ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 10
(a) Shor has four Chumros over Eish (like it has over Bor). Bearing in
mind that Eish damages whilst it moves (like Shor), the other Chumra that
Shor has over Eish (which it did not have over Bor) is - that if he hands it
to a 'Chashu' to look after, he is Chayav.
(b) The Chumra of Eish over Shor is - that it is Mu'ad right from the start.
(c) The two Chumros of ...
1. ... Bor over Eish are - that it stands to damage right from the beginning
and that if he handed it to a 'Chashu', he is Chayav.
(d) Keilim are considered inappropriate by Eish and Bor.
2. ... Eish over Bor - is that it damages whilst it is moving and it is
Mu'ad to damage even things that are not appropriate for it to damage.
(a) Initially, we attribute the omission of the Chumra of Shor over Bor that
Shor is Chayav Keilim, which Bor is not, to the fact that the author of the
Beraisa is Rebbi Yehudah - who holds that Bor is Chayav for the damage of
(b) We reject this however, from the Seifa ('Chomer be'Eish mi'be'Bor ...
'). The problem with that, if the author was Rebbi Yehudah, would be - that
we include among those Chumros, that Eish is Chayav for Keilim, which Bor is
not. But according to Rebbi Yehudah, he is Chayav on Keilim in a Bor, too.
(c) Even if, as we then suggest, the author of the Beraisa is the Rabbanan,
we can justify the omission of the Chumra of Shor over Bor, that Shor is
Chayav Keilim, whereas Bor is not - by pointing to a second omission in the
Beraisa (and a Tana is entitled to omit from a Mishnah or Beraisa provided
he omits at least two cases).
(d) The additional Chumra that the Tana omits that Shor and Bor have over
Eish is - Tamun (which, as Chazal will later extrapolate from "O ha'Kamah",
is Patur by Eish).
(a) Alternatively, we re-establish the Beraisa like Rebbi Yehudah, and the
Chumra of Eish over Bor is not Keilim - but 'Lich'chah Niyro, ve'Sichsechah
(b) The other Halachic Chumra of Shor over Bor is - that it is Chayav for
damaging a Shor Pesulei ha'Mukdashin (a Hekdesh ox that became blemished and
(c) We learn that a Shor Pesulei ha'Mukdashin is ...
1. ... Patur be'Bor - from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Meis Yih'yeh Lo", and a Shor
Pesulei ha'Mukdashin does not belong to the owner (since he is only
permitted to eat it, but not to shear its wool, to milk it or to feed it to
(d) The problem, if the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi Yehudah (who
obligates both Tamun be'Eish and Keilim be'Bor) is - what else does the Tana
omit to justify omitting Shor Pesulei ha'Mukdashin?
2. ... Chayav be'Shor - because the Torah writes "Shor Re'eihu", and once
the owner has redeemed it, it falls under that category.
(a) We refute the suggestion that, even according to Rebbi Yehudah, the Tana
omits 'Dash be'Niyro', which is Chayav by Shor but Patur by Bor - on the
grounds that Dash be'Niyro is not omitted. It is included in 'she'Kein Darko
Leilech u'Lehazik' (which the Tana does in fact, include).
(b) This applies to damaging willfully, which is a Toldah of Keren.
(c) Dash be'Niyro is not Chayav by Bor - because it is simply not
(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Hechsharti be'Miktzas Nizko, Chavti
be'Tashlumei Nizko ke'Hechsher Kol Nizko', which we initially establish by
someone who added an extra Tefach to a pit that was already nine Tefachim
deep. We suggest that the author of our Mishnah will not then be Rebbi - who
says that it is only with regard to death that we go after the one who dug
the last Tefach (because a pit of less than ten Tefachim is not fit to
kill). but as far as damages is concerned, both the person who dug the first
nine Tefachim and the person who dug the last one share the liability.
(b) Rav Papa disagrees. He establishes our Mishnah even like Rebbi, and the
Tana is talking about Miysah (not Nezikin).
(c) According to others, Rav Papa does not argue with anybody.
prompted him to make his statement was the proposal - 'Leima de'Lo ke'Rebbi'
(which is a question, rather than an opinion).
