(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 43


(a) Rabah holds that if the creditor's heirs claimed Karka, the Bechor receives a double portion, but not if they claimed money.
Why is that?

(b) What does Rav Nachman say?

(c) Bearing this in mind, what is the problem with Rabah and Rav Nachman who just established the case in the Beraisa (where it is the woman's heirs who inherit her Nezek and Tza'ar and not her husband) by a divorcee?

(a) To answer the previous Kashya, we establish Rabah and Rav Nachman like the B'nei Ma'arva according to the Rabbanan.
What do they say about a Bechor taking double portion in the Ribis that is included in a Sh'tar Chov of their father's?

(b) What is the basis of this Din?

(c) In our Sugya however, Rabah and Rav Nachman are explaining the Beraisa like Rebbi.
What does Rebbi say?

(d) Will a Bechor or a husband receive a double portion in the Kofer left to them on the death of the father or the wife respectively, according to Rebbi?

(a) Is someone who meant to kill an animal and inadvertently killed a person, Chayav?

(b) From where do we know that the same Din applies in the equivalent case by an ox?

(c) What does Resh Lakish learn ...

  1. ... from the Pasuk "Kesef Sheloshim Shekalim Yiten la'Adonav, ve'ha'Shor Yisakel"?
  2. ... from this, with regard to an ox that killed an Eved unintentionally?
(a) What does Rabah learn from the Pasuk "ha'Shor Yisakel, ve'Gam Be'alav Yumas. Im Kofer Yushas Alav"?

(b) Why is an ox that killed someone not stoned on the admission of the owner?

(c) What can we extrapolate from Rebbi Eliezer, who said earlier (in connection with Naki me'Chatzi Kofer) 'Ein Diyni Ela be'Miskaven La'harog es ha'Beheimah ... ', that clashes with Rabah?

(d) How can Rabah argue with Rebbi Eliezer?

(a) What Kashya can we ask on Rabah from the Beraisa which obligates the owner to pay on his own admission?

(b) We answer that we are talking here about paying Damim, not Kofer.
What does this mean?

(c) If one is Chayav to pay Damim anyway, then what is the point in telling us that he is Patur from Kofer?

(a) The Beraisa continues 'Heimis Shori es Avdo shel P'loni, Eino Meshalem al-Pi Atzmo'.
Why does this appear to clash with our current interpretation of the Reisha?

(b) Why did Rabah not want to answer that the Reisha speaks about Damim, and the Seifa, about the basic Chiyuv of K'nas?

(c) In fact, Rabah establishes the Seifa by Damim, too, and to resolve the discrepancy, he cites a basic difference between Kofer in the Reisha and K'nas in the Seifa. In which case will the owner pay Kofer by his own admission (in addition, to causing the ox to be stoned), whereas in the identical case of K'nas, he will be Patur from paying (even though the ox is stoned)?

(d) How does Rabah now use this distinction to explain the Beraisa?

Answers to questions



(a) The Beraisa says 'Kol she'Chayav be'Ben Chorin, Chayav be'Eved, Bein be'Kofer Bein be'Miysah'.
What is the problem with the term 'Bein be'Kofer'?

(b) We answer that Kofer in this case means 'Damim'.
What Kashya does this pose on the Beraisa that we learned earlier (distinguishing between a ben Chorin and an Eved)?

(c) According to some, Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah, who asked the Kashya, gave the answer; according to others, it was Rabah who established it by K'nas. What is the basic difference whether the Tana is speaking about Damim or K'nas?

(d) What Halachah is the Tana now teaching us? In which case is one Patur from paying both Kofer and K'nas, but Chayav Damim?

(a) What did Rava ask on Rabah from 'Isho she'Lo be'Kavanah'?

(b) Rava takes for granted that 'Isho she'Lo be'Kavanah' is Patur.
We try to prove it from the Mishnah in ha'Kon'es, regarding someone who sets fire to a haystack.
What does the Tana there rule in a case where a kid-goat got burned ...

  1. ... whilst it was tied to the burning haystack, as did an Eved who was loose?
  2. ... that was loose, but the Eved was tied to the haystack?
(c) Assuming that Patur in the Seifa refers to both the Eved and the kid-goat, why is he Patur ...
  1. ... on the Eved?
  2. ... on the kid-goat?
(d) Why does Rava decline to learn that he is Patur only on the kid, because of Kam Leih be'de'Rabah Mineih?
(a) We reject the proof however (that this Mishnah is a source for the P'tur of 'Isho she'Lo be'Kavanah'), by citing Resh Lakish.
How does *he* interpret 'Patur' in the Seifa of the Mishnah under discussion?

(b) We refute the proof that 'Isho she'Lo be'Kavanah is Patur' from the Beraisa 'Chomer ba'Eish mi'be'Bor ... ', which omits the distinction that Eish pays Damim she'Lo be'Kavanah, whilst Bor does not.
Why not?

(c) How do we refute the proof from there?

(d) Why is there no Damim by Eish be'Kavanah?

(a) We therefore conclude that, based on Rabah's Chidush (that Shor she'Lo be'Kavanah pays Damim) Rava meant to ask whether Eish too pays Damim, or not.
What are the two sides to Rava's She'eilah? Why, on the one hand ...
  1. ... might he not have to pay?
  2. ... might he have to pay?
(b) What is the outcome of Rava's She'eilah?
(a) When Rav Dimi arrived in Bavel from Eretz Yisrael, what did he learn in the name of Rebbi Yochanan, from the Pasuk "Im Kofer ... "?

(b) Abaye asked him that, in that case, why should we not Darshen the same from the Pasuk "*Im Eved* Yigach ha'Shor".
How do we refute the objection to this on the grounds that Resh Lakish has already exempted Eved she'Lo be'Kavanah?

(c) What did Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan teach when *he* arrived in Bavel from Eretz Yisrael?

(d) Even Resh Lakish, who does not Darshen "Eved", "Im Eved", might Darshen "Kofer", "Im Kofer", because it is written where the Torah speaks about payment.
Where is "Im Eved" then written? What reason is that, not to Darshen "Eved", "Im Eved"?

(a) The Torah writes in Emor "ve'Ish Ki Yakeh Kol Nefesh Adam".
What do we learn from ...
  1. ... "Kol Nefesh Adam"?
  2. ... "ve'Ish"?
(b) Based on these D'rashos, why does the Tana initially think that it should not be necessary to write "O Ben Yigach O Bas Yigach" to include an ox that gored a child in the Din of Miysah ...
  1. ... due to a 'Mah Matzinu' from Adam be'Adam?
  2. ... due to a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Adam be'Adam?
(c) On what grounds do we refute both the 'Mah Matzinu' and the 'Kal va'Chomer'? What Chumra does Adam be'Adam have over Shor be'Adam?
Answers to questions

Next daf


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