(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 35


(a) We just established our Mishnah when the ox wanted the fire just like the man did.
How will we know that?

(b) How do we know that such a thing is possible? What did that donkey with toothache that belonged to Rav Papa do?

(c) What problem do we have with establishing the ox similar to the man from the Din in the Mishnah 'Shoro she'Biyesh Patur, ve'Hu she'Biyesh Chayav'?

(a) Initially, we answer this Kashya by reinterpreting 'Niskaven le'Vayesh', according to the Sugya in 'Keitzad ha'Regel'.
What does 'Niskaven le'Vayesh' really mean?

(b) Rava answers the Kashya by citing Tana de'Bei Chizkiyah.
What does Tana de'Bei Chizkiyah learn from the Pasuk in Emor, which compares "Makeh Adam" to "Makeh Beheimah"?

(c) If the Hekesh teaches us that even Shogeg and Eino Miskaven is Patur from paying, what is the significance of 'Bein Derech Yeridah le'Derech Aliyah'? What makes one more obvious than the other?

(d) How does Rava then interpret the Lashon of our Mishnah 'Mipnei she'Hu Nadun (or Mischayev) be'Nafsho'?

(a) What does the Tana of our Mishnah rule in a case where an ox that was being chased by another ox ended up being injured, if the owner of the injured ox blames the ox that was chasing it, where the owner of the latter counters that it hurt itself on a rock?

(b) And what does the Tana say in the equivalent case, but where the injured ox had been chased not by one, but by two oxen (where we know for sure that the ox was by killed by one of them)?

(c) Under which circumstances would the latter be liable to pay?

Answers to questions



(a) The Mishnah discusses a case where one of the two oxen that had been chasing the ox that was killed, was a big ox or a Mu'ad and the other one, a small ox or a Tam, and the Nizak now claims that it was the big ox or the Mu'ad that caused the damage, whereas the Mazik argues that it was the small ox or the Tam.
What difference does it make whether the damage was caused by ...
  1. ... the big ox or the small one?
  2. ... the Mu'ad or the Tam?
(b) What does the Tana rule in this case?

(c) What is the final set of cases in the Mishnah?

(d) What does the Tana rule there?

(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba points out that the author of our Mishnah cannot be Sumchus.
What would Sumchus say in all the cases in our Mishnah?

(b) Rebbi Aba bar Mamal asked Rebbi Chiya bar Aba whether Sumchus issued his ruling even in a case of Bari u'Bari (where both the claimant and the defendant state their case with certainty).
What was his reply?

(c) How does Rebbi Chiya bar Aba know that our Mishnah is speaking even when the Mazik is Bari (we are not really concerned with the Nizak as we shall now see)?

(d) Does this mean that, according to Sumchus, every claimant receives half his claim? Does Sumchus not hold of Chazakah?

(a) Assuming that the entire Mishnah speaks by Bari u'Bari, Rav Papa asks from the Seifa on Rabah bar Nasan, who says that if Reuven admits that he owes Shimon barley when Shimon has claimed wheat, he is Patur. Why is that?

(b) What Kashya does Rav Papa ask from the Seifa of our Mishnah ('Hayah Echad Gadol ve'Echad Katan ... ', which is really the Metzi'a) on Rabah bar Nasan? What would he say in those cases?

(c) So we are forced to learn the Seifa by Bari ve'Shema.
Who is the Bari and who is the Shema?

(d) How do we know that it is not the other way round?

(a) Having concluded that the Seifa speaks when the Nizak is Shema, and the Mazik, Bari, why can the Reisha not speak likewise?

(b) So how do we establish the Reisha?

(c) Since the Reisha and the Seifa are not similar anyway, why can Rebbi Chiya bar Aba then not establish the Reisha by Bari u'Bari (only), like he did initially?

(a) In light of the Mishnah in Shevu'os 'Ta'ano Chitin ve'Hodeh Lo bi'Se'orim Patur', what is Rabah bar Nasan coming to teach us? How might we interpret the Mishnah in a way that renders his statement necessary?

(b) In the first case in the Seifa 'Hayu ha'Nizakin Shenayim, Echad Gadol ve'Echad Katan ... ', our Mishnah rules 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro, Alav ha'Re'ayah'.
What do we initially infer from there? What will happen in the event that he does bring a proof?

(c) How do we reconcile this with Rabah bar Nasan?

(d) And how do we reconcile this answer with the Beraisa, which specifically states 'Harei Zeh Mishtalem al ha'Katan min ha'Gadol u'le'Gadol min ha'Katan'?

(a) We ask the same two Kashyos on Rabah bar Nasan from the second case 'Hayah Echad Tam ve'Echad Mu'ad ... '.
How do we answer them?

(b) Why do we not answer these Kashyos by establishing the case by Bari ve'Shema, like we did in the Reisha and the Metzi'a of the Mishnah?

(c) And why did Rabah bar Nasan not establish the Reisha and the Metzi'a by Bari u'Bari, and when the Tana says 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro ... ', there too, he means to say that in the event that he does bring a proof, he ought to get, but doesn't (because of Rabah bar Nasan's Din)?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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