(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 18

BAVA KAMA 18 (25 Av)- dedicated by Mrs. G. Kornfeld for the first Yahrzeit of her mother, Mrs. Gisela Turkel (Golda bas Chaim Yitzchak Ozer), an exceptional woman with an iron will who loved and respected the study of Torah.


(a) We quoted the Beraisa which rules that if chickens are pecking at the rope of a bucket, the rope snaps and the bucket drops and breaks, the owner is obligated to pay full damage.
How do we attempt to resolve Rava's current She'eilah ('Basar Me'ikara O Basar Tavar Mana') from there?

(b) Initially, we establish the Chidush of the Beraisa by the rope.
Why is the fact that the chickens chewed a rope (in which case, the owner ought to pay Chatzi Nezek) not considered unusual?

(c) On what grounds do we reject ...

  1. ... this interpretation of the Beraisa?
  2. ... the attempt to establish the Beraisa like Sumchus (who doesn't hold of Tzeroros in the first place)?
(d) Why can we not counter this by differentiating between 'Kocho' (with which Sumchos does not agree) and 'Ko'ach Kocho' (with which he does)?
2) So how does Rav Bibi bar Abaye establish the Beraisa, so as not to be forced to resolve Rava's She'eilah from it?


(a) Rava asks whether Chatzi Nezek Tzeroros pays mi'Gufo or min ha'Aliyah. Perhaps he pays only mi'Gufo, like all cases of Chatzi Nezek.
But why might he have to pay min ha'Aliyah?

(b) We try and resolve Rava's She'eilah from the Beraisa quoted above 'Hidus Eino Mu'ad; Yesh Omrim, Harei Zeh Mu'ad'.
How do we establish the case of 'Hidus Eino Mu'ad'?

(c) And what do we initially think it means?

(d) What alternative interpretation do we offer to explain the Machlokes?

(a) The Mishnah later discusses the case of a dog that took a hot cake together with a burning coal and carried them to a haystack. How much is the owner of the dog Chayav to pay if he subsequently ...
  1. ... eats the cake?
  2. ... sets fire to the haystack? Why is that?
(b) We try to resolve Rava's She'eilah from the Beraisa that qualifies the Mishnah.
What does the Beraisa comment on the Mishnah?

(c) We reject this resolution on the basis of the opinion of Rebbi Elazar in the Beraisa.
In which point does Rebbi Elazar argue? What will then be the problem with our proof?

(d) Why can we not establish Rebbi Elazar like Sumchus, and abide by the proof?

(a) So we establish the Machlokes between Rebbi Elazar and the Rabbanan when the dog carried the coal in an unusual way (in its mouth).
What would they both have held had he carried it normally?

(b) Seeing as the burning of the haystack is now a Toldah of Keren, why does Rebbi Elazar maintain that he pays full damage?

(a) Although the above interpretation of the Beraisa is acceptable, we nevertheless try to reinstate the possibility of resolving Rava's She'eilah (that Chatzi Nezek Teroros pays mi'Gufo as we initially suggested), by establishing Rebbi Elazar both like Sumchus (as we just explained) and like Rebbi Yehudah.
What does Rebbi Yehudah say about 'Tzad Tamus'?

(b) How will we then qualify 'mi'Gufo', according to Rebbi Elazar?

(c) On what grounds do we refute this suggestion? Why do we think that Rebbi Yehudah would never have said 'Tzad Tamus bi'Mekomah Omedes' in this case?

(d) So how do we finally establish the Machlokes Tana'im?

(a) What is the basic problem with this explanation?

(b) What is the alternative way of explaining Rebbi Elazar (to avoid this problem, though we nevertheless accept the first explanation)?

(c) What would the Rabbanan then hold?

Answers to questions



(a) What does Rava say concerning Ha'ada'ah li'Tzeroros?

(b) What are the two sides of Rava's She'eilah? Why might one have to pay ...

  1. ... Chatzi Nezek?
  2. ... Nezek Shalem?
(c) How will Rava reconcile his She'eilah with the fact that we just established the Machlokes between the Rabbanan and Rebbi Elazar as to whether there is such a thing as Tam and Mu'ad by Tzeroros or not?

(d) Why does Rava prefer to establish both the Rabbanan and Rebbi Elazar by the first time specifically according to Sumchus (rather than according to the Rabbanan)?

(a) Earlier, we established Rebbi Elazar like Rebbi Tarfon, who obligates Keren in the Reshus ha'Nizak to pay in full.
How do we know that Rebbi Tarfon does not require payment min ha'Aliyah, too?

(b) In fact, we know that Rebbi Tarfon does Darshen 'Dayo'.
From where do we know this?

(c) If he does not hold of 'Dayo', then how can we learn 'mi'Gufo' in the Reshus ha'Nizak via 'Dayo' in the Reshus ha'Rabim?

(a) Once again quoting the Beraisa 'Hidus Eino Mu'ad; ve'Yesh Omrim, Mu'ad', and amending it to read 'Hidus ve'Hitiz ... ', how do we try to resolve Rava's She'eilah whether 'Yesh Ha'ada'ah li'Tzeroros from there?

(b) How do we refute this proof? What alternative interpretation of the Machlokes do we offer instead?

(c) In a case where an animal let droppings on someone's dough, Rav Yehudah obligates the owner to pay in full.
What does Rebbi Elazar say?

(d) How do we reconcile Rebbi Elazar here with Rebbi Elazar above who obligated full payment for Tzeroros? How do we know that?

(a) If Rav Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar are not arguing about whether 'Yesh Ha'ada'ah li'Tzeroros' (Rava's She'eilah), then what is the basis of their Machlokes?

(b) But surely it is unusual for an animal to let droppings on a dough (so how can Rav Yehudah obligate him to pay in full)?

(c) What problem do we have this version of the Machlokes? What should the two disputants then have said?

(a) Considering that relieving oneself is normally a pleasure (and we are concerned with Tzeroros, which are a Toldah of Regel), we establish that the animal must have been suffering from diarrhea (from which the regular aspect of pleasure is absent).
What is the alternative explanation?

(b) How will we then explain 'Tanfah Peiros le'Hana'asah' (which we cited in the first Perek as a Toldah of Shen)?

(c) Why do Rav Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar form their own Machlokes. Why does Rav Yehudah not rule like Sumchus, and Rebbi Elazar, like the Rabbanan?

(a) Rami bar Yechezkel cites a Beraisa that if a chicken stuck its head inside a glass vessel and broke it by giving a shriek, the owner would be obligated to pay in full.
What did Rav Yosef Amri de'Bei Rav say about a horse or a donkey that broke a vessel in the same way?

(b) How do we try to resolve Rava's She'eilah from this Beraisa?

(c) After establishing this Machlokes too, like that of Sumchus and the Rabbanan, how do we answer the Kashya, that this is a most unusual thing for an animal to do, in which case everyone ought to agree that he pays only half damages?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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