ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 14
(a) The Beraisa quoted by Rav Yosef says 'Chatzar ha'Shutfim ve'ha'Pundak -
Chayav Bahen Al ha'Shen ve'Al ha'Regel'.
(b) Rebbi Elazar, who holds Patur, reconciles his own opinion with this
Beraisa - by citing another Beraisa which argues, and which he follows.
(c) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar presents four categories of locations. He
renders all damages liable in the Reshus of the Nizak, and all damages Patur
in the Reshus of the Mazik. He says that ...
1. ... in a Chatzer ha'Shutfin ve'ha'Bik'ah - Shen ve'Regel is Patur, and
Keren (with all its Toldos) is Chayav (half damages in the case of a Tam,
and complete damages in the case of a Mu'ad).
(d) The reason ...
2. ... in a Chatzer that belongs to neither of them - Shen ve'Regel is
Chayav, and Keren has the same Din as in the previous case.
1. ... according to some, that one is Patur on Shen va'Regel even in the
Reshuyos that he is Chayav Keren is - because Shen va'Regel requires 'S'dei
Acher', which Keren does not.
2. ... according to others, that one is nevertheless Chayav is - because,
seeing as it is not designated for public use, it is indeed considered
(a) According to Rebbi Elazar, the Beraisa of Rav Yosef (which holds
partners liable for Shen ve'Ayin in a Chatzer ha'Shutfin) and Rebbi Shimon
ben Elazar in the second Beraisa (who exempts them), argue. We nevertheless
reconcile the two Beraisos - by establishing the first Beraisa a Chatzer
which is designated for the use of fruit, but not for animals (rendering it
'S'dei Acher' when one of them allows his animal to enter it), whereas the
second Beraisa speaks when it is designated for animals too.
(b) And we prove this from the accompanying case in each respective
Beraisa - 'Pundak' (a guest-house) in the first (which is confined to the
use of people and not animals), 'Bik'ah' (a valley) in the second, where
animals normally graze.
(c) Rebbi Zeira asked why they are Chayav for Shen va'Regel, in Rav Yosef's
Beraisa, because, seeing as it is designated for the use of each one's
fruit, it is not 'S'dei Acher'. Abaye replied - that seeing as it was not
designated for either of their animals, it is indeed 'S'dei Acher'.
(d) When Rav Acha from Difti asked Ravina whether perhaps we could reconcile
Rav Chisda and Rebbi Elazar in the same way as we just reconciled the two
Beraisos - Ravina replied that, maybe he was right. Alternatively, they
argued over a Chatzer that was designated for their joint use for fruit but
not animals, and Rebbi Elazar (who exempts them) supports the Kashya of
Rebbi Zeira, whereas Rav Chisda (who obligates them), follows Abaye's
(a) We extrapolate from Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar's words 'Kol she'Hu Reshus
le'Nizak ve'Lo le'Mazik, Chayav ba'Kol' - that everyone (even a Shor Tam) is
Chayav to pay full damages when it enters the Reshus of the Nizak and
damages there) like the opinion of Rebbi Tarfon.
(b) Had he merely been coming to teach us that he is Chayav for Shen as well
as for Keren - then he should have said (not 'Chayav ba'Kol', but) 'Chayav
(a) In the Seifa, when Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar says 'Lo la'Zeh ve'Lo
la'Zeh, K'gon Chatzer she'Eino shel Sheneihem, Chayav bah Al ha'Shen ve'Al
ha'Regel', he cannot mean that the Chatzer belongs to neither of them -
because then, it would not be 'S'dei Acher'.
(b) So he must mean that it belongs to one of them - the Nizak, and not to
(c) We will then reconcile the continuation 'Tam Meshalem Chatzi Nezek,
u'Mu'ad Nezek Shalem' with the Reisha, which we just established like Rebbi
Tarfon - by establishing the Reisha like Rebbi Tarfon, and the Seifa, like
(d) It is acceptable to present the Reisha of a Beraisa like one Tana, and
the Seifa, like his disputant - for that is precisely what Shmuel did,
telling his disciple Rav Yehudah to follow suite.
(a) Ravina establishes the entire Beraisa like Rebbi Tarfon. In order to do
this, he explains 'Lo la'Zeh ve'Lo la'Zeh' to mean - that the Chatzer
belongs to one of them (the Nizak) for Peiros (rendering it 'S'dei Acher'),
but to both of them for oxen (rendering it a Reshus ha'Rabim, where Rebbi
Tarfon agrees that Keren pays Chatzi Nezek.
(b) The problem with Ravina's interpretation of the Seifa - is that there
are then only three categories of location, and not four as stated by the
Beraisa (seeing as the fourth is nothing more more than a combination of two
of the categories that he mentioned previously.
