(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 26


(a) What leads us to suggest that Shen va'Regel in the Reshus ha'Nizak should only pay Chatzi Nezek, like Keren?

(b) How do we refute this suggestion on the basis of the Pasuk "Meitav Sadeihu u'Meitav Karmo *Yeshalem*"?

(c) How does Rebbi Yochanan extrapolate from the word "Yechetzun" that Keren is liable in the Reshus ha'Rabim?

(d) What would we otherwise have thought?

(a) We ask why Adam does not pay Kofer (in the event that he kills someone). What makes us believe that he should?

(b) But how can he pay Kofer, when he is already Chayav Miysah or Galus? Why should the principle 'Kam Lei bi'de'Rabah Minei' not apply?

(c) How do we refute this suggestion based on the Pasuk (written in connection with Kofer) "ke'Chol Asher Yushas *Alav*"?

(d) And what do we then learn from the Pasuk "*Ish* Ki Yiten Mum ba'Amiso*"?
Why would we have thought otherwise?

(a) We ask whether an animal that unintentionally tramples on a baby and kills it is liable to pay Kofer.
What are the two sides to the She'eilah?
Why might the owner be ...
  1. ... liable?
  2. ... exempt?
(b) What does Rebbi Tarfon in a Beraisa say about Reuven, whose Tam ox enters Shimon's Chatzer without permission and gores and kills him?

(c) We assume that Rebbi Tarfon holds like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili.
What does Rebbi Yossi Hagelili say about a Tam that gores someone in the Reshus ha'Rabim?

(d) What do we now prove from here? From where does Rebbi Tarfon learn that the same ox will pay full Kofer in the Reshus ha'Nizak?

(a) Rav Shimi from Neherda'a tries to repudiate this proof. He claims that it is not from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Regel that Rebbi Tarfon learns that Keren pays full damages for Kofer in the Reshus ha'Nizak.
Then from where does he propose Rebbi Tarfon learns it?

(b) On what grounds do we refute Rav Shimi's proposal to learn the Din of Kofer from Nizakin of ...

  1. ... Regel?
  2. ... Tamun be'Regel (which is exempt by Eish)?
  3. ... Keilim (which are exempt by Bor)?
  4. ... Keilim Temunim (which are exempt by Bor)?
(c) So we Rebbi Tarfon can only have learned his Din from Kofer of Regel. Rav Acha mi'Difta proves that in any event, he must hold 'Yesh Kofer be'Regel.
What Pircha would we have asked had he held 'Ein Kofer be'Regel', and learned his Din from Nezikin de'Regel?
(a) A person is always Mu'ad, even if he damages be'Shogeg.
Will this hold true even if he damages in his sleep?

(b) Based on the fact that 'Shiber es ha'Keilim' in our Mishnah is speaking be'Shogeg, what do we learn from the Tana in our Mishnah's juxtapositioning of 'Sima es Ein Chavero' to 'Shiber es ha'Keilim'?

Answers to questions



(a) What do Chizkiyah and Tana de'Bei Chizkiyah learn from "Petza Tachas Patza"?

(b) What other D'rashah do we learn from the same words?

(c) If not for this Pasuk, how would we establish the Din of Tza'ar which the Torah already obligates?

(d) How can we learn two D'rashos from the same words?

(a) If someone stands up, and a stone of which he is unaware falls from his clothes and damages someone's property, Rabah rules that he is liable, as we just learned from "Petza Tachas Patza".
Is he also liable to pay all five things?

(b) Why is he not Chayav if the stone rolls four Amos on Shabbos?

(c) What do we learn from the Pasuk (in connection with Galus for killing be'Shogeg) "Makeh Nefesh bi'Shegagah"?

(a) If the stone falls on his Eved, knocking out his eye or his tooth, it will depend on the opinions of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbanan whether the Eved goes free or not.
What do the Rabbanan say about a master who complying with his Eved's request, begins painting his Eved's eye or scraping his tooth, but who blinds him or extracts his tooth in the process?

(b) What does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel say? What does he learn from the Pasuk "Ve'shichesah"?

(c) Which of the above Dinim will change in a case where he was initially aware of the stone, but eventually forgot that it was there?

(a) If he intended to throw the stone two Amos, but it traveled four, the Din remains the same with regard to all the other areas of Halachah.
What does Rabah say with regard to Galus?

(b) What he might have meant is that the Torah comes to preclude this case from Meizid. It is included in Shogeg, and he must run into Galus.
What else might 'P'rat le'Niskaven ... ' mean?

(c) If he intended to throw the stone four Amos, but it traveled eight, the Din remains unaltered regarding Nizakin, the four things, and Eved.
What will be the Din with regard to ...

  1. ... Galus?
  2. ... Shabbos?
(d) Regarding the Din of Shabbos, what is then the difference between where he intended to throw the stone two Amos and it traveled four to where he intended to throw it four Amos and it traveled eight?
(a) What does Rabah rule in a case where Reuven threw his vessel from the roof and Shimon broke it with a stick before it landed? Is Shimon liable?

(b) And what does he say in a case where Reuven threw Shimon's vessel from the roof and ...

  1. ... Levi came and removed the cushions on which it was due to land, causing it to break upon landing?
  2. ... Reuven himself removed the cushions?
(c) In a case where Reuven threw a baby from the roof and Shimon caught him on his sword, Rabah connects this with a Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira and the Rabbanan. The Rabbanan in a Beraisa, hold that if ten men beat a man to death, they are all Patur.
What does Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira say?

(d) From which Pasuk do the Rabanan learn their Din?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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