ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 23
BAMA KAMA 23 & 24 - This daf has been dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Esther Chaya
Rayzel bas Gershon Eliezer, upon her Yahrzeit and Yom Kevurah, by her
daughter and son-in-law, Jeri and Eli Turkel. Esther Friedman was a woman of
valor who was devoted to her family and gave of herself unstintingly,
inspiring all those around her.
(a) Rava's problem with Rebbi Yochanan (who holds 'Isho Mishum Chitzav')
from the Torah's exemption of 'Tamun ba'Eish' is - that the exemption (which
is based on an element of O'nes) clashes with the Pasuk "Petza Tachas
Patza", from which we learn that Adam ha'Mazik is liable even for Shogeg and
(b) Even without the D'rashah from "Petza Tachas Patza", we know that
Chitzav is liable for Tamun, too - because arrows always damage by
penetrating into hidden areas that cannot be seen.
(c) Initially, Rava establishes 'Tamun' - when independently of the fire, a
fence fell down in the Chatzer where the fire was already raging, enabling
the fire to reach the haystack and what is hidden inside it and to burn it.
(d) We reject Rava's explanation however, on the grounds - that if that were
so, why would the exemption be confined to Tamun? It ought also to
incorporate all damages that occurred to objects on the other side of the
fence, even those that are Galuy (such as the haystack itself).
(a) So we relearn Rebbi Yochanan, who now obligates every Eish because of
Mamon, as well as Chitzav. One will be Chayav because of Mamon, even though
he is no longer Chayav because of Chitzav ('Kalu Lo Chitzav') in a case -
where it was possible to rebuild the fence that fell down before the fire
reached that spot, exempting him from the Chiyuv of Chitzim, but he failed
to take the opportunity, adopting the Chiyuv of Mamon (like an ox before
whom one left the gate open. (See also Hagahos ha'G'ra).
(b) Seeing as Rebbi Yochanan concedes to Resh Lakish that 'Isho Mishum
Mamono', the ramifications of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh
Lakish are - where one's fire damaged a person, in which case, according to
Rebbi Yochanan, one is obligated to pay the four things (rather than just Ne
(c) The four things are Nezek, Tza'ar, Ripuy and Sheves, not Boshes -
because a Mazik is only Chayav Boshes when he damages willfully (as we shall
(a) We did not state the basic difference between the two opinions as being
when the fire did not belong to the person who did the damage (as we
explained earlier) in cases when the animal who caused the damage did not
spread the fire with its body - because the expression 'Isho Mishum ... '
insinuates that they are arguing even when the fire did belong to him, and
because that is not so common.
(b) Until now, we interpreted the ramifications of their Machlokes - in a
case when a fence fell down not as a result of the fire ... (as we just
explained before concluding that Rebbi Yochanan concedes 'Isho Mishum
(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, the Tana obligates the owner of the dog to
pay half of the damage on the haystack. We ask why the owner of the coal is
not liable on the other half. According to Resh Lakish - he ought to pay
full damages (because, as we learned earlier, he exempts the owner of the
dog from paying for the haystack altogether [apart from the spot where the
(b) We therefore establish the Mishnah when the owner of the coal guarded
his coal to the best of his ability. The dog nevertheless managed to obtain
it - by digging its way under the door.
(c) We can extrapolate from this - that it is 'Urcheih' for a dog to dig in
this way, and that the owner would therefore be liable to pay full damages.
(d) The dog have eaten the cake, says Rav Mari bar Kahana, by the haystack
belonging to the owner of the cake (because 'Shen' is only liable in the
Reshus of the Nizak).
(a) We ask whether a cow's mouth is considered the owner's domain, or the
Nizak's (because that is where it is)?
(b) The ramifications of the She'eilah are - that according to the first
side of the She'eilah, the owner of the animal will always be Patur from
what was hitherto considered to be the standard case of Shen.
(c) We try to resolve the She'eilah from our Mishnah - which obligates the
owner of the cow to pay for the cake which it took and ate by the haystack
(implying that the mouth of a cow is considered the domain of the Nizak).
(a) If a cow's mouth is considered to be the owner's domain, Rav Mari Brei
de'Rav Kahana initially establishes the standard case of Shen when the
animal scratched itself against a wall and toppled it down or when it rolled
over fruit and spoiled it (both for pleasure).