(c) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak resolves the problem - by establishing three
categories, but in four locations.
(a) When the Tana of our Mishnah says ...
1. ... 'Shum Kesef' - he means that Beis-Din carefully assess the damage,
and not that the Nizak just takes the article which caused the damage as
(b) The Beraisa establishes 'Shum Kesef' in a case where a cow first damaged
a cloak - either because of Regel or because of Keren, and then the cloak
damaged the cow - because of Bor (see Tosfos).
2. ... 'Shaveh Kesef' - he means that Beis-Din only take up the case on
behalf of the Nizak if the Mazik has Karka (as will be explained shortly).
(c) The cow must have damaged the cloak in the Reshus ha'Nizak (see Tosfos),
whilst the cloak damaged the cow in the Reshus ha'Rabim.
(a) The Beraisa interprets 'Shaveh Kesef' to mean - Karka.
(b) If the Nizak seized Metaltelin - Beis-Din will authorize him to claim
his debt from them.
(c) We reject Rabah bar Ula's interpretation that 'Shaveh Kesef' implies
something that ...
1. ... is worth any amount of money, implying Karka, because it is not
subject to Ona'ah (overcharging) - on the grounds that it would then also
incorporate Avadim and Sh'taros, which are not subject to Ona'ah either.
(d) The ramifications of the Halachah that Karka, Avadim and Sh'taros are
not subject to Ona'ah are - that if one overcharged by a sixth or more, the
excess need not be returned.
2. ... can be acquired with money, implying Karka - on exactly the same
grounds, since Avadim and Sh'taros can be acquired with money, too.
(a) Rav Ashi finally extrapolate from 'Shaveh Kesef' that the Tana means to
preclude Metaltelin - by Darshening 'Shaveh Kesef', ve'Lo Kesef (and all the
above, which can be used in bartering, are considered Kesef).
(b) Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua reconciles our Mishnah with the Beraisa
"Yashiv", 'Lerabos Shaveh Kesef ke'Kesef, va'Afilu Subin' - by establishing
our Mishnah when the Mazik is no longer alive, and the Nizak is claiming
from the Yesomim.
(c) The basis of this Halachah is the principle 'Metalteli de'Yasmi Lo
Mishtabdi le'Ba'al-Chov' (because the Yesomim might have bought them after
their father's death).
(d) When the Beraisa says that if the Nizak seized Metaltelin, Beis-Din will
allow him to claim his debt from them - the Tana is speaking when he did so
during the lifetime of the father (whose entire estate is actually Meshubad
to the Nizak - like it is with any debtor).
(a) When we initially interpret 'Bifnei Beis-Din' (mentioned in our Mishnah)
to mean that Beis-Din will only claim Nezikin from property that is
available, and has not been sold, we mean - that the Nizak cannot claim his
debt from the Lekuchos (people who subsequently purchased Karka from the
(b) We reject this interpretation however, on the grounds that, throughout
Shas, we presume that a debtor may claim from the Lekuchos.
(c) So 'Bifnei Beis-Din' means - that (at least some of) the claims of the
Nizak (i.e. the Dinim of Shor Tam, which are a K'nas, see Tosfos DH 'P'rat')
can only be handled by a Beis-Din shel Mumchin (an expert Beis-Din), but not
by ordinary people who did not receive Semichah.
(a) And we interpret the Mishnah 'Al-Pi Eidim' to mean - that (again, with
regard to Shor Tam) the Nizak is only obligated to pay if it is only the
Eidim who implicate him, but not if he himself first admitted to his ox
(b) We query this interpretation however - on the grounds that according to
some opinions (which will be quoted later), as long as there are witnesses,
the Nizak is Chayav, even if they testify only after the Nizak has admitted.
(c) We therefore explain the need to insert 'Al-Pi Eidim' by citing the
continuation of our Mishnah '(Al-Pi Eidim) B'nei Chorin u'B'nei B'ris'. When
the Tana says ...
1. ... 'B'nei Chorin' - he means to preclude Avadim.
(d) The Tana needs to mention both, because, had he mentioned only ...
2. ... 'B'nei B'ris' - Nochrim.
1. ... B'nei Chorin, we might have thought that Nochrim are eligible to
testify - seeing as they have Yichus (as the Pasuk writes in Melachim
"Hadrimon ben Tavrimon ... "), which an Eved does not, as the Torah writes
in Vayeira, in connection with Eliezer Eved Avraham, "Shevu Lachem Poh Im
ha'Chamor", from which Chazal Darshen 'Am ha'Domeh la'Chamor').
2. ... B'nei B'ris, we might have thought that Avadim are eligible to
testify - because they are obligated to fulfill all the Mitzvos that a
Jewish woman is obligated.