(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 37

BAVA KAMA 37 - This Daf has been sponsored by Marcia and Lee Weinblatt of Teaneck, NJ, in honor of the marriage of their daughter, Jodi Weinblatt, to Yaakov Mugrabi, on Sept 2, 2001.



(a) Our Mishnah cites three cases where an ox might be Muad for one thing but not for another. The first two are when it is Mu'ad for oxen but not for other species, the second, when it is Mu'ad for people but not for animals, and the third - when it is Mu'ad for small (baby) animals, but not for big (fully-grown) ones.

(b) In all these cases - the Tana rules that the Mazik pays Nezek Shalem for whatever it is Mu'ad, but Chatzi Nezek for whatever it is not.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah draws the same distinction between an ox that is Mu'ad for Shabbasos but not for weekdays. The ox is acutely aware of this (not because it observes Shabbos, but) - because it does not work on Shabbos, with the result that it becomes arrogant.

(d) In this latter case, the ox reverts to its Tamus - by seeing the animals for which it was Mu'ad on three consecutive Shabbasos, and leaving them alone.

(a) According to Rav Z'vid, the text in our Mishnah reads 'Shor she'Mu'ad le'Miyno, ve'Eino Mu'ad le'she'Eino Miyno'. We extrapolate from the 'Vav' - that it is only if it has actually failed to gore other species that it is not a Mu'ad for them, but 'S'tama, Havei Mu'ad'.

(b) Rav Papa reads the Mishnah 'Shor she'Mu'ad le'Miyno, Eino Mu'ad le'she'Eino Mien' (in which case it is automatically not a Mu'ad for those species).

(c) Rav Zvid derives his opinion from the third case 'Mu'ad li'Ketanim ve'Eino Mu'ad li'Gedolim', which would be superfluous if not for the inference ('Ha S'tama Havi Mu'ad'), because if from Ketanim to Ketanim (of two species) it does not become a Mu'ad, then how much more so from Ketanim to Gedolim (of the same species)? According to Rav Papa, the Tana finds it necessary to insert this case - because it is feasible to say that it has got into the habit of goring its own kind (big and alike small), but will ignore other animals, even small ones.

(a) Rav Papa derives his opinion from the Reisha (which is really the middle case) 'Mu'ad le'Adam Eino Mu'ad li'Beheimah' - because, if as Rav Z'vid maintains, 'S'tama Havi Mu'ad', is that not obvious from the previous case of 'Mu'ad le'Miyno ... ' (since the difference between Adam and Beheimah is greater than that of one species of animal to another)?

(b) To counter Rav Papa's proof, Rav Z'vid establishes the Reisha - by Chazarah, meaning that if the ox retracted from goring animals but not people, the Rabbanan validate the retraction (despite the fact that it did not retract from Adam).

(c) Sumchus says - that 'Mu'ad le'Adam, Mu'ad li'Beheimah'.

(d) To refute the proof that, if Sumchus holds ' ... Eino Mu'ad li'Beheimah', the Rabbanan must hold 'Mu'ad ... ' - Rav Z'vid establishes Sumchus when the animal retracts from Beheimah but not from Adam.

(a) Rav Ashi proves from the Seifa of our Mishnah, where Rebbi Yehudah's Talmidim asked him 'Harei Zeh Hayah Mu'ad le'Shabbasos ... ' and from his answer - that Rav Z'vid's version of the text is the correct one; because if the text were to read 'Harei Zeh Hayah Mu'ad le'Shabbasos, Eino Mu'ad le'Chol', why did they need to tell this to Rebbi Yehudah, and why did Rebbi Yehudah need to repeat what they had already told him?

(b) Rav Yanai substantiates this from the Reisha, which concludes 'es she'Mu'ad Lo, Meshalem Nezek Shalem ... ' - and which only makes sense if it follows the phrase 'Mu'ad li'Ketanim *ve'Eino Mu'ad* li'Gedolim' (just like we just asked with regard to the Rabbanan and Rebbi Yehudah).

(c) We conclude with the statement 'Nagach Shor, Chamor ve'Gamal, Na'aseh Mu'ad la'Kol' - on the assumption that, even though the text of our Mishnah reads like Rav Z'vid, Halachically we will still hold that when the ox is Mu'ad for the one, it is not Mu'ad for the other (like Rav Papa). And it is in that context that we conclude that nevertheless, once the ox becomes a Mu'ad for three different species (goring each one just once), it is a Mu'ad for all species.

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa describes a 'Mu'ad le'Sirugin'. An ox becomes a Mu'ad le'Sirugin ...
1. ... for oxen - by goring one ox, ignoring the second one that it sees, goring the third one, ignoring the fourth, goring the fifth and ignoring the sixth.
2. ... for all species of animals - by following the same pattern as a Mu'ad li'Shevarim, but involving six different species of animals.
(b) The Chidush of this last statement is - that one does not need three gorings for each species, but one will suffice.

(c) An 'Arod' is a wild donkey.




(a) We ask what the Din will be if, after goring three oxen in the same sequence, an ox gores a donkey and a camel in the same sequence. Assuming that, in this case, we go after the first sequence, we ask - whether that is because we follow the *first* sequence, in which case here too, we will link the first goring of an ox with the previous two gorings; or whether it is because it is more logical to link the goring of an ox with the two other gorings of an ox, irrespective of whether they come first or last.