(b) This interpretation of Shen is wrong however - inasmuch as it does not
conform with the Pasuk (the source of Shen) "Ka'asher Yeva'er ha'Galal",
which implies that the animal destroys the Nizak, and not just causes its
(c) Ravina and Rav Ashi therefore adds to the above 'Shaf Tzalmi' and 'Pas'i
1. 'Shaf Tzalmi' - means that whilst rubbing against the wall, the animal
rubbed out a picture that was etched on it.
2. 'Pas'i Pesu'i' - means that when it rolled over the fruit it pressed them
into the mud, rendering them completely useless, or alternatively, that it
knocked over receptacles containing beverages in the process.
(a) We learned in a Beraisa that if Reuven incited a dog or a snake to bite
Shimon, he is Patur. We infer from here - that Reuven is Patur, but the
owner of the dog is liable, from which we can extrapolate that 'Pi Parah
ke'Chatzar ha'Nizak Dami'.
(b) We refute this however, in two ways. One of them amends the Beraisa to
read 'Patur *Af* Meshaseh', implying that the owner of the animal is
certainly Patur; the other - that the Tana speaks when Reuven also pulled
out the animal's fangs, and it was outside its mouth that it bit Shimon's
(a) In another Beraisa, where Reuven places a snake's mouth on Shimon's hand
and it bites and kills him, Rebbi Yehudah declares him Chayav Miysah.
According to the Chachamim - he is Patur.
(b) Rav Acha bar Ya'akov bases the Machlokes on where the snake's poison is
situated. According to ...
1. ... Rebbi Yehudah - it is situated between its teeth.
(c) Consequently - according to the former, one attributes the killing to
Reuven (and not to the snake); whereas, according to the latter, it is the
snake that chose to kill (in which case the snake must be killed [like every
animal that killed a person], whereas Reuven is Patur).
2. ... the Rabbanan - the snake draws it from its body.
(d) Assuming 'Pi Parah ke'Chatzar ha'Mazik', Rebbi Yehudah renders him
Chayav Miysah on the grounds - that the She'eilah of 'Pi Parah' is confined
to having to pay for damages, not to whether one is Chayav Miysah for
killing someone (as we shall now see).
(a) The Beraisa says that if Reuven's (Mu'ad) ox gored Shimon and killed
him, when he entered his Chatzer without permission - that ...
1. ... the ox must be stoned to death.
(b) We prove from this Beraisa what we just said - that although regarding
Nezek, the argument 'What were you doing in my domain?' exempts the Mazik
from paying, it does not exempt (even an ox) from the death-penalty.
2. ... the owner is exempt from paying Kofer
(a) When Rav Yosef asked Abaye to go and instruct his (Rav Yosef's)
neighbors the B'nei Tarbu to lock up the oxen that were causing him damage
he replied - that there was no point in going, because the B'nei Tarbu would
only send him back with the message that Rav Yosef should rather build a
fence to prevent this from happening (see Tosfos DH 'Yachli Lemeimar').
(b) If every potential Nizak were indeed to put up a fence, then, apart from
the eventuality that the Mazik's animal digs underneath the fence, as we
learned earlier), the case of Shen might be - when the fence fell down
during the night, and before the Nizak had a chance to erect it, the animal
came in and caused damage.
(c) Rav Yosef (or Rabah) announced that the goats that were causing damage,
and that, after receiving a couple of warnings, continued to cause havoc -
must be put up for sale immediately and Shechted, even though market day had
not yet arrived, and they would not obtain the full price for them.
(d) By announcing 'de'Salkin le'Eila de'Nachsin le'Tata' he meant - that
both those who go from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael and those who go from Eretz
Yisrael to Bavel need to know this.
(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah, an ox becomes a Mu'ad after having been
warned on three consecutive days, and it regains its status of Tam - if
three consecutive days pass on which it sees oxen (or other animals) and
does not gore them.
(b) According to Rebbi Meir, the ox become ...
1. ... a Mu'ad - by goring three oxen, even on the same day.
(c) According to Abaye, who learns two D'rashos from the word "mi'T'mol",
Rebbi Yehudah learns from the Pasuk "ve'Im Shor Nagach Hu *mi'T'mol*
*Shilshom* *ve'Lo Yishmerenu Be'alav"* - that an ox becomes a Mu'ad after
having gored on three consecutive days.
2. ... a Tam once again - if children (see Tosfos DH 'she'Yehu') are able to
stroke it, without it reacting.
(d) Rava argues with Abaye - because, according to him "mi'T'mol" implies
only one day, and not two. Consequently, the ox becomes a Mu'ad after having