(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 32


(a) Rabah bar Nasan asked Rav Huna whether a man who injures his wife during Tashmish is liable or not.
If he is Patur because he is acting within his rights, why might he be liable?

(b) How does Rava counter Rav Huna, who cited our Mishnah 'she'la'Zeh Reshus Lehalech, ve'la'Zeh Reshus Lehalech' to prove that he should be Patur?

(c) How does Rava then explain the difference between the man with the beam and the husband? Why is the former Patur, and the latter, liable?

(d) And how will he reconcile this with the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "ve'Nichresu ha'Nefashos *ha'Osos* ... ", indicating that the woman too, is considered as having performed an act?

(a) We have already discussed Resh Lakish, who absolves the owner of the cow which kicked another cow that was crouching in the street. What does he say in a case where the crouching cow kicked the one that was walking past?

(b) On what grounds do we reject the proof for this from our Mishnah, which obligates the man with the beam to pay, in the event that he stopped suddenly and the man with the barrel crashed into him? What do we say beyond the fact that it is no proof?

(c) How do we establish our Mishnah in order to refute this Kashya on Resh Lakish?

(a) How do we prove the first part of Resh Lakish's statement from the Seifa of our Mishnah, which absolves the man with the beam if the man with the barrel who was walking in front of him stopped abruptly?

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

(a) What does the Tana of our Mishnah say in a case where two people were walking in the street or one person was walking and one, running?

(b) And what does he say if they were both running?

(c) We try to establish our Mishnah not like Isi ben Yehudah.
What does Isi say in a Beraisa about someone who is running in the street? (d) How does this clash with Rebbi Yochanan, who rules like Isi?

(a) How do we reconcile Isi with our Mishnah, automatically solving the problem with Rebbi Yochanan too?

(b) How do we prove this answer from the Seifa of the Mishnah 'O she'Hayu Sheneihem Ratzin'?

(c) This in turn, is based on Rebbi Chanina.
What did ...

  1. ... Rebbi Chanina used to say every Erev Shabbos at dusk?
  2. ... Amri Lah add to Rebbi Chanina?
(d) And what did Rebbi Yanai used to say after donning his Talis when Shabbos came in?
Answers to questions



(a) What does the Tana of our Mishnah say about a person who is chopping wood in the Reshus ha'Yachid and a chunk flies into the Reshus ha'Rabim or vice-versa and kills someone?

(b) What is the third case in the Mishnah?

(c) Having taught us that the chopper is liable if the wood fies from ...

  1. ... the Reshus ha'Yachid to the Reshus ha'Rabim, why did the Tana find it necessary to add the reverse case?
  2. ... the Reshus ha'Rabim to the Reshus ha'Yachid, why did he find it necessary to add the reverse case?
  3. ... the Reshus ha'Yachid to the Reshus ha'Rabim or vice-versa, why did he find it necessary to add the case where the wood flies from one Reshus ha'Yachid to another?
(a) The Beraisa states that someone who enters a carpenter's shop without permission and is struck in the face by a flying chunk of wood and dies, the carpenter is Patur.
How does Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina interpret the Seifa 've'Im Nichnas bi'Reshus, Chayav'?

(b) Why did he refer to four things and not five?

(c) On what grounds does Rabah refute Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina's original reason for exempting him from Galus 'because it is not comparable to the case of forest' (since there the murdered man entered his own domain, whereas here, he entered the domain of the carpenter)?

(d) So how does Rava interpret Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina? On what grounds does he exempt the carpenter from Galus?

(a) What problem do we have with Rava's explanation, from the Beraisa, which sentences the Sheli'ach Beis-Din who added one lash to the maximum number that the sinner could take, to Galus?

(b) Why did Rava tap Rav Shimi from Neherda'a with his shoe (or on his shoe) when he suggested that the Sheli'ach Beis-Din erred in the counting?

(c) What role does the Tana of another Beraisa ascribe to each of the three Dayanim regarding the administering of Malkus?

(d) What problem do we have with Rava's explanation, from the Beraisa which sentences a person who throws a stone into the street and kills someone is to Galus?

(a) On what grounds do we reject the suggestion ...
  1. ... of Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak, who establishes the Beraisa when the owner was actually demolishing the wall, either by day or by night?
  2. ... that the Tana is speaking when he was demolishing his wall during the day, and throwing his stones into a trash-heap that was commonly frequented?
  3. ... that the Tana is speaking when he was demolishing his wall during the day, and throwing his stones into a trash-heap that was not commonly frequented at all?
(b) How does Rav Papa finally establish the Beraisa?
(a) Rav Papa quoting Rava cites Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina's statement with regard to the *Reisha* of the Beraisa ('ha'Nichnas le'Chanuso shel Nagar she'Lo bi'Reshus ... Patur').
What does Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah comment on this?

(b) Why, according to Rav Papa Amar Rava, will Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah not pertain to the Seifa ('Nichnas bi'Reshus ... Chayav')?

(c) In view of what we have just learned, how do we establish the Beraisa which exempts the carpenter, even if the murdered man entered with permission.

(a) On what basis are we more lenient with the carpenter's apprentice than with anybody else? Does this mean that a carpenter is permitted to kill his apprentice?

(b) We answer that the carpenter thought that he had left.
Why can we not say the same with regard to anybody else?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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