ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 17
(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah, "the great Kavod" (that Yisrael did to
Chizkiyahu ha'Melech after his death) referred to the thirty-six thousand
men Chalutzei Katef walked in front of his stretcher at his burial.
'Cha'lutzei Katef' means - that their clothes were torn to the extent that
their shoulders were bared.
(b) Rebbi Nechemyah objects to this explanation, on the grounds - that they
did the same for the (wicked) Ach'av when he died?
(c) So Rebbi Nechemyah explains ...
1. ... the Pasuk to mean - that they placed a Sefer-Torah on his stretcher
and said 'This man kept all that is written in here!'
2. ... the fact that, in the days of the Tana'im, they would also carry a
Sefer-Torah before a great man who had died - by limiting the latter, either
to merely carrying the Sefer-Torah, but without even placing the Sefer on
the stretcher in the first place, or perhaps they did, but then they did not
make the declaration that they made with Chizkiyahu Hamelech.
(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah described how he was once accompanying his Rebbe,
Rebbi Yochanan to pick his brains on certain matters that required
clarification. When, after he emerged from the bathroom, he asked him about
Rebbi Nechemyah's explanation - he made a point of washing his hands,
putting on his Tefilin and reciting a B'rachah (Birchas ha'Torah) before
(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan - they would even declare 'This man kept all
that is written in here!', but with Chizkiyah they went one step further, in
that they declared 'This man taught all that is written in here!'
(c) We resolve this with what we learned in Kidushin that the greatness of
Torah-study lies in the fact that it brings to fulfillment of the Mitzvos
(placing the latter on a higher plain than the former) - by differentiating
between Torah-study, which is not on the same plain as keeping it, and
teaching it, which is on a higher plain.
(d) The order of precedence regarding the three Mitzvos under discussion
is - teaching Torah, fulfilling the Mitzvos and studying it (see also Tosfos
(a) Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai explains the Pasuk
in Yeshayah "Ashreichem Zor'ei al Kol Mayim, Meshalchei Regel ha'Shor
ve'ha'Chamor". The two ...
***** Hadran Alach Perek Arba'ah Avos *****
1. ... Mitzvos hinted in "Zor'ei" and "Mayim" respectively are - Tzedakah
(b) 'The inheritance of Yosef' in this context, refers to the 'bed' of
Yosef, the largest of all the tribes (a promise of many offspring or of
importance - see Agados Maharsha), by 'the inheritance of Yisachar', Rebbi
Yochanan means - rich in property.
2. ... tribes are hinted in "ha'Shor ve'ha'Chamor" are - Yosef and Yisachar
(c) According to the second explanation, 'the inheritance of Yosef' refers
to one's enemies falling like skittles, like Yosef's enemies fell before
them, 'the inheritance of Yisachar' to - the Binah (the deep understanding
of Torah) of Yisachar.
***** Perek Keitzad ha'Regel *****
(a) We have already learned the difference between Regel and Tzeroros. If
one's animal treads on a vessel and breaks it, and the broken vessel then
shoots up and breaks another vessel - one is obligated to pay full damages
for the first vessel, and half for the second.
(b) The Tana says that if ...
1. ... an object or a bucket that is tied on a rope to the foot of one's
chicken swings with the movement of the chicken and breaks someone else's
vessels - one must pay half damages.
2. ... one's chicken, whilst hopping on one foot, kicks up a stone, which
breaks a vessel belonging to someone else - one must pay half damages.
(a) When Ravina asked Rava why the Tana of our Mishnah found it necessary to
repeat the rudiments of Regel with regard to Beheimah, after having taught
them with regard to Regel itself, he replied - that the former was for the
Av, the latter, for the Toldah.
(b) Wen Ravina asked him the same Kashya wth regard to the Tana's repetition
of 'Beheimah' after having taught 'Shen', he replied jokingly, 'I answered
one, you answer the other!'.
(c) He could not give the same answer there - because the word 'Beheimah'
does not describe the Toldos of Shen (like it does those of Regel).
(d) So Rav Ashi answered the latter Kashya with 'Tana Shen di'Beheimah
ve'Tana Shen de'Chayah'. We might otherwise have thought that Shen de'Chayah
is not included in Shen di'Beheimah - because the word "Be'iroh" (which the
Torah uses for Shen) refers to Beheimah and not to Chayah. The Tana teaches
us that 'Chayah bi'Ch'lal Beheimah' (Beheimah generally incorporates Chayah
too, though the actual source for this is the Pasuk in Re'ei "Zos
ha'Beheimah Asher Tochelu" which then goes on to speak about Chayos as
(a) The Tana places Shen de'Chayah before Shen di'Beheimah - precisely
because it is not written specifically, since the Tana holds precious
anything that is learned from a D'rashah.
