ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 43
(a) Rabah holds that if the creditor's heirs claimed Karka, the Bechor
receives a double portion - because this is the Karka that was Meshubad to
their father (rendering them Muchzak), but not if they claimed money - since
that money was not Meshubad to them (in which case, it is Ra'uy).
(b) Rav Nachman says - that if they claimed money, he receives double,
because that is what was owed to their father (rendering them Muchzak), but
not if they claimed Karka, since that is not the Karka that their father
left behind, nor is it what he lent (in which case, it is Ra'uy).
(c) Bearing this in mind - why did Rabah and Rav Nachman establish the case
in the Beraisa (where it is the woman's heirs who inherit her Nezek and
Tza'ar and not her husband) by a divorcee? Why did they not establish it
(even by a woman who was married) according to their respective opinions in
Bava Basra: when Beis-Din claimed money (which is considered Ra'uy),
according to Rabah, and when they claimed Karka, according to Rav Nachman?
(a) To answer the previous Kashya, we establish Rabah and Rav Nachman like
the B'nei Ma'arva according to the Rabbanan, who say - that a Bechor does
not take a double portion in the Ribis that is included in their father's
(b) The basis of this Din is - because they consider all Sh'vach (automatic
appreciation of a field ... ) to be Ra'uy.
(c) In our Sugya however, Rabah and Rav Nachman are explaining the Beraisa
like Rebbi, in whose opinion - the Bechor receives a double portion in all
appreciation, including Ribis, and from documented loans that were claimed
after their father's death, irrespective of whether they claimed money or
(d) A Bechor or a husband will not receive a double portion in the Kofer
left to them on the death of the father or the wife respectively - because
seeing as it does not due until after death, even Rebbi will agree that it
is called Ra'uy.
(a) Someone who meant to kill an animal and inadvertently killed a person -
is not Chayav.
(b) We know that the same Din applies in the equivalent case by an ox -
because, as we shall see later 'ke'Miysas ha'Ba'alim Miysas ha'Shor' (an ox
is only put to death under the same circumstances as its owner would be).
(c) Resh Lakish learns ...
1. ... from the Pasuk "Kesef Sheloshim Shekalim Yiten la'Adonav, ve'ha'Shor
Yisakel" - that the owner only pays thirty Shekalim if the ox is stoned,
2. ... from this - that if an ox killed an Eved unintentionally, the owner
is Patur from paying thirty Shekalim, since the ox is not stoned.
(a) Rabah learns from the Pasuk "ha'Shor Yisakel, ve'Gam Be'alav Yumas. Im
Kofer Yushas Alav" - that if an ox killed someone unintentionally, the owner
does not pay Kofer (in similar vein to Resh Lakish by Eved, whom we just
(b) An ox that killed someone is not stoned on the admission of the owner -
because the owner himself would not be sentenced to death by his own
admission that he killed someone (and, as we just learned, 'ke'Miysas
ha'Ba'alim Kach Miysas ha'Shor').
(c) We can extrapolate from Rebbi Eliezer, who said earlier (in connection
with Naki me'Chatzi Kofer) 'Ein Diyni Ela be'Miskaven La'harog es
ha'Beheimah ... ' - that (a Tam is Patur from Chatzi Kofer, but that) a
Mu'ad would be Chayav to pay Kofer, even though the ox is not put to death.
(d) Rabah can argue with Rebbi Eliezer - because a. he relies on the Pasuk,
and b. he has the support of a Mishnah, as we shall see later.
(a) According to Rabah, whenever the ox is not stoned, the owner is Patur
from paying. In that case, we can ask - why does the Beraisa obligate the
owner to pay on his own admission (when we just learned that the ox is not
stoned in such a case)?
(b) We answer that we are talking here about paying Damim, not Kofer, which
means - that even though Kofer may supersede Damim (regular damages), it
does not however, negate it. Consequently, whenever Kofer is not applicable,
the obligation to pay Damim remains.
(c) The point in telling us that one is Patur from Kofer is - that should
the Mazik have no money with which to pay then, if his basic Chiyuv is Kofer
(which means 'atonement' [for having committed a sin]), then, lacking
atonement, he remains subject to punishment (at the Hand of Hashem), which
is not the case if his basic Chiyuv is Damim (see also Tosfos Rabeinu
(a) The Beraisa continues 'Heimis Shori es Avdo shel P'loni, Eino Meshalem
al-Pi Atzmo'. This appear to clash with our current interpretation of the
Reisha - because, assuming that the Seifa too, is talking about Damim (and
assuming that K'nas, like Kofer, incorporates Damim), why should he be
exempt from having to pay?
(b) Rabah did not want to answer that the Reisha speaks about Damim, and the
Seifa, about the basic Chiyuv of K'nas - because it is irregular to make
such distinctions between the Reisha and the Seifa of a Mishnah or Beraisa,
it is a 'Dochek' (a forced answer).
(c) In fact, Rabah establishes the Seifa by Damim, too, and to resolve the
discrepancy, he cites a basic difference between Kofer in the Reisha and
K'nas in the Seifa. The owner pays Kofer by his own admission (in addition
to causing the ox to be stoned) - should there be two witnesses who testify
that the ox killed someone, only they do not know whether it is a Tam or a
Mu'ad (both of which are subject to stoning); whereas in the identical case
of K'nas, he will be Patur from paying (even though the ox is stoned),
because of the principle 'Modeh bi'K'nas Patur'.
(d) Using this distinction - Rabah explains that in the Reisha, where it is
possible to pay by his own admission (when there are two witnesses, as we
just explained), there is an underlying Chiyuv of Damim that obligates him
to pay by his own admission (even when there are not); whereas in the Seifa,
where, even when there *are* witnesses (as in the previous case), one does
not pay by one's own admission, there is no Chiyuv Damim at all.
