(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 40


(a) We have learned in a Beraisa that, even though Apotropsin must pay for damages out of their own pockets, they are exempt from Kofer.
Why is that?

(b) In another Beraisa, what does the Tana Kama learn from the Pasuk (in connection with a Mu'ad that kills a person) "ve'Nasan Pidyon Nafsho"?

(c) What does Rebbi Yishmael the son of Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah say?

(a) Rav Chisda suggests that the author of the first Beraisa is Rebbi Yishmael the son of Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah.
How does he interpret the Machlokes Ta'ana'im in the second Beraisa?

(b) Rav Papa rejects Rav Chisda's suggestion, establishing the first Beraisa even like the Tana Kama.
How does *he* interpret the Machlokes?

(c) The Tana Kama bases his opinion on the Gezeirah-Shavah "Shisah" ("Im Kofer Yushas Alav") "Shisah" ("ke'Chol Asher Yuhas Alav").
In what context is the second Pasuk written?

(d) According to Rebbi Yishmael ... the Pasuk "ve'Nasan Pidyon Nafsho" (implying the Nefesh of the Mazik) takes preference over the Gezeirah-Shavah.
How does the Tana Kama counter this?

(a) How did Rav Nachan respond when Rava boasted about Rav Acha bar Ya'akov's greatness?

(b) When Rava obeyed and brought Rav Acha before him, what did he ask Rav Nachman about a Shor of two partners which killed a person?

(c) Why did he not have a problem with the equivalent case by Nezek?

(a) Rav Acha then asked Rav Nachman a second She'eilah in connection with a Mishnah in Erchin. What does the Tana there mean when he says 'Chayvei Erchin Memashkenin Osam'?

(b) On what grounds does he differentiate between Chayvei Erchin and Chayvei Chata'os and Ashamos (by precluding the latter from the treasurer's right to claim)? Why in the latter case, does he hold 'Ein Memashkenin Osam'?

(c) What She'eilah did he therefore ask Rav Nachman regarding Chayvei Kofer?

(d) How did Rav Nachman respond to this She'eilah?

(a) In a case where Reuven borrows an ox from Shimon on the understanding that it as a Tam, and after turning out to be a Mu'ad, it subsequently gores in Reuven's domain, the Tana of the Beraisa obligates Reuven to share the costs with Shimon.
What does he rule in the Seifa, where the ox became a Mu'ad before Reuven returned it and it subsequently gored again?

(b) Why, in the Reisha, can Reuven not claim that ...

  1. ... he borrowed an ox, and not 'a lion'?
  2. ... he borrowed a Tam and not a Mu'ad?
  3. ... even if he had had to pay for the Tam's damages, it would have been out of the body of the ox, but not out of his own pocket?
(c) On what grounds do we nevertheless remain with a query on the Reisha (as it stands), according to ...
  1. ... the Halachah that 'Palga Nizka K'nasa'?
  2. ... those who hold 'Palga Nizka Mamona'?
Answers to questions



(a) How do we finally establish the Reisha of the Beraisa, to avoid the problem of Reuven admitting and being Patur or of his letting the ox loose in the marshes.

(b) In that case, why is Shimon then Chayav to pay for half the damages? Why can he not then claim that ...

  1. ... Reuven should have returned the ox to him, and not allowed it to fall into the hands of the Nizak?
  2. ... had the ox been in his possession, *he* would have let it loose in the marshes?
(c) This is a valid argument assuming that Shimon has money with which to pay. What if he does not?

(d) What does Rebbi Nasan learn from the Pasuk in Naso "ve'Nasan la'Asher Asham Lo"?

(a) We learned in the Seifa of the Beraisa, where the ox became a Mu'ad before Reuven returned it and it subsequently gored again - that Shimon pays Chatzi Nezek, whilst Reuven pays nothing.
According to Rebbi Yochanan, why does Shimon not pay full damages?

(b) Why does he then establish two different authors for the two sections of the Beraisa?

(c) According to Rabah, both sections of the Beraisa hold 'Reshus Einah Meshaneh'.
How does he then explain the Seifa, which obligates Shimon to pay only Chatzi Nezek?

(d) Rav Papa takes the opposite view. If, as he maintains, the Beraisa holds 'Reshus Meshaneh', then why, in the Reisha, does the ox remain a Mu'ad in the domain of the borrower?

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that a Shor ha'Itztadin is not Chayav Miysah. According to Rav, it is Kasher to go on the Mizbe'ach.
Why is that?

(b) What does Shmuel say?

(a) The Tana Kama of a Beraisa precludes an animal that raped or that was raped from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Min ha'Beheimah", an animal that was worshipped in the name of idolatry from "min ha'Bakar", a Muktzah (dedicated to the worship of idolatry) from "Min ha'Tzon".
What does he preclude from the "Vav" of "u'Min ha'Tzon"?

(b) What is 'a Muktzah' animal?

(c) Why does an animal that raped, that was raped or that killed a person, require a Pasuk to disqualify it from the Mizbe'ach? Why is it not Pasul anyway because it has to be killed?

(d) What problem does Rebbi Shimon have with 'Noge'ach' and 'Rove'a'?

(a) What leniency does ...
  1. ... Noge'ach have over Rove'a?
  2. ... Rove'a have over Noge'ach?
(b) How do we know that the P'sul of Rove'a applies even to an O'nes?
(a) How do we try and disprove Shmuel (who said that an animal that gored be'Ones is Pasul to go on the Mizbe'ach), from the first of the two previous distinctions of Rebbi Shimon?

(b) How do we resolve Shmuel with the Beraisa? What is Rebbi Shimon referring to when he says that Rove'a is not Chayav be'O'nes like Ratzon?

(c) What does Rebbi Shimon now learn from a Noge'ach be'Ones?

(d) How do we substantiate this interpretation? Why is our original one unacceptable?

(a) In the second of the above distinctions, Rebbi Shimon said that O'nes pays Kofer whereas Rove'a does not.
What problem do we have with this assuming that ...
  1. ... the animal killed the person with the Revi'ah?
  2. ... the person did not actually die?
(b) Abaye replies that the person was subsequently killed in Beis-Din.
How does that answer the Kashya?

(c) Rava establishes the Beraisa when the animal did kill the person with the Revi'ah.
Then how does he answer the Kashya? What is the difference between killing him with its horns and killing him through Revi'ah?

(d) What has this to do with an animal that walked over a child in the street and killed it?

13) What does the Beraisa say to substantiate Rav's opinion regarding bringing a bull-fighting ox on the Mizbe'ach?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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