ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 16
(a) Rebbi Elazar Amar Rav establishes both the Reisha of our Mishnah
('ha'Shen Mu'edes Le'echol' ... 'ha'Beheimah Einah Mu'edes Le'shalem
Kuleih', Aval Chatzi Nezek Meshalemes) and the Seifa 'Shor ha'Mu'ad ve'Shor
ha'Mazik bi'Reshus ha'Nizak', like Rebbi Tarfon. In order not to clash with
the Seifa - he needs to establish the Reisha by a Chatzer that belongs to
one of them as regards fruits (making it a Chatzer ha'Nizak), but to both of
them as regards oxen (making it a Reshus ha'Rabim).
(b) We reject this interpretation however, on the basis of the ruling
'ha'Shen Mu'edes Le'echol es ha'Ra'uy Lah' - implying that for eating
something that is not fit for it to eat (which is a Toldah of Keren) he pays
only half damage. But according to Rebbi Tarfon he always pays full damage
in the Chatzer ha'Nizak?
(c) We therefore amend the Mishnah and establish it entirely like the
Rabbanan of Rebbi Tarfon. According to the new interpretation, we now
explain the five Mu'adin as - the five cases of Tam after they have damaged
three times (even though we rejected this explanation in our Mishnah).
(d) And we now try to amalgamate the second and third sections of the
Mishnah to read 've'Shen va'Regel Mu'adin mi'Techilasan. ve'Heichan
Ha'adasan be'Chatzar ha'Nizak' dispensing with 've'Shor ha'Mu'ad bi'Reshus
ha'Nizak' altogether. Ravina repudiates this explanation however, based on a
Mishnah in Keitzad ha'Regel, which (discussing all the cases of Mu'ad listed
in our Mishnah), includes that of 've'Shor ha'Mazik bi'Reshus ha'Nizak' (so
how can we just eliminate it?)
(a) Ravina agrees with the amendment to the first clause. He amends the
second 'problematic' clause by adding to it without actually changing it -
by preceding it with 've'Zehu Shor ha'Mu'ad', and then continuing 've'Shor
ha'Mazik bi'Reshus ha'Nizak, Machlokes Rebbi Tarfon ve'Rabbanan'.
(b) And he explains the final clause 'ha'Adam, ha'Ze'ev ve'ha'Ari ... ' into
the context of the Mishnah - by first adding 've'Yesh Mu'adim Acherim
ke'Yotze be'Eilu: 'ha'Adam, ha'Ze'ev ... '.
(c) We know that Ravina's interpretation of our Mishnah is the correct one -
because it is supported by a Beraisa.
(a) Rebbi Elazar initially qualifies 've'Lo Li'rvotz' in our Mishnah - by
confining it to large vessels, but should the animal crouch on small
vessels, it will be a Toldah of Regel.
(b) We try to prove Rebbi Elazar right from the Beraisa 'ha'Beheimah Mu'edes
Le'halech ke'Darkah u'Le'shaber u'Le'ma'ech es ha'Adam, ve'es ha'Beheimah
ve'es ha'Keilim', which will otherwise clash with our Mishnah. We refute
this proof however - by establishing the Beraisa (not when the animal
crouches on them, but) when it is walking past and crushes them as it
(c) In a second Lashon, Rebbi Elazar actually compares large vessels to
small ones as regards 'Revitzah', and again, we try and prove his opinion
from the Beraisa and refute the proof (in the reverse order that we did in
the first Lashon). In a third Lashon, we point out the discrepancy between
our Mishnah and the Beraisa - to which Rebbi Elazar replies by
differentiating between large vessels and small ones, as he did in the first
(a) According to Rav Yehudah, a 'Bardeles' is a 'Nifraza', which Rav Yosef
says, is synonymous with an 'Afa'. Rebbi Meir, in a Beraisa, adds a Tzavu'a
to the list of Mu'adin. This poses a Kashya with Rav Yosef's translation of
Bardeles - which is 'Afa'! So how can the two conflicting opinions of the
Mishnah and the Beraisa both be translated as 'Afa'?
(b) We answer by establishing our Mishnah by a male Tzavu'a, and Rebbi Meir
by a female one - and it is the male one that is called an Afa?
(c) In fact, although 've'Amar Rav Yosef' is cited immediately after Rebbi
Meir in the Beraisa - he is not referring to this Beraisa at all, but to
another Beraisa (that we will discuss shortly).
(a) Alternatively, the Bardeles in our Mishnah is a female Tzavu'a, that of
Rebbi Meir, a male one - and both are in fact called 'Afa'.
(b) Rav Yosef now refers to Rebbi Meir in the Beraisa (even though his
explanation is not confined to his opinion).
(c) Rav Yosef found it necessary however, to explain specifically Rebbi
Meir - because it is the male Tzavu'a of Rebbi Meir that changes into so
many different forms.
(a) If, as the Beraisa says ...
1. ... a male Tzavu'a changes its form every seven years, to become first a
bat, then a vampire-bat and then a thistle-bush - it is eventually destined
to become a thorn-bush and finally a demon.
(b) In the above-mentioned Beraisa, Rebbi Elazar adds (to the opinion of
Rebbi Meir), 'Af ha'Nachash'. The problem with this is that it clashes with
Rebbi Elazar's own opinion in our Mishnah - where he says that the snake is
the only animal that can never be a Tam.
2. ... after seven years, the spinal cord is supposed to become a snake. To
prevent this from happening - one needs to bow down properly at 'Modim' (the
antidote to the rebellion against Hashem's Monarchy that the snake [the
first rebel] signifies).
