(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Bava Kama 32



(a) Rabah bar Nasan asked Rav Huna whether a man who injures his wife during Tashmish is liable or not. If he is Patur because he is acting within his rights, he might be liable - because he ought to have been more careful.

(b) Rava counter Rav Huna, who cited our Mishnah 'she'la'Zeh Reshus Lehalech, ve'la'Zeh Reshus Lehalech' to prove that he should be Patur - by Darshening a 'Kal va'Chomer' to the contrary, from the case of forest (the Torah's classical case), because if the Mazik is liable to go into exile when he entered the forest legally, which is after all, his own domain, then a husband who entered his wife's domain, should certainly be liable, even though he entered it legally.

(c) Rava explains the difference between the man with the beam and the husband - inasmuch as the former did not perform an act, whereas the latter did (and the woman did not).

(d) And he reconciles this with the Pasuk "ve'Nichresu ha'Nefashos *ha'Osos* ... " (indicating that the woman too, is considered as having performed an act) - by ascribing the latter (not to an actual act [in spite of the Lashon], but) to the pleasure, which is sufficient to render the woman fit to receive the death-sentence, but does not match the real act of the man.

(a) We have already discussed Resh Lakish, who absolves the owner of the cow which kicked another cow that was crouching in the street. If the crouching cow kicked the one that is walking past - he obligates the owner to pay.

(b) We reject the proof for this from our Mishnah, which obligates the man with the beam to pay, in the event that he stopped suddenly and the man with the barrel crashed into him - on the grounds that here we are obligating the man with the beam to pay even though he did not perform an act, whereas from Resh Lakish we can infer that the owner of the crouching ox is only obligated to pay due to his cow having performed an act, but not for merely causing the other cow to fall over it. In that case, this proof is counterproductive, let alone not a proof.

(c) In order to refute this Kashya on Resh Lakish - we establish our Mishnah when the beam stretched across the street, not allowing the man with the barrel to avoid it (and that is why he is liable), whereas in the case of Resh Lakish, the man should have taken his cow to the other side of the street, to avoid hitting the crouching cow (which is why the owner of the crouching cow would have been Patur, had his cow not kicked the walking one).

(a) We prove the first part of Resh Lakish's statement from the Seifa of our Mishnah, which absolves the man with the beam if the man with the barrel who was walking in front of him stopped abruptly - because the man with the barrel can be compared to the crouching cow, and the man with the beam, to the walking one.

(b) We reject this proof - on the grounds that in the case of our Mishnah, the man with the beam did nothing untoward when he carried on walking after the man with the barrel stopped, but who authorized the passing cow to actually kick the crouching one?

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah says that if two people were walking in the street or one person was walking and one, running - and they collided, they are both Patur.

(b) And if they were both running - he also says they are both Patur.

(c) We try to establish our Mishnah not like Isi ben Yehudah, who says in a Beraisa - that someone who damages whilst running in the street is liable to pay for damages, because running in the street is unconventional.

(d) This clashes with Rebbi Yochanan, who rules like Isi - but who also always rules like a S'tam Mishnah.

(a) We reconcile Isi with our Mishnah (automatically solving the problem with Rebbi Yochanan) - by establishing the Mishnah on Erev Shabbos at dusk, when it is a Mitzvah to run (to prepare for Shabbos - see Tosfos Yom-Tov).

(b) We prove this answer from the Seifa 'O she'Hayu Sheneihem Ratzin' - which seems superfluous, after having just taught us that 'Echad Ratz ve'Echad Mehalech' is Patur. Consequently, the first statement must be speaking about Erev Shabbos at dusk, and the second, about during the week (where the person who is running would be liable, unless the Nizak was running too.

(c) This in turn, is based on Rebbi Chanina ...

1. ... who used to say every Erev Shabbos at dusk - 'Come, let us go and greet the bride, the Queen' (from whom we learn that going to greet the Shabbos is a way of expressing one's love for the Shabbos, and Chazal have taught that love causes a person to behave unconventionally).
2. Amri Lah would add - ' ... Shabbos, the bride, the Queen'. (d) When Shabbos came in, Rebbi Yanai, after donning his Talis, used to say 'Enter bride, enter bride!' (see Agados Maharsha).



(a) The Tana of our Mishnah says that if a person is chopping wood in the Reshus ha'Yachid and a chunk flies into the Reshus ha'Rabim or vice-versa and kills someone - he is liable.

(b) The third case in the Mishnah is - that of someone who is chopping wood and a chunk flies from a Reshus ha'Yachid into another Reshus ha'Yachid ... .

