel (who learns 'Shor le'Raglo u'Mav'eh le'Shino') the
Seifa of our Mishnah 'u'che'Shehizik, Chav ha'Mazik Leshalem Tashlumei Nezek
be'Meitav ha'Aretz' comes to include - the Av of Keren (which is omitted
from the first Mishnah, as we learned earlier.
(b) 'Kol she'Chavti bi'Shemiraso ... ' comes to include the case of Shor
and Bor that one handed to a 'Chashu' (a Cheresh, Shoteh or Katan) to look
after. The Beraisa - exempts one from paying if one handed him Eish to look
(c) We are reluctant to establish the Reisha of this Beraisa by ...
1. ... a tied ox and a covered pit - because the equivalent by Eish would be
an un-fanned coal, and there seems to be not reason to differentiate between
(d) Consequently, according to Resh Lakish, we have to establish the
Beraisa by a tied ox and a covered pit, and the difference between them and
an un-fanned coal is - that whereas both of the former stand to
automatically come loose with the passing of time, the latter stands to
automatically become extinguished.
2. ... an untied ox and an uncovered pit - because the equivalent by fire
would be a burning flame, and Resh Lakish in the name of Chizkiyah say -
that someone who hands a 'Chashu' a burning flame is Chayav (so why does the
Beraisa say Patur?).
(a) Rebbi Yochanan - exempts someone who hands a 'Chashu' a burning flame
from having to pay.
(b) The difference between it and an untied ox or an uncovered pit is - the
fact that whereas the latter will sooner or later, damage unaided, the flame
will only damage if the 'Chashu' wields it (and the Shomer is not Chayav for
the Chashu's actions).
(c) 'Tzavsa de'Cheresh ka'Garim' means - either the holding of the 'Chashu'
causes the flame to damage, or his being alone with it.
(a) Shor has four Chumros over Bor. If it killed a man it becomes Asur
be'Hana'ah (after the Beis-Din have sentenced it to death) and its way is to
damage whilst it is moving - the owner must pay Kofer if it killed a person
and thirty Shekalim if it killed an Eved.
(b) The two Chumros of Bor over Shor are - that it initially stands to
damage and that it is Mu'ad right from the start.