(a) Rebbi Zeira asked why we could not establish our Mishnah ('Hechsharti
be'Miktzas Nizko ... ') in a case when someone handed his ox to five people
to guard, and one of them was negligent, as a result of which the ox went
and caused damage. We reject Rebbi Zeira's proposal however on the grounds -
that it cannot speak when ...
1. ... without the fifth one's assistance, the animal (due to its wild
nature) could not have been guarded - because then it is obvious that he
would be Chayav (since in effect, he caused the entire damage, and not just
part of it), (and we would not require a Mishnah).
(b) Then Rav Sheishes asks why we could not establish it in a case when
someone added to an existing flame. We reject Rebbi Sheishes' proposal, too
on the same grounds. It cannot be speaking when ...
2. ... without his assistance, it would have been guarded anyway - because
then he didn't do anything, and there is no reason for him to be Chayav.
1. ... without the additional flame, the fire would not have caused damage -
because then it is obvious that he would be Chayav, and the Mishnah would
have been required.
(c) What makes the case where the damage would not have occurred had the
last man not contributed to it, worse than our case (of the man who added
the tenth Tefach), in the case of ...
2. ... without it, the fire would have damaged anyway - because then he
didn't do anything, and there is no reason for him to be Chayav.
1. ... the ox is - the fact that the man who dug the first nine Tefachim did
create a damager, and in fact, contributed towards the final damage or
death, whereas those who *did* guard the ox, did not contribute towards the
ultimate damage at all, making the man who did *not* solely responsible.
2. ... the fire is - the fact that, had he not added the additional fuel,
the fire would have fizzled out, making him solely responsible, whereas in
our case, the man who dug the first nine Tefachim remains a partner in the
damage. (In both cases therefore, it would be no Chidush to tell us that the
last man is fully liable, whereas in the case of the man who dug the tenth
Tefach, the Tana needs to tell us that that is the case).
(a) Then Rav Papa asks why we could not establish it in the case cited in a
Beraisa where five men were sitting on a bench without breaking it, when a
sixth man sat down and broke it. Rav Papa adds that he is talking about
someone like Papa bar Aba - who was an exceptionally heavy-set man.
(b) We reject Rebbi Papa's proposal using exactly the same argument as
before. If the bench would not have broken without Papa bar Aba, then it is
obvious that he is Chayav, and if it would, then there is no Chidush.
Assuming that the bench would not have broken without Papa bar Aba, it is
more obvious that he alone is Chayav, than the case of the man who dug the
tenth Tefach - because, as opposed to that case, the bench had not even
begun to break before Papa bar Aba came along.
(c) The Beraisa, which does discuss the case - speaks when without Papa bar
Aba, the bench would have broken in two hours, and now it broke in one.
(a) We attempt to absolve Papa bar Aba from the entire blame by claiming
that, were it not for the other five men's assistance, the bench would not
have broken - meaning that they ought to have stood up.
(b) And we resolve this Kashya - by establishing that Papa bar Aba did not
actually sit on the bench, but that he leaned against the men who were
sitting there, preventing them from getting up, even if they had wanted to.
(c) It is no longer necessary to explain that without Papa bar Aba, the
bench would have broken in two hours and now it broke in just one - but
that, without him, it would not have broken at all, and now, it did break.
(d) The Tana's Chidush is - 'Kocho ke'Gufo', a person's force is considered
like his body, and it is as if he was himself sitting on the bench.
(a) Finally, we ask why we cannot establish 'Hechsharti be'Miktzas Nizko' by
the case cited in the Beraisa of ten men who lay about someone with ten
sticks and killed him. The Tana Kama says that they are all Patur,
irrespective of whether they all beat him simultaneously or consecutively -
because we do not know who actually killed him (see Rashi in Sanhedrin).
We are quite happy to establish our Mishnah 'bi'P'lugta', as long as it is
like the Rabbanan (the majority) - but we will not establish a S'tam Mishnah
like a minority opinion (Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira), if there is an
(b) Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira says - that if they did it consecutively, then
the last one is Chayav.
(c) The basis of their Machlokes is the Pasuk "ve'Ish Ki Yakeh Kol Nefesh
Adam". "Kol Nefesh Adam", according to ...
1. ... Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira means - even a little bit of the Nefesh.
(d) We now propose to establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira.
2. ... the Rabbanan - the whole Nefesh.
(a) We can extrapolate from the fact that our Mishnah says 'Chavti
be'Tashlumei Nizko' (and not just 'Chavti be'Nizko') - that the Nizak keeps
the carcass of the gored ox as part payment, and the Mazik pays the balance.
1. Rebbi Ami learns this from the Pasuk "Makeh Nefesh Beheimah
*Yeshalmenah*" - which he reads as if it was written "Yashlimenah" ('he
shall complement what is missing').
(c) The question now arises why we need all three Pesukim. Even though the
Torah wrote ...
2. Rav Kahana learns it from "Im Tarof Yitaref Yevi'ehu Eid ha'Tereifah Lo
Yeshalem" - as if the Torah had written " ... Yevi'ehu Ad ha'Tereifah"
(excluding the T'reifah itself, which the Nizak already has). The Pasuk is
referring to a Shomer Sachar who caused the animal to be mauled to death
through his negligence.
3. Chizkiyah and Tana de'Bei Chizkiyah learn it from "Shalem Yeshalem Shor
Tachas ha'Shor, ve'ha'Meis Yih'yeh Lo" - because if "Lo" referred to the
Mazik, Abaye explains, the Torah might as well not have mentioned it (since,
seeing as he has to pay for the entire damage, it is obvious that he takes
1. ... "Makeh Nefesh Beheimah Yeshalmenah", it needs to write "Im Tarof
Toraf Yevi'ehu Eid ha'Tereifah ... " - to teach us that the Nizak takes the
carcass even in a case which is common (and the Torah does not penalize the
(d) And having already taught us that a Mazik can even pay oats, Rav Kahana
asked Rav (or Rava), why the Torah then finds it necessary to write
"ve'ha'Meis Yiy'heh Lo", 'le'Nizak', which is really obvious, to which he
replied - that the Torah is coming to teach us that (not only must the Nizak
take the carcass, but that) he must bear the loss should the carcass
2. ... "Im Tarof Toraf Yevi'ehu Eid ha'Tereifah ... ", it needs to write
"Makeh Nefesh Beheimah Yeshalmenah" - to teach us that the Nizak takes the
carcass even in a case where the Mazik damaged with his hands.
3. ... these two, it needs to write "ve'ha'Meis Yih'yeh Lo" - to teach us
that the Nizak takes the carcass, that even though it is both common and the
damage was performed deliberately (by the damaging ox), the Torah still does
not penalize the Mazik.
4. ... "ve'ha'Meis Yih'yeh Lo", it needs to write the other two - to teach
us that it even applies when it is the person himself who damages (and is
not confined to where the damage was caused by his property).
(a) We query Rav (or Rava) from a Beraisa. The Tana Kama explains "Im Tarof
Yitaref Yevi'eihu Eid" to mean that the Shomer must bring witnesses that it
was torn be'O'nes, and we learn that he is Patur from Onsin - from the Pasuk
in Mishpatim " ... u'Meis O Nishbar O Nishbah, Ein Ro'eh, Shevu'as Hashem
Tih'yeh Bein Sheneihem" (since the purpose of a Shevu'ah is to exempt the
defendant from paying).
(b) Aba Shaul interprets "Eid" - to mean the carcass ('Adudah'), and the
Pasuk now means that the Nizak brings the carcass to Beis-Din for
(c) Seeing as Aba Shaul certainly agrees with the Tana Kama's Halachah, it
is clearly the Chachamim who disagree with Aba Shaul. So initially, we
explain - that Aba Shaul requires the Nizak to bring the carcass to Beis-Din
for assessment (because he holds 'P'chas Neveilah de'Nizak'), and the
Rabbanan disagree (because they hold 'P'chas Neveilah de'Mazik').
(d) The problem that this creates with Rav (or Rava ['Lo Nitzr'cha Ela
li'P'chas Neveilah']) is - seeing as "ve'ha'Meis Yih'yeh Lo" must come to
teach us 'P'chas Neveilah de'Nizak', how can Tana'im argue over the matter?