(c) Having taught us that the chopper is liable if the wood flies from ...

1. ... the Reshus ha'Yachid to the Reshus ha'Rabim, he nevertheless found it necessary to add the reverse case - where, seeing as the damage takes place in a domain where there are not many people, we might have thought that he will be Patur.
2. ... the Reshus ha'Rabim to the Reshus ha'Yachid, he nevertheless found it necessary to add the reverse case - where, seeing as the chopper operated from a permitted domain, we might have thought that he would be Patur.
3. ... the Reshus ha'Yachid to the Reshus ha'Rabim or vice-versa, why did he find it necessary to add the case where the wood flies from one Reshus ha'Yachid to another - where, seeing as neither of the two previous S'varos apply, we certainly would have had good reason to believe that the chopper might be Patur.
(a) The Beraisa states that if someone enters a carpenter's shop without permission and he is struck in the face by a flying chunk of wood and dies, the carpenter is Patur. Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina interprets the Seifa 've'Im Nichnas bi'Reshus, Chayav' to mean - liable to pay the four things should he injure him, but not to go into Galus, in the event that he killed him.

(b) He referred to four things and not five - because the Mazik is Patur from Boshes (since he did not intend to cause him harm).

(c) Rabah refutes Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina's original reason for exempting him from Galus 'because it is not comparable to the case of forest' (since there the murdered man entered his own domain, whereas here, he entered the domain of the carpenter) - on the grounds that if the murderer is Chayav Galus in a forest, where the murdered man entered the forest of his own accord, how much more so should he be Chayav for killing him in our case, where the carpenter invited him in.

(d) According to Rava therefore, Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina exempts the carpenter from Galus - because having permitted him to enter his shop, the carpenter's continued chopping leaves the realm of pure Shogeg, and enters that of Shogeg Karov le'Meizid.

(a) The problem with Rava's explanation from the Beraisa, which sentences the Sheli'ach Beis-Din who added one lash to the maximum number that the sinner could take, to Galus is - that according to Rava, he ought to be Patur from Galus, because it is a case of Shogeg Karov le'Meizid.

(b) When Rav Shimi from Neherda'a suggested that the Sheli'ach Beis-Din erred in the counting, Rava tapped him with his shoe (or on his shoe) - as a sign of protest, because it is not the Sheli'ach Beis-Din who counts but one of the Dayanim.

(c) According to the Tana of another Beraisa - the senior Dayan reads the relevant Pesukim, the second Dayan counts and the third, calls out 'Strike him!'

(d) The problem with Rava's explanation from the Beraisa which sentences a person who throws a stone into the street and kills someone to Galus is - that this too, is Karov le'Meizid, and he ought to be Patur from Galus.

(a) We reject the suggestion ...
1. ... of Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak, who establishes the Beraisa when the owner was actually demolishing the wall, on the grounds - that this does not absolve him from the responsibility of subsequently being careful, either by day or by night.
2. ... that the Tana is speaking when he was demolishing his wall during the day, and throwing his stones into a trash-heap that was commonly frequented - because that would be negligence.
3. ... that the Tana is speaking when he was demolishing his wall during the day, and throwing his stones into a trash-heap that was not commonly frequented - because that would be considered an O'nes'.
(b) Rav Papa finally establishes the Beraisa - by someone who was demolishing his wall by night and throwing the stones into a trash-heap that was sometimes used as a bathroom, but not frequently.
(a) Rav Papa quoting Rava cites Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina's statement with regard to the Reisha of the Beraisa ('ha'Nichnas le'Chanuso shel Nagar she'Lo bi'Reshus ... Patur'), on which Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah comments exactly the same as he commented earlier 'Chayav be'Arba'ah Devarim, u'Patur mi'Galus'.

(b) According to Rav Papa Amar Rava, will Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah not pertain to the Seifa ('Nichnas bi'Reshus ... Chayav') - because, seeing as he entered with permission, the carpenter will be Chayav Galus.

(c) In view of what we have just learned - we establish the Beraisa which exempts the carpenter, even if the murdered man entered with permission, by the carpenter's apprentice.

(a) We are more lenient with the carpenter's apprentice than with anybody else (not because a carpenter is permitted to kill his apprentice, but) because the Tana speaks when the carpenter ordered him to leave, and carried on chopping wood, because he thought that he had.

(b) Even though we will apply the argument that the carpenter thought that his apprentice had obeyed his instructions and left, we will not apply the same argument to exempt him from Galus with regard to anybody else - because he cannot expect the same amount of respect from others as he can from his apprentice.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,