ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 18
BAVA KAMA 18 (25 Av)- dedicated by Mrs. G. Kornfeld for the first Yahrzeit
of her mother, Mrs. Gisela Turkel (Golda bas Chaim Yitzchak Ozer), an
exceptional woman with an iron will who loved and respected the study of
(a) We quoted the Beraisa which rules 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 attempt to resolve Rava's current
She'eilah ('Basar Me'ikara O Basar Tavar Mana') from there - inasmuch as the
Tana must holds that we go after the initial stroke, because otherwise, the
owner would be obligated to pay only for half the damage.
In order not to be forced to resolve Rava's She'eilah from it - Rav Bibi bar
Abaye therefore establish the Beraisa when the chicken did not merely chew
through the rope and allow it to drop by itself, but chewed through the rope
and continued to push the bucket until it damaged (in a way that is Gufo and
not Kocho at all).
(b) Initially, we establish the Chidush of the Beraisa by the rope, which it
is not considered unusual for chickens to have chewn (in which case, the
owner ought to pay Chatzi Nezek) - because the Tana speaks when it is
covered with dough.
(c) We reject ...
1. ... this interpretation of the Beraisa however, on the grounds - that the
Tana speaks specifically about the bucket breaking (and not the rope).
(d) We cannot counter this by differentiating between 'Kocho' (with which
Sumchos does not agree) and 'Ko'ach Kocho' (with which he does) - on the
grounds that this is the She'eilah that was asked by Rav Ashi (who clearly
could not find any indication either way in a Mishnah or a Beraisa).
2. ... the attempt to establish the Beraisa like Sumchus (who doesn't hold
of Tzeroros in the first place) - because of the Seifa, which obligates the
owner to pay half, in the event that part of the first vessel shoots up and
breaks a second vessel.
(a) Rava asks whether Chatzi Nezek Tzeroros pays mi'Gufo or min ha'Aliyah.
Perhaps he pays only mi'Gufo, like all cases of Chatzi Nezek. But he might
have to pay min ha'Aliyah - because we never find 'Urcheih' (any case that
is not Keren) who pays mi'Gufo.
(b) We try and resolve Rava's She'eilah from the Beraisa quoted above 'Hidus
Eino Mu'ad; Yesh Omrim, Harei Zeh Mu'ad', establishing 'Hidus' to mean -
(c) And we initially think that 'Hidus Eino Mu'ad' means - that he pays
(d) According to the alternative interpretation - the Tana Kama holds like
the Rabbanan (who reduce Tzeroros to Chatzi Nezek), and Yesh Omrim, like
(a) The Mishnah later discusses the case of a dog that took a hot cake
together with burning coal and carried them to a haystack. If he
1. ... eats the cake - the owner must pay in full.
(b) We try to resolve Rava's She'eilah from the Beraisa that qualifies the
Mishnah, which states - 'Meshalem Chatzi Nezek mi'Gufo' (a clear proof that
Tzeroros pays mi'Gufo).
2. ... sets fire to the haystack - he pays Chatzi Nezek, because once the
fire spreads from the location where the dog placed the coal, it is
(c) We reject this resolution on the basis of the opinion of Rebbi Elazar in
the Beraisa - who says that he pays full damages for the haystack too (and
there is certainly no reason why he should have to pay *full* damages
(d) Nor can we establish Rebbi Elazar like Sumchus, and abide by the proof -
because Rava's She'eilah was confined to the Rabbanan, who say that Tzeroros
pays Chatzi Nezek, and not according to Sumchus.
(a) So we establish the Machlokes between Rebbi Elazar and the Rabbanan
when the dog carried the coal in an unusual way (in its mouth). Had he
carried it normally, they would both have agreed - that he pays full damages
(b) Despite the fact that the burning of the haystack is now a Toldah of
Keren, Rebbi Elazar maintains that he pays full damage - because he holds
like Rebbi Tarfon, who holds that even Keren pays full damages in the Reshus
of the Nizak.
(a) Although the above interpretation of the Beraisa is acceptable, we
nevertheless try to reinstate the possibility of resolving Rava's She'eilah
(that Chatzi Nezek Teroros pays mi'Gufo as we initially suggested), we
establish Rebbi Elazar both like Sumchus (as we just explained) and like
Rebbi Yehudah, who says - that 'Tzad Tamus bi'Mekomah Omedes' (meaning that
every Mu'ad still pays half of the damage from the body of the Mazik).
(b) 'mi'Gufo', according to Rebbi Elazar - will then refer to the half of
the payment which is Tzad Tamus, but not to the other half.
(c) We refute this suggestion however, on the grounds - that Rebbi Yehudah
only said 'Tzad Tamus bi'Mekomah Omedes' in the case of a Tam that became a
Mu'ad, but not in this case, where the animal was a Mu'ad to start off with.
(d) We finally establish the Machlokes Tana'im - by an animal that damaged
three times through Tzeroros. The Tana Kama holds that there is no such
thing as Ha'ada'ah for Tzeroros (seeing as the first time it is Urcheih
too); whereas, according to Yesh Omrim, there is.
(a) The basic problem with this explanation is- since we are talking about
regular Tzeroros, which are Urcheih, what difference does the number of
times make? It cannot become more Urcheih than it already is?
(b) The alternative way of explaining Rebbi Elazar (to avoid this problem,
though we nevertheless accept the first explanation) would therefore be - to
establish the case by when the animal did the Tzeroros in an unusual way,
turning it into a Tam.
(c) And the Rabbanan would hold - that there is no such thing as Tam and
Mu'ad by Tzeroros.
