ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 21
(a) When Rebbi Aba bar Zavda asked Mari bar Mar to pose the above She'eilah
to Rav Huna - Rav Huna died?
(b) Rabah bar Rav Huna quoted his father as saying - 'ha'Dar ba'Chatzar
Chaveiro, Eino Tzarich Leha'alos Lo S'char'?
(c) When Rav Huna quoted his father as having said that someone who hires a
house from Reuven must pay Shimon - he was referring to a case where he
hired it from Reuven and then discovered that it belonged to Shimon.
(d) We reconcile this with his previous ruling, which exempts him from
paying altogether - by establishing the current case by a house that stands
to be rented out, and the latter by one that does not.
(a) Rav Sechorah Amar Rav Huna Amar Rav learns from the Pasuk "u'She'iyah
Yukas Sha'ar" - that uninhabited houses become haunted, and that someone who
inhabits someone's uninhabited house is actually doing the owner a favor.
(b) Besides being the name of a demon, 'She'iyah' might also mean - empty or
(c) Mar bar Rav Ashi saw one of them - and described as resembling a goring
(d) According to Rav Yosef, he is Patur because inhabiting an empty house
prevents it from becoming delapidated. The difference between Rav Yosef's
reason and that of Rav is - in a case where the owner is currently using the
house for storing wood and straw, in which case it will no longer be
haunted, but it will still be basically disused (and prone to dilapidation).
Consequently, the uninvited resident would be Chayav according to Rav, but
Patur according to Rav Yosef.
(a) When someone built a mansion on the trash heap of Yesomim - Rav Nachman
confiscated his mansion to pay the orphans.
(b) This does not mean that Rav Nachman holds 'ha'Dar ba'Chatzar Chaveiro,
Tzarich Leha'alos Lo S'char' - because in that case the Karmana'i had been
paying the Yesomim a small fee for that trash-heap (so it was actually a
case of 'Zeh Neheneh ve'Zeh Chaser').
(c) 'Karmana'i' is the name of a nationality. If one changes 'Karmana'i' to
'Kadmona'i' - it will mean 'previous tenants'.
(a) Rav establishes the case in our Mishnah ('mi'Tzidei ha'Rechavah,
Meshalemes Mah she'Hizikah') by 'Machzeres' (when the animal turned its head
in order to eat from the side of the street), and he is Chayav - because it
is unusual, in which case the owner will be Chayav to pay Chatzi Nezek
because of Keren (see Tosfos DH 'u've'Machzeres').
(b) According to Shmuel - even Machzeres is Patur ...
(c) ... and the owner will only be Chayav if the animal actually walked to
the side of the street and took the food there and ate it (and he is Chayav
because it is not the way of oxen to go there, and is therefore considered
to be the Chatzer ha'Nizak, rather than the Reshus ha'Rabim).
(d) Alternatively - Rav and Shmuel do not argue over the interpretation of
the Mishnah, but present an independent Machlokes.
(a) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak asks on Rav. He extrapolate from the Mishnah
'mis'Pesach ha'Chanus, Meshalemes Mah she'Nehenis' (which can only be
speaking by a case of Machzeres) - 'Mah she'Nehenis, Ein; Mah she'Hizikah,
(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak himself reconciles this Mishnah with Rav's
opinion in the Reisha - by establishing the Seifa by a store that is in the
corner of a small Mavoy leading into a large one, so that the animal comes
upon the store as it reaches the small Mavoy without turning its head.
(c) According to a second opinion, Shmuel agrees that 'Machzeres' is
Chayav - and they argue over a case where someone donates part of his land
to the public, adding it to the Reshus ha'Rabim.
(d) Rav says 'Maktzeh Makom li'Reshus ha'Rabim Patur'. Shmuel says - Chayav.
(a) We try to connect their Machlokes to that of 'Bor bi'Reshuso' - which is
a Bor that someone dug in his own Reshus, declaring his Reshus Hefker but
not his pit.
1. ... Rav will hold - 'Bor bi'Reshuso, Chayav', which is why he holds that
in our case, if one's animal ate fruit that the owner placed on that piece
of Hefker ground, he is Patur.
(c) We reconcile ...
2 ... Shmuel will hold Patur, which explains why he is Chayav.
1. ... Rav with those who hold 'Bor bi'Reshuso, Patur' - on the grounds that
the owner of the animal can say to the owner of the pit 'If you place your
fruit right next to the street, you cannot blame my animal for eating it'.
(d) In this latter case, should the ox slip on the fruit and become damaged
or die - the owner of the fruit is Patur for the same reason.
