(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 14


(a) What does the Beraisa quoted by Rav Yosef say about 'Chatzar ha'Shutfim ve'ha'Pundak', with regard to Shen ve'Regel?

(b) How does Rebbi Elazar, who holds Patur, reconcile his own opinion with this Beraisa?

(c) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar presents four categories of locations. He renders all damages liable in the Reshus of the Nizak, and all damages Patur in the Reshus of the Mazik.
What does he say about ...

  1. ... a Chatzer ha'Shutfin ve'ha'Bik'ah?
  2. ... a Chatzer that belongs to neither of them?
(d) Why ...
  1. ... according to some, is one Patur on Shen va'Regel even in the Reshuyos that he is Chayav Keren?
  2. ... according to others, is one nevertheless Chayav?
(a) According to Rebbi Elazar, the Beraisa of Rav Yosef (which holds partners liable for Shen ve'Ayin in a Chatzer ha'Shutfin) and Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar in the second Beraisa (who exempts them), argue.
How do we nevertheless reconcile the two Beraisos?

(b) And how do we prove this from the accompanying case in each respective Beraisa?

(c) Rebbi Zeira asked why they are Chayav for Shen va'Regel, in Rav Yosef's Beraisa, because, seeing as it is designated for the use of each one's fruit, it is not 'S'dei Acher'.
What did Abaye reply?

(d) Rav Acha from Difti asked Ravina whether perhaps we could reconcile Rav Chisda and Rebbi Elazar in the same way as we just reconciled the two Beraisos.
What were Ravina's two answers?

(a) What do we extrapolate from Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar's words 'Kol she'Hu Reshus le'Nizak ve'Lo le'Mazik, Chayav ba'Kol'? Like which earlier Tana does Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar then hold?

(b) What would he have had to write, had he merely been coming to teach us that the Mazik is Chayav for Shen as well as for Keren?

(a) In the Seifa, Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar says 'Lo la'Zeh ve'Lo la'Zeh, K'gon Chatzer she'Eino shel Sheneihem, Chayav bah Al ha'Shen ve'Al ha'Regel'.
Why can he not mean that the Chatzer belongs to neither of them?

(b) So he must mean that it belongs to one of them and not to both.
Which one?

(c) How will we then reconcile the continuation 'Tam Meshalem Chatzi Nezek, u'Mu'ad Nezek Shalem' with the Reisha, which we just established like Rebbi Tarfon?

(d) Is it acceptable to present the Reisha of a Beraisa like one Tana, and the Seifa, like his disputant?

(a) Ravina establishes the entire Beraisa like Rebbi Tarfon.
How does he explain 'Lo la'Zeh ve'Lo la'Zeh', in order to do this?

(b) What problem do we have with Ravina's interpretation of the Seifa?

(c) How does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak resolve it?

Answers to questions



(a) What does the Tana of our Mishnah mean when he says ...
  1. ... 'Shum Kesef'?
  2. ... 'Shaveh Kesef'?
(b) The Beraisa establishes 'Shum Kesef' in a case where a cow first damaged a cloak and then the cloak damaged the cow (see Tosfos).
What are the respective Avos involved here?

(c) Where did these two damages occur?

(a) How does the Beraisa interpret 'Shaveh Kesef'?

(b) What happens if the Nizak seized Metaltelin?

(c) On what grounds so we reject Rabah bar Ula's interpretation that 'Shaveh Kesef' implies something that ...

  1. ... is worth any amount of money, implying Karka, because it is not subject to Ona'ah (overcharging)?
  2. ... can be acquired with money, implying Karka?
(d) What are the ramifications of the Halachah that Karka, Avadim and Sh'taros are not subject to Ona'ah?
(a) So how does Rav Ashi finally extrapolate from 'Shaveh Kesef' that the Tana means to preclude Metaltelin?

(b) How does Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua reconcile our Mishnah with the Beraisa "Yashiv", 'Lerabos Shaveh Kesef ke'Kesef, va'Afilu Subin'?

(c) What is the basis of this Halachah?

(d) If we are talking about Yesomim, how can the Beraisa then say that if the Nizak seized Metaltelin, Beis-Din will allow him to claim his debt from them? Why should an illegal seizure be legalized?

(a) What do we mean when we initially interpret 'Bifnei Beis-Din' (mentioned in our Mishnah) to mean that Beis-Din will only claim Nezikin from property that is available, and has not been sold?

(b) On what grounds do we reject this interpretation?

(c) So what *does* 'Bifnei Beis-Din' mean?

(a) And how do we interpret the Mishnah 'Al-Pi Eidim'?

(b) On what grounds do we query this interpretation?

(c) We therefore explain the need to insert 'Al-Pi Eidim' by citing the continuation of our Mishnah '(Al-Pi Eidim) B'nei Chorin u'B'nei B'ris'.
What does the Tana mean to preclude when he says ...

  1. ... 'B'nei Chorin'?
  2. ... 'B'nei B'ris'?
(d) Why does the Tana need to mention both? Had he mentioned only ...
  1. ... B'nei Chorin, why might we have thought that Nochrim are eligible to testify?
  2. ... B'nei B'ris, why might we have thought that Avadim are eligible to testify?
Answers to questions

Next daf


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