(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 24

BAMA KAMA 23 & 24 - This daf has been dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Esther Chaya Rayzel bas Gershon Eliezer, upon her Yahrzeit and Yom Kevurah, by her daughter and son-in-law, Jeri and Eli Turkel. Esther Friedman was a woman of valor who was devoted to her family and gave of herself unstintingly, inspiring all those around her.


(a) Bearing in mind the Pasuk "T'mol, Shilshom ve'Lo Yishmerenu" (Rebbi Yehudah's source for saying that Mu'ad depends on days), how can Rebbi Meir renders an animal a Mu'ad even on the same day?

(b) What were the Chachamim referring to when they retorted 'Zavah Tochi'ach'?

(c) And what did Rebbi Meir mean when, to counter this, he quoted the Pasuk "ve'Zos Tih'yeh Tum'aso be'Zovo"? What is the significance of "ve'Zos"?

(d) On the other hand, what does the Tana learn from "ve'ha'Zav es Zovo la'Zachar ve'la'Nekeivah"?

2) On what basis does Rebbi Meir choose to include the number of days in the Hekesh of women to men, and not the number of sightings?


(a) In another Beraisa, Rebbi Yossi holds like Rebbi Yehudah with regard to an animal becoming a Mu'ad, but like Rebbi Meir with regard to its regaining its status of Tam. Rebbi Shimon has a fourth opinion.
What is it?

(b) Why did Rav Nachman Amar Rav Ada bar Ahavah rule like Rebbi Yeduhah with regard to Mu'ad, and like Rebbi Meir with regard to regaining its status of Tam?

(c) Why did not he take the reverse stance, following the opinion of Rebbi Shimon, giving Rebbi Meir two votes in the Reisha and Rebbi Yehudah two, in the Seifa?

(a) They asked a She'eiah whether the three days warning are for the benefit of the ox or the owner.
What difference does it make which one?

(b) We try to resolve this She'eilah from a Beraisa.
What does the Beraisa say about the warning taking place in front of the owner and in front of Beis-Din?

(c) What does the Tana mean when he says that if two different witnesses warned the ox each of the three times that it gored, they are considered ...

  1. ... three sets of witnesses?
  2. ... one set of witnesses as far as Hazamah is concerned?
(d) Seeing as the defendant is now Patur from paying Nezek Shalem, does it now follow that the first pair of witnesses (and subsequently the second pair, should they become Zomemin, too) are obligated to pay him for the full damage that they attempted to make him pay?
(a) What will happen in the event that the third pair too, are proved to be Zomemin?

(b) How do we now try to prove from here that it is the ox that becomes a Mu'ad (and not the owner)?

(c) How does Rav Kahana counter this (by asking basically the same Kashya if we say that they come to make *the ox* a Mu'ad)?

Answers to questions



(a) We therefore establish the Beraisa when all three pairs of witnesses were signalling to each other, a clear sign that they had all joined forces to declare the ox a Mu'ad.
What similar answer does Rashi Ashi give to prove that they must have known about each other?

(b) What have we now proved, according to both answers?

(c) Ravina establishes the Beraisa when the third set of witnesses only knew the owner, but not the ox.
In that case, what do they testify?

(d) According to him, do the witnesses come to declare the ox a Mu'ad or the owner?

(a) We ask what the Din will be in a case where Levi incites Shimon's ox to bite Reuven.
Regarding whom is the She'eilah?

(b) Seeing as Shimon did not do anything, why might he nevertheless be liable?

(c) And why is Levi not liable for inciting the dog against Reuven?

(a) Rebbi Zeira cites our Mishnah 've'Tam, she'Yehei Tinokos Memashmeshin Bo ve'Eino Noge'ach'.
How does he try to resolve the current She'eilah from there?

(b) Abaye refutes this proof however, on the grounds that the Tana does not even hint that the owner would have been Chayav if the ox had gored the children.
If he would not be liable anyway, what difference does the fact that the ox did not gore make?

(a) We try to resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa 'Shisah Bo es ha'Kelev, Shisah Bo es ha'Nachash, Patur'? What do we infer from there that would resolve it?

(b) How do we negate this inference by making a slight amendment to the Beraisa?

(c) Even assuming that the owner of the dog is liable in the previous case, what does Rava say regarding a case where Reuven himself incited Shimon's dog, which subsequently bit him?

(d) With whose opinion did Rav Papa think that Rava conforms?

(a) Resh Lakish says that if one cow passes another cow that is crouching in the street, and the latter kicks the former, it is liable for damages.
How does he rule in the reverse case, if the walking cow damaged the crouching one and damages it?

(b) What did Rava tell Rav Papa? What does he really hold in this latter case?

(a) According to the Rabbanan, the owner of an ox that gored in the Nizak's domain pays Chatzi Nezek.
How much must he pay according to Rebbi Tarfon?

(b) He learns this from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Keren in the Reshus ha'Rabim. How does he derive it from there?

(c) What Pircha do the Rabbanan ask on the 'Kal va'Chomer'?

(d) How does Rebbi Tarfon counter their Pircha?

12) Do the Rabbanan accept Rebbi Tarfon's explanation?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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