2. ... Shmuel with those who hold 'Bor bi'Reshuso, Chayav' - because whereas
it is possible for the animal not to see the pit, it certainly saw the fruit
(and the owner is therefore liable).
(a) Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah say in a Beraisa 'Achlah mi'Toch
ha'Rechavah, Meshalemes Mah she'Nehenis; mi'Tzidei ha'Rechavah, Meshalemes
Mah she'Hizikah'. Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Elazar say - 'Ein Darkah Le'echol
(b) We initially interpret the latter opinion to refer to the Tzidei Reshus
ha'Rabim - because, bearing in mind the Pasuk "u'Bi'er bi'S'dei Acher", we
take it for granted that Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Elazar would not obligate him
to pay in the Reshus ha'Rabim.
(c) So we propose to establish the Machlokes Tana'im - by Machzeres; Rebbi
Meir exempts him from paying for the damage, whereas Rebbi Yossi obligates
(a) We then propose to explain the above Machlokes Tana'im - by how to
interpret "u'Bier bi'S'dei Acher". Rebbi Meir learns like we explained it
earlier; whereas Rebbi Yossi extrapolates "bi'S'dei Acher", to preclude the
Reshus ha'Mazik (but not the Reshus ha'Rabim, which is Chayav).
(b) The problem with this explanation is - that we do not need a Pasuk to
preclude the Reshus ha'Mazik from damages, since he can always say 'What is
your animal doing in my Chatzer' (and it is obvious that he is Patur).
(c) So we establish the Machlokes with regard to the Din of Ilfa and Rebbi
Oshaya (that we learned earlier). Rebbi Meir does not hold like Ilfa and
Rebbi Oshaya, whereas Rebbi Yossi does.
1. ... Ilfa says - that if an animal stretched its neck and ate from a
another animal's back, the owner is Chayav.
2. ... Rebbi Oshaya said - that if an animal jumped and ate from a box of
food, even in the Reshus ha'Rabim, the owner is Chayav.
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah obligates a dog and a kid-goat that jumped off a
roof and broke vessels to pay - full damages.
(b) We have already quoted the Mishnah which obligates the owner of a dog
that took a cake (together with a coal) to a haystack and ate it. He pays
full damages for the cake. In the event that it also set fire to the
haystack - he has to pay Chatzi Nezek for that.
(c) We extrapolate that if the dog or the kid fell from the roof and broke
vessels, the owner is Patur. Initially, we derive from this the principle -
'Techilaso bi'Peshi'ah ve'Sofo be'O'nes Patur' (if the owner is initially
negligent [because his animal might jump down] but ultimately damages by
accident, he is Patur).
(d) Those who hold 'Techilaso bi'Peshi'ah ve'Sofo be'O'nes Chayav', will
establish our Mishnah - when the vessels were so close to the wall that, had
the dog or the kid jumped, they would have missed them.
(a) Rav Z'vid Amar Rava initially says that if the dog or the kid fell from
the top of a rickety wall, the owner is Chayav (according to everyone) - due
to the fact that he was negligent regarding the wall, seeing as bricks might
fall off it and cause damage.
(b) We refute this reason however - on the grounds that it was not bricks
that fell but a dog or a kid-goat (which is a regular case of 'Techilaso
bi'Peshi'ah ve'Sofo be'Ones', and is subject to a Machlokes, as we just
(c) We finally establish Rav Z'vid's ruling (not by a rickety wall but) - by
a narrow or a sloping wall, which is Techilaso ve'Sofo bi'Peshi'ah'.
(a) The distinction that ...
1. ... Tana of the Beraisa makes between a dog and a kid-goat on the one
hand, and a person and a chicken on the other is - that the former are Patur
if they leaped upwards, whereas the latter are Chayav. Note, that when the
Tana of this Beraisa says Patur, he means Patur from Nezek Shalem, but
Chayav Chatzi Nezek.
(b) Rav Papa reconciles this Beraisa with another Beraisa which exempts the
dog and the kid in both cases - by establishing the latter when the dog
leapt down and the kid scrambled down. Note, that some Rishonim quote the
second Beraisa as saying that both are Chayav. According to them, Rav Papa
refers to the first Beraisa (see Hagahos ha'Gra).
2. ... we must make between the reasoning behind the Chiyuv of the chicken
and that of the man is - that whereas the former is Chayav only because it
is Urcheih, the latter is Chayav even if it is not (if for example, we
assume that a person does not usually leap upwards), because of the
principle 'Adam Mu'ad Le'olam' (which means that he is Chayav to pay full
damage, however unusual the action that caused the damage is).
(c) This make them Patur from Nezek Shalem - because they are both unusual
(seeing as a dog generally scrambles down from a wall whereas a kid-goat
tends to jump).