(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 29


(a) The Beraisa quoting Rebbi Meir, obligates the owner to pay, if his jug broke or his camel slipped and fell, and he left them lying there.
What do the Chachamim say?

(b) In which case ...

  1. ... do the Chachamim concede to Rebbi Meir that he is liable?
  2. ... does Rebbi Meir concede to the Chachamim that he is Patur?
(c) Having proved that Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim cannot possibly be arguing over a Bor that was made be'O'nes, how does Abaye interpret 'Niskaven' (of Rebbi Yehudah)?

(d) What is the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan concerning ...

  1. ... Sha'as Nefilah?
  2. ... Achar Nefilah?
(e) Which other Tana'im are involved in the same Machlokes later (in 'Shor she'Nagach es ha'Parah')?
(a) How does Abaye extrapolate from the Mishnah itself that Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah are involved in a double Machlokes?

(b) What does the fact that they are, prompt us to say about the Beraisa ('Nishberah Kado ve'Lo Silko ... Nafal Gamlo ve'Lo He'emido')?

(c) Seeing as the Beraisa too, refers to a double Machlokes, which of the four cases do we have difficulty in establishing?

(a) Rav Acha tries to establish the Mishnah when the owner led his camel in an area where the river covered the path, so that the camel could not see where it was going.
What problem do we have with this explanation?

(b) So how do we finally establish it?

(c) And how do Rav Yosef and Rav Ashi explain the 'Miskaven' of Rebbi Yehudah in the case of le'Achar Nefilah?

(a) Initially, when Rebbi Elazar says 'be'Sha'as Nefilah Machlokes', we think that he is coming to restrict the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah to Sha'as Nefilah.
What is wrong with saying that le'Achar Nefilah ...
  1. ... Rebbi Meir concedes that he is Patur?
  2. ... Rebbi Yehudah concedes that he is Chayav?
(b) So what does Rebbi Elazar really mean?
Answers to questions



(a) Rebbi Yochanan says 'le'Achar Nefilah Machlokes'.
Apart from the Beraisa that we discussed earlier, why can we not understand this to mean that be'Sha'as Nefilah ...
  1. ... Rebbi Meir concedes that the Mazik is Patur?
  2. ... Rebbi Yehudah concedes that he is Chayav?
(b) Then what does Rebbi Yochanan mean? What can we extrapolate from the Lashon 'le'Achar *Nefilah* Machlokes'?
(a) As we have just seen, Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar argue over Mafkir Nezakav Achar Nefilah. We reject the proposal that the one who says Chayav holds like Rebbi Meir, and the one who says Patur, like Rebbi Yehudah.
Then what is the basis of their Machlokes? According to which Tana ...
  1. ... do they argue?
  2. ... do they agree?
(b) What does Rebbi Elazar say in the name of Rebbi Yishmael? What does he say about a Bor in the Reshus ha'Rabim and Chametz on Pesach?

(c) What do we try and prove from here?

(a) We refute the previous suggestion from a statement of Rebbi Elazar. What does Rebbi Elazar comment on the Mishnah later 'ha'Hofech es ha'Galal bi'Reshus ha'Rabim, ve'Huzak Bahen Acher, Chayav be'Nizko'?

(b) What does this now prove?

(c) Rav Ada bar Ahavah tries to answer the discrepancy (in Rebbi Elazar) by establishing the Mishnah when he replaced the manure, because then, he argues, it is as if he did not create the Bor.
What Mashal did Ravina present to illustrate this?

(d) Mar Zutra B'rei de'Rav Mari disagrees. This case is worse he says, because when he picked up the manure, the original pit no longer existed. What Mashal did he present to prove his point?

(a) In any event, we are left with a discrepancy in Rebbi Elazar.
How does Rav Ashi now establish the Mishnah (of 'ha'Hofech es ha'Galal') in order to reconcile Rebbi Elazar's statement there with his other statement where he holds 'Mafkir Nezakav Chayav'?

(b) Despite the fact that he did not lift up the manure three Tefachim, he is subsequently Chayav if someone hurts himself on it, because by picking it up, he acquired it, in which case, it was *his* manure that did the damage. How does one acquire something, if one does not lift it up three Tefachim?

(c) What prompts Rebbi Elazar to establish the Mishnah when he did not lift up the manure three Tefachim, forcing him to add that he specifically intended to acquire it? Why does he not establish it when he lifted it up more than three Tefachim, in which case he will be Chayav even if he did not intend to acquire it?

(d) How must we therefore establish Rebbi Yochanan with regard to Mafkir Nezakav?

(a) What does our Mishnah say about someone who hides a thorn or a piece of glass in the street or who makes a fence of thorns bordering the street?

(b) What is the third case mentioned by the Tana?

(c) How does Rebbi Yochanan qualify the case of a fence of thorns? Under which circumstances would one be Patur?

(d) On what grounds do we initially think that he is Patur? What problem does that leave us with?

(a) We refute this suggestion however, by insisting that Rebbi Yochanan holds Mafkir Nezakav Patur.
Then how can he also exempt Metzamtzem? If it is not due to the fact that he holds that the Bor which the Torah obligates is the Reshus ha'Rabim (and not by Hifkir Reshuso ve'Lo Hifkir Boro), then why is it?

(b) What does the (S'tam) Mishnah in 'Shor she'Nagach es ha'Parah' say about someone who digs a pit in the Reshus ha'Rabim?

(c) What does this force us to conclude concerning the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Elazar regarding 'Mafkir Nezakav'?

(d) How will we reconcile this with Rebbi Elazar's quotation from Rebbi Yishmael, who holds that a pit that one dug in the Reshus ha'Rabim is considered as if it was his (and he is liable for all subsequent damages), even though it is not?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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