(c) To answer this Kashya, we amend Rebbi Elazar in the Beraisa - omitting
the word 'Af' to read 'ha'Nachash'.
(a) Shmuel rules that 'Ari bi'Reshus ha'Rabim, Daras ve'Achal, Patur, Taraf
ve'Achal, Chayav'. The definition of ...
1. ... 'Daras' is - that the lion proceeds to eat its prey whilst it is
(b) It is obvious that Shmuel says 'Daras ve'Achal Patur', because it is
Shen bi'Reshus ha'Rabim. He then says 'Taraf ve'Achal Chayav' - because it
is unusual for a lion to kill its prey before eating it, rendering it Keren
bi'Reshus ha'Rabim, which is Chayav.
2. ... 'Taraf' - that it kills it first before eating it.
(c) Shmuel concedes however, that a lion will kill its prey for its family,
and that is how he explains the Pasuk in Nachum "Aryeh Taraf Badei Gurosav,
u'Mechanek le'Liv'osav, Va'yemalei Teref Chorav u'Me'onosav T'reifah". The
definition of ...
1. ... "Gurasov" is - its whelps.
2. ... "Liv'osav" is - the lioness (its mate).
3. ... "Chorav" is - its lair.
4. ... "Me'onosav" is - its abode.
(a) We try to resolve Shmuel with the Beraisa 've'Chein Chayah she'Nichnesah
le'Chatzar ha'Nizak Tarfah Beheimah ve'Achlah Basar, Meshalem Nezek Shalem'
by establishing it when the lion initially killed the animal to take home to
its lair. One of the two reasons that we reject this suggestion is on the
grounds that there is no way of reading the lion's mind in that way. The
second reason is - because if that were so, perhaps in Shmuel's case too,
the lion changed its mind, so why does he say 'Taraf ve'Achal, Chayav'?
(b) When Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak says 'li'Tzedadin ka'Tani', he means -
that the Beraisa is discussing, not one case, but two 'she'Tarfah Lehani'ach
O Darsah ve'Achlah'.
(c) We refute Ravina's suggestion establishing Shmuel's second statement
('Taraf ve'Achal Chayav') in the case of a tame lion according to Rebbi
Elazar (otherwise it would be Shen bi'Reshus ha'Rabim and he would be Patur)
on the grounds - that in that case, Darsah ought to be Chayav, too (yet
Shmuel says Patur).
(d) So we establish Ravina on the Beraisa ('ve'Chein Chayah she'Nichnesah
... Meshalem Nezek Shalem'). We refute ...
1. ... that too however - on the grounds - that in that case, he ought to
pay Chatzi Nezek, and not Nezek Shalem, as the Tana of the Beraisa rules.
2. ... the suggestion that the Tana is talking about when the tame lion had
become a Mu'ad - because in that case, the Tana should have inserted it
together with the Toldos of Keren, and not with those of Shen.
(a) We already discussed our Mishnah which draws two distinctions between a
Tam and a Mu'ad, inasmuch as a Tam pays half damages from the body of the
damaging ox, whereas a Mu'ad pays full damages 'min ha'Aliyah'. 'min
ha'Aliyah' means - from the best quality fields.
(b) They also buried Chizkiyah ha'Melech "*be'Ma'aleh* Kivrei Beis David" -
meaning in the best company, that of David and Shlomoh.
(c) The Pasuk also writes there that they buried him in a grave that was
full of Besamim ve'Zanim. One interpretation of "ve'Zanim" is all different
kinds of Besamim. According to the second interpretation it means - spices
that were so fragrant that they caused whoever smelled them to commit
(d) 'Him' in this case - refers to Asa, King of Yehudah.
(a) When Yirmiyah spoke of the pit that the people dug to trap him, he was
referring to the sin of adultery with a prostitute of which they accused
him, according to Rebbi Elazar (which meant transgressing the La'av of
"Ishah Zonah ... Lo Yikachu", since Yirmiyah was a Kohen). Rebbi Shmuel bar
Nachmeni interprets it to mean - that they accused him of committing the sin
of Eishes Ish.
(b) According to Rebbi Elazar, the 'pit' referred to by Yirmiyah fits with
the Pasuk in Mishlei "Ki Shuchah Amukah Zonah". There is in fact, no direct
allusion to a pit with regard to the sin of adultery with a married woman.
One must bear in mind however - that when an Eishes Ish xommits an immoral
act she becomes a Zonah.
(c) According to Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni, the Pasuk in Yirmiyah "ve'Atah
Hashem Yada'ta es Kol Machshvosam *la'Mus*" is self-understood. According to
Rebbi Elazar - it refers to the incident when they tried to kill him by
casting him into a mud-pit.
(d) When Yirmiyah mean when he prayed "Yih'yu Muchshalim Lefanecha ... ", he
was asking Hashem to ensure - that, even when they gave Tzedakah, they
should stumble, by giving it to someone who is unworthy, in order to deprive
them of the Mitzvah.
(a) "ve'Kavod Asu Lo be'Moso". The Kavod they did for Chizkiyah after his
death was - to open a Yeshivah beside his grave.
(b) Rebbi Nasan and the Rabbanan argue over whether this lasted for three or
seven days - others say thirty days.
(c) The significance of these three opinions - is clearly rooted in the
three time-periods of mourning: three days for crying, seven days for heavy
mourning and thirty days for light mourning.