(b) In the Reisha however, he nevertheless puts Shen before Beheimah
(despite the fact that it is written explicitly), because one cannot really
put the Toldah before the Av. Alternatively - it is because the Tana takes
up its cue from a Mishnah at the end of the previous Perek, which mentioned
'Regel' (not Beheimah).
(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa, discussing Regel and its Toldos, is
followed by Sumchus, who adds 'Tzeroros ve'Chazir she'Hayah Nover be'Ashpah
ve'Hizik, Meshalem Nezek Shalem'. It is indeed obvious that a Chazir has to
pay full damages if it causes damage whilst digging in a trash-heap - but
Sumchus is speaking when, in the course of the excavations, it pushed at
something with force, and that something shot up and damaged.
(b) In order to justify the Tana quoting Sumchus, who talks about Tzeroros,
when the Tana Kama made no mention of them - we need to amend the Tana
Kama's statement, and to add 'Tzeroros Ki Urchayhu Chatzi Nezek; ve'Chazir
she'Hayah Nover be'Ashpah ... Meshalem Chatzi Nezek'.
(c) In a case where chickens cause damage with ...
1. ... their wings, dirty fruit or peck it with their beaks - the owner is
obligated to pay full damage.
(d) In all of these cases - Sumchus obligates the owner to pay in full.
2. ... the wind of their flapping wings - according to the Tana Kama, the
owner must pay half damage. And the same applies to ...
3. ... dust or pebbles that they kick up whilst hopping on a dough (and
(a) We comment that another Beraisa which rules that a bird that damages
with the air of its wings as it flies from one place to another is Chayav
half damages - is a S'tam Beraisa like the Rabbanan.
(b) The problem with the Rabbanan, regarding 'Kocho ke'Gufo' is - that
'mi'Mah Nafshach', if they hold 'Kocho ke'Gufo' then Tzeroros ought to pay
in full; whereas if they don't, then it ought to Patur from paying
(c) We conclude that - the Rabbanan hold 'Kocho ke'Gufo', yet Tzeroros pays
only half damages, because of the 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai'.
(d) Sumchus ...
1. ... certainly holds 'Kocho ke'Gufo'.
2. ... simply does not hold of 'Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai' of Tzeroros.
(a) Someone who is touched by ...
1. ... a Zav - becomes Tamei.
(b) Rava says that whatever is Tamei by a Zav, the equivalent by Nezikin,
pays full damages. And whatever is Tahor by a Zav, he continues - the
equivalent in Nezikin pays half damages.
2. ... an object that was thrown by a Zav - remains Tahor.
(c) His latter statement refers to - Tzeroros.
(d) But we do not need Rava to teach us Tzeroros. In fact, he is coming to
teach us - that if a horse-drawn wagon rolls over something and damages it,
he is Chayav to pay full damages (and that it is not considered Tzeroros).
The Halachah is like Rava, because his opinion has the backing of a Beraisa.
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa says that if chickens are pecking at the rope of
a bucket, the rope snaps and the bucket drops and breaks - the owner is
obligated to pay full damage (we will see why shortly).
(b) Rava asks what the Din will be if an animal were to tread on a vessel
which rolled away and broke - whether the owner must pay ...
1. ... full damages - because we go after the location where the stroke was
(c) Rabah (Rava's Rebbe) exempted someone who smashed a vessel that someone
else dropped from a roof and that was hurtling to its doom from paying -
because we go after the location where the stroke was dealt, and consider
the article as if it was already destroyed.
2. ... half damage - because we go after the location where the actual
(d) Rava does not resolve his She'eilah from there - because what Rabah
considered obvious is a She'eilah to Rava.
(a) The Tana Kama of a Beraisa says 'Hidus Eino Mu'ad' - meaning that if a
chicken hops about on a vessel and breaks it, it is not considered Mu'ad,
and only needed to pay half damages.
(b) 'Yesh Omrim' (Rebbi Nasan) says - that it is.
(c) It is necessary to amend the words of the Tana Kama (to read 'Hidus
ve'Hitiz'). We cannot understand them as they stand - because there is no
reason for 'Hidus' not to be a Mu'ad, as it is perfectly natural for a
chicken to hop about on any available surface.
(d) If they are not arguing over Rava's She'eilah (whether we go after where
the vessel finally breaks [the Tana Kama], or after where the animal struck
it [Yesh Omrim]), then they are arguing about -whether Tzeroros pays half
damage (the Tana Kama, like the Rabbanan), or full damage (Yesh Omrim, like