(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 13


(a) We already discussed the Beraisa "u'Ma'alah Ma'al ba'Hashem", 'Lerabos Kodshim Kalim she'Heim Mamono, Divrei Rebbi Yossi Hagelili'. ben Azai adds 'Lerabos es ha'Shelamim'.
What does Aba Yossi ben Dustai say?

(b) What are the three Chumros of Shelamim over Bechor?

(c) In that case, what does ben Azai come to preclude, when he says 'Lerabos es ha'Shelamim'?

(d) We take it for granted that Bechor, like Shelamim, is considered the property of the owner, as we just intimated.
But did we not also just learn that Matnos Kehunah are not the property of the owner, even according to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili?

(a) What does the Tana learn from the fact that the Torah writes in Korach "Lo Sipadeh" with regard to Bechor, whereas in Bechukosai with regard to Ma'aser (Beheimah) it writes "Lo Yiga'el"?

(b) Whose opinion does this distinction help us clarify?

(c) With regard to a Bechor in Eretz Yisrael, "Lo Sipadeh" implies that it may not be redeemed (unless it obtains a blemish), and in the time of the Beis Hamikdash, that it must be sacrificed. What does "Lo Sipadeh" imply with regard to a Bechor in Chutz la'Aretz (bearing in mind that it may be sold) ...

  1. ... before the animal has been Shechted?
  2. ... after its Shechitah?
(d) What do we learn (regarding Ma'aser) from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Lo Yiga'el" "Lo Yiga'el" from Charamim?
(a) Ravina makes the same inference (precluding specifically Ma'aser, and not Shelamim), in the Seifa (according to Aba Yossi ben Dustai), as we just made in the Reisha (precluding Ma'aser, and not Bechor, according to ben Azai).
What edge does Bechor have over Shelamim, according to Ravina?

(b) According to Ravina, what does Aba Yossi ben Dustai consider Mamon Ba'alim, and what does he not?

(c) How do we prove Ravina wrong from Lashon of the Aba Yossi ben Dustai (whose very words he is coming to explain)?

(a) Until now, we have taken 'Nechasim she'Ein Bahem Me'ilah' literally (as a result of which we were forced to establish the author of our Mishnah as Rebbi Yossi Hagelili).
How does Rava interpret it?

(b) What problem do we have with that?

(a) What did Rebbi Aba mean when he said 'Shelamim she'Hiziku, Govah mi'Besaran, ve'Eino Govah me'Eimureihen'?

(b) Why can he not have meant what he said literally?

(c) We have difficulty in establishing which Tana Rebbi Aba's statement follows. If it is the Rabbanan, we ask, it is obvious.
What do the Rabbanan say in a case where one ox pushed another ox into a pit, in the case of ...

  1. ... a Shor Tam?
  2. ... a Shor Mu'ad?
(d) Why is the owner of the pit Patur from paying in both cases?
(a) What does Rebbi Nasan say in the case of ...
  1. ... a Shor Tam?
  2. ... a Shor Mu'ad?
(b) What is Rebbi Nasan's reasoning?

(c) We conclude that Rebbi Aba could hold like either Tana.
On what grounds might he hold like ...

  1. ... the Rabbanan? Why might we otherwise have thought that they would concede in the case of a Shelamim animal, that the Nizak *can claim the entire damage from the flesh*?
  2. ... Rebbi Nasan? Why might Rebbi Nasan concede that he *cannot*?
(a) Although we accept the above explanation of Rebbi Aba's statement, how else might we explain 'Lo Tzericha Ligvos mi'Besaran Keneged Eimurehen'?

(b) How will we then amend the original problem 'I Aliba ...

  1. ... de'Rabbanan P'shita'?
  2. ... de'Rebbi Nasan, Ha Amar Ki Leka le'Ishtelumi me'Hai, Mishtalem me'Hai'?
(c) On what grounds do we reject this explantion?
Answers to questions



(a) What is the problem with Rava's statement 'Todah she'Hizikah, Govah mi'Besarah, ve'Eno Govah mi'Lachmah'?

(b) Rava's Chidush actually lies in the Seifa of his words.
What does he say there?

(c) What is the Chidush in that statement?

(a) What does the Tana of our Mishnah come to preclude, when he says ...
  1. ... 'Nechasim she'Hein shel B'nei B'ris?
  2. ... 'Nechasim ha'Meyuchadim'?
(b) Then why do we need the one Mishnah later, which specifically exempts the ox of a Jew which gores that of a Nochri, and another, which specifically exempts two oxen chasing a third ox, where one of them kills it, and each one blames the other one?

(c) Alternatively, we are speaking about property of Hefker.
With which case is the Mishnah obviously not concerned?

(d) We therefore conclude that the Mishnah comes to preclude a Hefker ox that gored a private one.
Why can he not just go and take the ox? Who is stopping him?

(a) Ravina has a third interpretation of what 'Nechasim ha'Meyuchadim' comes to preclude, conforming with Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa.
What does Rebbi Yehudah learn from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ve'Hu'ad bi'Ve'alav ve'Heimis"?

(b) Based on the end of the Pasuk "ha'Shor Yisakel", how do we amend Rebbi Yehudah's statement?

(a) On what grounds is the Mazik Patur if his ox damaged someone else's ox that strayed into his field?

(b) Rav Chisda Amar Avimi renders partners who damage each other's property by means of Shen or Regel liable.
What does Rebbi Elazar say?

(c) How will we explain our Mishnah ' ... Chutz me'Reshus ha'Meyuchedes u'Reshus ha'Nizak ve'ha'Mazik ke'she'Hizik, Chav ha'Mazik ... ' according to ...

  1. ... Rav Chisda?
  2. ... Rebbi Elazar?
(d) According to Rav Chisda, how do we know that 'ke'she'Hizik, Chav ha'Mazik ... ' refers to Shen ve'Regel and not to Keren?
(a) According to Rebbi Elazar, 'ke'she'Hizik Chav ha'Mazik ... ' come to include Keren, which has not yet been mentioned. However, that is only according to Shmuel, who learns 'Shor le'Raglo' and 'Mav'eh le'Shino'.
How will Rebbi Elazar explain it according to Rav, who includes Keren in 'Shor'?

(b) What does the Tana of the Beraisa, who states this Chidush, add regarding a Shomer, if the ox he is looking after, breaks out in the night or is let out by robbers?

(c) When the Tana of the Beraisa, commenting on our Mishnah 'ke'she'Hizik Chav ha'Mazik ... ' explains 'Lerabos Shomer Chinam ... ve'ha'Sho'el ... ', why can he not be speaking when it is ...

  1. ... the borrowed ox that damaged the ox of the Shomer (at least, so we think initially)?
  2. ... the Shomer's ox which gored the borrowed one?
(a) We finally establish the case when it was the borrowed ox that gored the ox of the borrower.
How do we then establish the case to evade the Kashya that we asked earlier?

(b) What can we infer from the Seifa 'Nifretzah *ba'Laylah* ... , Patur'?

(c) But did we not just establish the Beraisa when the Shomer did not accept the liability of damages caused by the ox he is guarding?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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