(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 6

BAVA KAMA 6 (13 Av) - Chaim Yitzchok and Aviva Esther Fishof have sponsored today's Daf for the Zechus of the Neshamah of Mordechai ben Rav Yosef Dov (whose Yahrzeit is today), and for a Refu'ah Shelemah for Yosef ben Ettel.


(a) According to Abaye, 'ha'Tzad ha'Shaveh she'Bahen, she'Darkan Le'hazik ... ' comes to include a stone, a knife or a load that one left on the roof and which fell down and damaged.
How did they fall down?

(b) Why can this not be speaking when they damaged ...

  1. ... in flight?
  2. ... after they had landed, assuming the owner then declared them Hefker?
  3. ... after they had landed, assuming the owner did not declare them Hefker, according to Shmuel and Rav respectively?
(c) So how do we establish Abaye? In which of these cases is the Tana speaking, and why is not really comparable to Bor?

(d) How do we get round the problem of 'Ko'ach Acher Me'urav Bo?

(a) According to Rava, 'ha'Tzad ha'Shaveh she'Bahen, she'Darkan Le'hazik ... ' comes to include a Bor ha'Misgalgel ... '.
What is a 'Bor ha'Misgalgel ... '?

(b) We establish the case when he declared it Hefker.
Why is this not really comparable to Bor?

(c) So how do we get round the problem of 'Ein Ma'asav Garmu Lo'? What do we learn it from besides Bor?

(d) A third interpretation of what we learn from 'ha'Tzad ha'Shaveh she'Bahen' is that of Rav Ada bar Ahavah.
Which case does the Tana come to include according to him?

(a) What does the Tana say about opening one's gutters and cleaning out one's caves in the summer?

(b) We establish this case too, when the sewage and trash have already landed in the street, and when the owner declared them Hefker.
What is the Chidush? Is it not obvious that this is a regular Toldah of Bor?

(c) What will be the Din if the sewage or trash damages ...

  1. ... whilst it is moving through the air?
  2. ... after it was stationary, but before the owner declared it Hefker?
(d) How do we resolve the problem that whereas a Bor bi'Reshus ha'Rabim is dug without permission, this case speaks when he acted with the Beis-Din's consent?
Answers to questions



(a) Ravina has a fourth explanation (of what we learn from 'ha'Tzad ha'Shaveh she'Bahen' in our Mishnah). He cites a Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a, which exempts the owner of a wall or a tree that fell into the street and damaged, from paying.
Under which circumstances will he nevertheless obligate him to pay?

(b) Here again, if the owner declared the wall or the tree Hefker, it is a Toldah of Bor, and if not, it is Bor according to Shmuel, Shor according to Rav.
So how do we establish the case? What then, is the Chidush?

(c) Then why is he Chayav?

5) To what does Rav Yehudah Amar Rav ascribe the unusual Lashon 'Chav ha'Mazik' used by the Tana of our Mishnah (instead of 'Chayav ha'Mazik')?


(a) According to Rebbi Yishmael, "Meitav Sadeihu u'Meitav Karmo" refers to that of the Nizak.
How do we initially explain this?

(b) Rebbi Akiva says 'Lo Ba ha'Kasuv Ela Li'Gevos le'Nizakin min ha'Idis'. What does he mean?

(c) What does Rebbi Akiva add to that statement?

(a) What problem do we have with Rebbi Yishmael's opinion?

(b) On what grounds do we reject Rav Idi bad Avin's suggestion that Rebbi Yishmael is speaking when we do not know which quality row the ox ate?

(c) So how does Rav Acha bar Ya'akov establish the case?

(d) What will then be the basis of Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva's dispute?

(a) How does Rebbi Yishmael derive his opinion from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Sadeh" ("Meitav Sadeihu ... Yeshalem") "Sadeh" ("u'Bi'er bi'S'dei Acher")?

(b) And how does Rebbi Akiva derive his opinion from the former Pasuk "Meitav Sadeihu u'Meitav Karmo Yeshalem"?

(c) How does Rebbi Yishmael establish Rebbi Akiva's D'rashah? How does he interpret the inference?

(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk "ve'Chi Yigof Shor Ish es *Shor Re'eihu*"?

(b) *ve'Lo Shor Hekdesh* might be no more than an example (and the D'rashah really pertains to fields of Hekdesh too).
Why, on the other hand, might it refer specifically to an ox of Hekdesh, and not to a field of Hekdesh that his ox ate?

(c) In any event, it is clear that, when Rebbi Akiva said 'Kal va'Chomer le'Hekdesh', he cannot have meant that if a private ox gored a Hekdesh one, he must certainly pay with Meitav.
Why can he not have meant that if someone undertakes to give a Manah to Bedek ha'Bayis, the treasurer demands Idis from him?

(d) Why can he not mean this even assuming that he holds that a regular creditor claims Idis?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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