(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 41

BAVA KAMA 41 - Sponsored by the generous contributions of an anonymous donor in Manchester, England. May he be blessed with a Kesivah va'Chasimah Tovah, and a year of physical and spiritual growth and prosperity.


(a) The Tana of our Mishnah discusses Kofer.
Is a Tam that kills a person ...
  1. ... Chayav to pay Kofer?
  2. ... Patur from Miysah?
(b) With regard to the Chiyuv Miysah, will it make any difference whether the ox killed a grown-up who is Chayav to keep the Mitzvos or a Katan, who is not.

(c) How much must the owner of an ox pay, for killing an Eved worth ...

  1. ... a hundred Manah pay?
  2. ... one Dinar?
(a) We ask how an animal can ever be a Mu'ah le'Adam, seeing as it must be put to death after the first killing.
What objection does Rav Ashi raise to Rabah's answer that it is possible when the animal chased three people and Beis-Din assessed that it would have killed them had it caught them?

(b) Rav Ashi himself answers 'K'gon she'Siken li'Sheloshah B'nei Adam'. What does he mean by that?

(c) We reject the answer of Rav Z'vid (that it becomes a Mu'ad by killing three animals) on the grounds that a Mu'ad for animals is not a Mu'ad for people, as we learned above.
On what grounds do we reject the answer of ...

  1. ... Rav Shimi (that it first killed three Nochrim)?
  2. ... Resh Lakish (that it first killed three T'reifos)?
(d) Rav Papa establishes a Mu'ad le'Adam when it is simply not physically possible to kill it.
To which case is he referring?
(a) Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ika answers that the Zomemei Zomemin themselves became Zomemin.
What does he mean?

(b) This is only clear-cut however, according to those who only require the Mazik ox to be warned, but according to those who require the owner to be warned, there is a problem.
What is the problem?

(c) How do we establish the case to resolve this problem? What additional information will the final witnesses have to provide?

(a) According to Ravina, it is possible to find a Mu'ad le'Adam in a case where the witnesses were able to identify the owner's herd, but not the individual ox.
On what grounds is the owner then Chayav? Seeing as he did not know which animal gored the first three times, what should he have done?

(b) How did any one specific animal then become Mu'ad?

(a) What does the Tana learn from the Pasuk (in connection with an ox that killed a person) ...
  1. ... "ve'Lo Ye'achel es Besaro"?
  2. ... "u'Ba'al ha'Shor Naki"?
(b) In this light, how does ben Zoma explain the phrase "u'Ba'al ha'Shor Naki"?

(c) Why does the Tana decline to explain the Pasuk literally (with regard to an ox that was stoned?

(a) How does Rebbi Avuhu Amar Rebbi Elazar interpret "Lo Ye'achel", "Lo Sochal" and "Lo Sochlu" wherever they occur?

(b) How does he extrapolate this from the Pasuk (written in connection with Neveilah) "la'Ger Asher bi'She'arecha Titnenah va'Achalah"?

(c) That being the case, why does the Tana not establish "ve'Lo Ye'achel es Besaro" with regard to a prohibition forbidding Hana'ah from an ox that was stoned (but permitting it if it is Shechted)?

(d) How do we know to split Rebi Avuhu's Din in this way?

(a) Alternatively, how might we learn it from "Lo Ye'achel *es Besaro*"?

(b) We suggest that "ve'Lo Ye'achel es Besaro" might pertain specifically to where the animal was Shechted with a sharp piece of rock, but not to where it was Shechted with a knife.
What is the basis for such a suggestion?

(c) But we refute this on the basis of a Mishnah in Chulin.
What does the Tana say there about someone who Shechts with a scythe, a sharp piece of rock or a a reed?

(d) What have we proved with this Mishnah? How does that repudiate the revious suggestion?

Answers to questions



(a) Having concluded that we learn both the prohibition to eat a 'Shor ha'Niskal' that was Shechted and to derive benefit from it, from "ve'Lo Ye'achel es Besaro", what do we learn from "u'Ba'al ha'Shor Naki"?

(b) We will shortly discuss the opinions of other Tana'im who learn other things from "u'Ba'al ha'Shor Naki".
How do they learn Hana'as Oro from "es Besaro"?

(c) Our Tana is Shimon ha'Amsuni or Nechemyah ha'Amsuni, who does not Darshen the word "es" wherever it appears in the Torah.
What made him retract from all the 'esin' that he had Darshened up to that point?

(d) What did he reply when they asked him what he would do with the numerous D'rashos he had made up to that point?

(a) Who is the Tana who argues with Shimon ha'Amsuni?

(b) What does *he* learn from the "es" in "es Hashem Elokecha Tiyra"?

(a) Rebbi Eliezer in a Beraisa learns from "u'Ba'al ha'Shor Naki", 'Naki me'Chatzi Kofer'.
To what is he referring?

(b) On what grounds does Rebbi Akiva object to Rebbi Eliezer's D'rashah?

(c) How does Rebbi Eliezer counter this objection?

(d) How can he establish the case when the owner admitted to his ox having gored the person? Why does this not contravene the principle 'Modeh bi'K'nas Patur'?

(a) Does one put to death an animal that meant to kill another animal, but inadvertently killed a person, or that meant to kill a Nochri and inadvertently killed a Yisrael?

(b) What is the third case mentioned by Rebbi Eliezer in the Beraisa?

(c) Why do we quote this Beraisa?

(d) Why is the Beraisa of 'Miskaven' considered a bigger Chidush than that of 'Eid Echad'?

12) Regarding the question which answer did Rebbi Eliezer give Rebbi Akiva first, Rav Kahana says in the name of Rava 'Miskaven, whereas Rav Tivyomi said in the name of Rava 'Heimis' ('Eid Echad'). Each of them gave a Mashal to support his opinion.

What Mashal did ...

  1. ... Rav Kahana give?
  2. ... Rav Tivyomi give?
Answers to questions

Next daf


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