(a) Rava asks whether 'Yesh Ha'ada'ah li'Tzeroros O Ein Ha'ada'ah
(b) The two sides of Rava's She'eilah are - whether one has to pay ...
1. ... Nezek Shalem - because since he pays Chatzi Nezek the first time
(like Keren), we compare it to Keren in this regard, which pays full damage
after three times.
(c) Rava will reconcile his She'eilah with the fact that we just established
the Machlokes between the Rabbanan and Rebbi Elazar as to whether there is
such a thing as Tam and Mu'ad by Tzeroros or not - by establishing the
Machlokes by the first time the animal damages, according to Sumchus
(whereas his She'eilah, which refers to the fourth time, follows the opinion
of the Rabbanan).
2. ... Nezek Shalem - because it is Urcheih to begin with (as we just
explained), and it cannot more Urchei than it already is.
(d) Rava prefers to establish both the Rabbanan and Rebbi Elazar by the
first time the animal damaged, according to Sumchus, rather than according
to the Rabbanan - because that would be encroaching on the She'eilah of
whether, according to them, there is Shinuy by Tzeroros, to pay only a
quarter Nezek, and not a half.
(a) Earlier, we established Rebbi Elazar like Rebbi Tarfon, who obligates
Keren bi'Reshus ha'Nizak to pay in full. We know that Rebbi Tarfon does not
require payment min ha'Aliyah, too - because he learns Keren bi'Reshus
ha'Nizak from Keren bi'Reshus ha'Rabim (as we shall see later).
Consequently, he will apply the principle of 'Dayo', which teaches that just
as Keren bi'Reshus ha'Rabim pays mi'Gufo, so too does Keren bi'Reshus
ha'Nizak, and no more.
(b) In fact, we know that Rebbi Tarfon does not Darshen 'Dayo' - because if
he did, then Keren bi'Reshus ha'Nizak would only pay Chatzi Nezek (like it
does in the Reshus ha'Rabim).
(c) Nevertheless, he does Darshen it here - because it is only where 'Dayo'
would otherwise negate the 'Kal va'Chomer' completely, that
he then prefers to rather negate 'Dayo' in order to accommodate the 'Kal
(a) Once again quoting the Beraisa 'Hidus Eino Mu'ad; ve'Yesh Omrim, Mu'ad',
and amending it to read 'Hidus ve'Hitiz ... ', we try to resolve Rava's
She'eilah - by establishing that the Tana Kama holds 'Ein Ha'ada'ah
li'Tzeroros', and Yesh Omrim, 'Yesh Ha'ada'ah'.
(b) We refute this proof, as we did the previous ones - by connecting the
Machlokes with that of Sumchus (Yesh Omrim) and the Rabbanan (the Tana
(c) In a case where a animal let droppings on someone's dough, Rav Yehudah
obligates the owner to pay in full. Rebbi Elazar says - Chatzi Nezek.
(d) We reconcile Rebbi Elazar here with Rebbi Elazar above who obligated
full payment for Tzeroros - by establishing this Rebbi Elazar as Rebbi
Elazar ben P'das, the Amora, and the previous one, as Rebbi Elazar ben
Shamu'a, the Tana. We know that - because otherwise, how could we then ask
(on Tana'im), why they do not rather just state like which Tana they hold
(as we are about to do). And besides, if one could ask such a Kashya on
Tana'im, then why did we not ask it above, in connection with the Beraisa
(a) If Rav Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar are not arguing about whether 'Yesh
Ha'ada'ah li'Tzeroros' (Rava's She'eilah), then the basis of their Machlokes
will be - like which Tana they hold, like Sumchus (Rav Yehudah) or the
Rabbanan (Rebbi Elazar).
(b) It is indeed unusual for an animal to let droppings on a dough (and Rav
Yehudah ought not to obligate him to pay in full). However - we are speaking
when the location was crowded, and there was nowhere else for the animal to
(c) The problem with this version of the Machlokes is - that all Rav Yehudah
needed to have said was that he ruled like Sumchus and Rebbi Elazar, like
(a) Considering that relieving oneself is normally a pleasure (and we are
concerned with Tzeroros, which are a Toldah of Regel), we establish that the
animal must have been suffering from diarrhea (from which the regular aspect
of pleasure is absent). Alternatively - all damages caused in this way are
considered Regel, because 'Kocho' is always Regel (even if the animal
derives pleasure from what it did).
(b) 'Tanfah Peiros le'Hana'asah' (which we cited in the first Perek as a
Toldah of Shen) means - that the animal rolled on the fruit.
(c) Rav Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar form their own Machlokes, rather than Rav
Yehudah rule like Sumchus, and Rebbi Elazar, like the Rabbanan - in order to
extend the Machlokes to 'Gelalim' (damage by excretion, which drop from the
body, and), which we would otherwise have thought are considered Gufo and
(a) Rami bar Yechezkel cites a Beraisa that if a chicken stuck its head
inside a glass vessel and broke it by giving a shriek, the owner would be
obligated to pay in full. According to Rav Yosef Amri de'Bei Rav, if a horse
or a donkey broke a vessel in the same way - he would have to pay half
(b) We try to resolve Rava's She'eilah from this Beraisa - by establishing
the Beraisa by when it had already damaged three times, and they argue over
whether there is Ha'ada'ah by Tzeroros (Rami bar Yechezkel) or not (Rav
(c) After establishing this Machlokes too, like that of Sumchus and the
Rabbanan, how do we answer the Kashya, that this is a most unusual thing for
an animal to do (in which case everyone ought to agree that he pays only
half damages) - by establishing the case when there were seeds in the glass
jar, and it would not be at all unusual for the animal to stick its head