(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 39


(a) What distinction does the Tana draw between the Shor Tam of a Pike'ach which gored that of a 'Chashu' and the Shor Tam of a 'Chashu' which gored that of a Pike'ach?

(b) What is the reason for this latter ruling?

(c) How do we know that it is not because it is a K'nas, and Yesomim are not subject to K'nasos?

(d) The Nizak may however, claim damages from a 'Chashu' if a Shor Mu'ad belonging to him caused the damage.
Bearing in mind that a Tam can only become a Mu'ad if the owner has been warned three times (and this is not possible in the case of a 'Chashu'), how does the ox of a 'Chashu' become a Mu'ad?

(a) According to Rebbi Meir, should the 'Cheresh recover, the Shoteh become normal or the Katan grow up, the ox regains its status of Tam.
Why is that?

(b) What does Rebbi Yossi say?

(c) What is a 'Shor ha'Itztadin'?

(d) What do we learn (with regard to a Shor ha'Itztadin) from the Pasuk "Ki Yigach Shor ... "?

(a) How does Rava reconcile the Reisha of our Mishnah, which clearly holds that one cannot appoint an Apotropus to claim from the Shor Tam of a 'Chashu', with the Seifa, which specifically talks about appointing a guardian?

(b) According to Rebbi Yochanan, should the ox of the Yesomim gore after it has become a Mu'ad, it is the Yesomim who are obligated to pay.
What does Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina say?

(c) According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav Asi, if someone claims from (young) Yesomim, Beis-Din will not even open the case, even if the claimant comes with a Sh'tar against their deceased father.
What is the reason for this?

(d) What is the one exception to this? What would the status of the claimaint need to be for Beis-Din to open the case?

(a) Rebbi Yochanan adds one exception to that of Rav Yehudah Amar Rav Asi. What is it?

(b) How do we reconcile the two contradictory statements of Rebbi Yochanan (bearing in mind that a moment ago, he said that it is possible to claim damages from Yesomim)?

(c) On what grounds do we reject this answer? Why will establishing Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina as the one who says 'me'Aliyas Yesomim' merely be jumping out of the frying-pan into the fire?

(a) So we leave the Machlokes as it was.
Why does Rebbi Yochanan then hold 'me'Aliyas Apotropus'? What makes this case an exception?

(b) Why is Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina not worried that nobody will volunteer to become an Apotropus (like Rebbi Yochanan is)?

(c) On what grounds do we make the Apotropus pay out of his own pocket in the interim?

Answers to questions



(a) The Beraisa quotes Rebbi Yehudah ben Nekusa Amar Sumchus who says (with regard to the ox of a Pike'ach who became a Cheresh or a Shoteh, or if its owner went overseas) 'Harei Hu be'Tamuso ad she'Ya'idu Bo bi'F'nei ha'Ba'alim'.
What do the Chachamim say?

(b) Why can Sumchus not mean that Beis-Din do not accept witnesses at all, even to warn the ox (so that it should become a Mu'ad)?

(c) Then what *does* he mean? What is the basis of their Machlokes?

(d) In the Seifa, Rebbi Yehudah ben Nekusa Amar Sumchus rules that if the Cheresh is cured ... , the ox reverts to becoming a Tam.
What does Rebbi Yossi say? What is the basis of their Machlokes?

(a) What did the Tana of the Beraisa really mean when he said 'Shor Chashu she'Nagach, Rebbi Ya'akov Meshalem Chatzi Nezek'?

(b) Why can the Beraisa not be referring to a Tam?

(c) What is the problem with the Beraisa if it is referring to a Mu'ad?

(d) So Rava establishes Rebbi Ya'akov like Rebbi Yehudah, who holds in a Mishnah later that a Mu'ad does not require a good Shemirah.
Then why is he obligated to pay Chatzi Nezek?

(a) What does Rebbi Ya'akov hold with regard to 'Ma'amadin Apotropus le'Tam Li'gvos mi'Gufo'?

(b) In another Beraisa, Rebbi Yehudah renders the ox of a 'Chashu' liable, to which Rebbi Ya'akov responds 'Chatzi Nezek'.
What does Abaye ask on Rava from this Beraisa?

(c) How does Rabah bar Ula refute Abaye's Kashya? How does he establish the Beraisa?

(a) Abaye however, maintains that Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Ya'akov do argue. He establishes the Beraisa when the owner did not guard his ox at all, and Rebbi Yehudah's opinion is based on two principles. One of them, is 'Ma'amidin Lahen Apotropus le'Tam ... '.
What is the other principle?

(b) How will this explain Rebbi Yehudah?

(c) What does Rebbi Ya'akov hold? With which principle of Rebbi Yehudah does he disagree?

(a) Rav Acha B'rei de'Abaye asked Ravina why Rava needed to establish the first Beraisa ('Shor Chashu she'Nagach, Rebbi Ya'akov Meshalem Chatzi Nezek) by a Mu'ad.
In order to establish it by a Tam, what sort of Shemirah would he have had to make, according to ...
  1. ... Rebbi Yehudah?
  2. ... Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov?
(b) And that will explain why the Tana said 'Chatzi Nezek'.
What would we have thought had he just said 'Rebbi Ya'akov Mechayev' and stopped?

(c) What did Ravina reply? Why *does* Rava prefer to establish the Beraisa by a Mu'ad?

(a) According to Ravina, Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Ya'akov argue over 'Reshus Meshaneh'.
Which Beraisa is he referring to?

(b) What is the case?

(c) What will each Tana then hold?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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