(a) The Beraisa says 'Kol she'Chayav be'Ben Chorin, Chayav be'Eved, Bein
be'Kofer Bein be'Miysah'. The problem with the term 'Bein be'Kofer' is -
that there is no Kofer by an Eved.
(b) We answer that Kofer in this case means Damim, posing a Kashya on the
Beraisa that we learned earlier (distinguishing between a ben Chorin and an
Eved) exempting the latter from paying through his own admission. According
to what we just learned - he should be liable, because wherever the one is
Chayav, the other is Chayav, too.
(c) According to some, Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah, who asked the Kashya, gave
the answer; according to others, it was Rabah who established it by K'nas.
The basic difference whether the Tana is speaking about Damim or K'nas is -
whether he is Chayav by his own admission (Damim) or through two witnesses
(d) the Tana is now teaching us - that if Reuven's ox inadvertently gored
Shimon in the presence of two witnesses, he is liable to pay Damim, just as
he would be if it had gored a free person.
(a) Rava asks on Rabah why, if Kofer she'Lo be'Kavanah is Chayav to pay
Damim, 'Isho she'Lo be'Kavanah' should be Patur.
(b) Rava takes for granted that 'Isho she'Lo be'Kavanah' is Patur. We try
to prove this from the Mishnah in ha'Kon'es, regarding someone who sets fire
to a haystack. The Tana there rules in a case where a kid goat got burned
1. ... whilst it was tied to the burning haystack, as did an Eved who was
loose - that he is liable to pay for the kid.
(c) Assuming that Patur in the Seifa refers to both the Eved and the
kid-goat, he is Patur ...
2. ... that was loose but the Eved was tied to the haystack - that he is
1. ... on the Eved - because one is only Chayav on an Eved when it is a Din
in K'nas (but not by Eish).
(d) Rava decline to learn that he is Patur only on the kid, because of Kam
Leih be'de'Rabah Mineih - since he holds 'Isho Mishum Mamono'.
2. ... on the kid - because it should have run away.
(a) We reject the proof however (that this Mishnah is a source for the P'tur
of 'Isho she'Lo be'Kavanah'), by citing Resh Lakish - who confines 'Patur'
in the Seifa of the Mishnah under discussion to the kid. According to him,
the Tan speaks when he actually set fire to the Eved, and he is Patur with
regard to the kid because of 'Kam Leih be'de'Rabah Mineih'.
(b) We refute the proof that 'Isho she'Lo be'Kavanah is Patur', from the
Beraisa 'Chomer ba'Eish mi'be'Bor ... ', which omits the distinction that
Eish pays Damim she'Lo be'Kavanah, which Bor does not - because the Torah
exempts Miysas Adam be'Bor.
(c) We refute the proof from there - on the grounds that 'Tana ve'Shiyer'
(the Tana omitted other cases too).
(d) There is no Damim by Eish be'Kavanah - a. because there is no Kofer by
Eish, and b. because of 'Kam Leih be'de'Rabah Mineih'.
(a) We therefore conclude that, based on Rabah's Chidush (that Shor she'Lo
be'Kavanah pays Damim) Rava meant to ask whether Eish too pays Damim, or
not. On the one hand ...
1. ... he might not have to pay - because, unlike Shor, Eish be'Kavanah does
not pay Kofer.
(b) The outcome of Rava's She'eilah is - Teiku.
2. ... he might have to pay - like Shor, who pays Damim she'Lo be'Kavanah
(even though there is no Kofer by Eish be'Kavanah).
(a) When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he learned in the name of Rebbi
Yochanan, from the Pasuk "Im Kofer ... " - 'Le'rabos Kofer she'Lo
(b) Abaye asked him that, in that case, why should we not Darshen the same
from the Pasuk "*Im Eved* Yigach ha'Shor". We refute the objection to this
(on the grounds that Resh Lakish has already exempted Eved she'Lo
be'Kavanah) - with the principle 'Gavra a'Gavra Ka'ramis' (one cannot ask a
Kashya from one Amora on another).
(c) When Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan arrived in Bavel from Eretz Yisrael, he
taught - that "*Im Eved* Yigach ha'Shor" indeed comes to include Eved she'Lo
(d) Even Resh Lakish, who does not Darshen "Eved", "Im Eved", might Darshen
"Kofer", "Im Kofer", because it is written where the Torah discusses the
payment - whereas "Im Eved" is written where the Torah discusses the damage,
where "Im Eved" is needed to distinguish between an Eved and a ben Chorin.
(a) The Torah writes in Emor "ve'Ish Ki Yakeh Kol Nefesh Adam". We learn
1. ... "Kol Nefesh Adam" - that a man who kills a person is Chayav even if
the latter is a Katan.
(b) Based on these D'rashos, the Tana initially thinks that it should not be
necessary to write "O Ben Yigach O Bas Yigach" to include an ox that gored a
child in the Din of Miysah because, if ...
2. ... "ve'Ish" - that it is only a grown-up who is Chayav for killing a
person, but not a Katan.
1. ... 'Adam be'Adam' is Chayav even for killing a Katan, then so too should
(c) We refute both the 'Mah Matzinu' and the 'Kal va'Chomer' on the basis of
the fact - that Adam be'Adam has a stringency over Shor be'Adam, inasmuch as
he is Chayav the four additional things, whereas Shor be'Adam is only Chayav
Nezek. Consequently, we are unable to learn any Chumras pertaining to Shor
be'Adam from it.
2. ... Adam be'Adam, where only a grown-up is Chayav Miysah, is Chayav even
for killing a Katan, then an ox, where even a Katan is Chayav, should
certainly be Chayav for killing a Katan.