(b) Similarly, we ask what the Din will be if an ox gores on three consecutive Shabbasos, and on the Sunday and Monday following the third Shabbos. And we then ask what the Din will be if it gored on Thursday and on Friday and then on three consecutive Shabbasos - on the assumption that in the previous case, we link the first Shabbos to the two previous Shabbasos (following exactly the same pattern as the previous She'eilah [only one of them concerns the contrast between species, the other, between days]).

(c) We conclude both She'eilos with - 'Teiku'.

(a) According to Rav, if, for the first time, a woman sees blood on the fifteenth of Iyar, say, on the sixteenth of Sivan and on the seventeenth of Tamuz, this becomes her new Veses. According to Shmuel, it will only become her Veses - on the eighteenth of Av (because, in his opinion, it is skipping three times that creates the Veses, not the three dates on which she saw).

(b) This Machlokes affects ...

1. ... our Sugya - inasmuch as the same Machlokes will apply in a case where an ox gored six times following the same sequence, and where according to Shmuel, it will not become a full-fledged Mu'ad until it gores a seventh time, whereas according to Rav, it will.
2. ... the Beraisa (that we cited on the previous Amud) which describes a Mu'ad le'Sirugin as where an ox that gored one ox, ignored the second one that it saw, gored the third, ignored the fourth, gored the fifth and ignored the sixth) - inasmuch as, according to Shmuel there too, the Mazik will only be obligated to pay full damage when it gores the seventh animal, whereas according to Rav, he is obligated already after the sixth.
(c) Rava rules that, in a case where an ox gored following the three occasions that it heard a Shofar-blast - it becomes a Mu'ad'.

(d) This is not so obvious as it may seem. One may well have thought - that the first time that it reacted in this way was merely out of shock, in which case it would not combine with the other two times to make the animal a Mu'ad.

(a) If an ox belonging to a Hedyot gores an ox belonging to Hekdesh, the owner is Patur - and vice-versa.

(b) The Tana learns this - from the Pasuk "ve'Chi Yigach Ish es Shor *Re'eihu*" (which precludes property of Hekdesh).

(c) The distinction drawn by our Mishnah between the ox of a Yisrael goring one of a Nochri and vice-versa is - that the former is Patur, whereas the latter, is Chayav Nezek Shalem, even for a Shor Tam.

(d) Rebbi Shimon ben Menasyah in a Beraisa - agrees with the Tana Kama with regard to a Hekdesh ox goring one of a Hedyot, but in the reverse case, he obligates the Hedyot ox to pay full damages, even for a Shor Tam.

9) Assuming that Rebbi Shimon ben Menasyah exempts a Hekdesh ox that gored the ox of a Hedyot due to "Re'eihu (like the Rabbanan), we cannot then say that he obligates a Tam ox of a Hedyot which gored one of Hekdesh to pay full, from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from an ox belonging to a Hedyot which gored an ox belonging to a Hedyot - because then we would apply 'Dayo' to pay only Chatzi Nezek (like a Hedyot ox that gores a Hedyot ox).


(a) Ultimately, Resh Lakish learns Rebbi Shimon ben Menasyah's Chumra by a Hedyot's Tam which gored Hekdesh from "Re'eihu" from which he extrapolates - that for "Shor Re'eihu" one pays Chatzi Nezek, and Mu'ad, Nezek Shalem, but for Shor Hekdesh, one always pays Nezek Shalem.

(b) What prompts him to Darshen it this way, rather than to simply exempt the Hedyot from having to pay for the damage to a Shor shel Hekdesh (like the Rabanan) is - the fact that the Torah writes "Re'eihu" by Shor Tam and not by "Mu'ad".

(c) The P'tur by a Shor Mu'ad of Hekdesh that gored a Shor Hedyot, Rebbi Shimon ben Menasyah learns from the Pasuk "ve'Hu'ad bi'Ve'alav" (which is not applicable to a Shor shel Hekdesh). The P'tur of a Shor Tam that caused damage to a Hedyot he learns from the Pasuk - "ve'Chi Yigof Shor Ish es Shor Re'eihu, because Hekdesh is not called 'Ish'.

(a) According to an alternative interpretation of Resh Lakish's explanation, he only comes to avoid the 'Kal va'Chomer. In that case, he learns the P'tur of a Hekdesh ox that gored that of a Hedyot - from "Re'eihu", 've'Lo Shor shel Hekdesh' (like the Rabbanan).

(b) He does not however, Darshen "Re'eihu" in connection with a Hedyot ox that gored one of Hekdesh in the same way as he Darshened it in connection with the reverse case - because the Torah writes "Re'eihu" by a Tam and not by a Mu'ad (indicating that the leniency of Tam as against Mu'ad, only applies to "Shor Re'eihu", but not to a Shor belonging to Hekdesh).

(c) Neither can he Darshen "Re'eihu" by Shor shel Hekdesh ... in the same way as he Darshens it by a Shor shel Hedyot ... - because a Hekdesh Shor is not included in "Shor Re'eihu" (period).

(d) And he knows that a Shor Mu'ad of Hekdesh is Patur as well (despite the fact that "Re'eihu" is not written there) - because the Torah only obligates payment of full damages in the case of a Mu'ad which paid Chatzi Nezek when it was a Tam.

Next daf


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