(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 44


(a) The Pasuk "O Ben Yigach O Bas Yigach" is written by a Mu'ad. How do we initially try to extend the Chiyuv for goring a child to a Tam from a 'Mah Matzinu'?

(b) We then add a 'Kal va'Chomer', on the grounds that if, when an animal gores a man or a woman, 'whose strength is weak by Nezikin', thse Torah does not differentiate between a Tam and a Mu'ad, then it should certainly not differentiate by a young boy or girl, 'whose strength is strong by Nezikin'.
What does this mean?

(c) From where do we know that a child who injures a gown-up is Patur?

(d) What is wrong with ...

  1. ... the 'Mah Matzinu'?
  2. ... the 'Kal va'Chomer'?
(a) On what grounds do we reject the explanation that the first Pircha ('ve'Chi Danin Kal me'Chamur ... ') is a Pircha on the 'Kal va'Chomer, too?

(b) From where do we finally learn the Chiyuv of a Tam that gores a child?

(a) Our Mishnah exempts an ox that intended to kill another ox but inadvertently killed a person, that intended to kill a Nochri, but killed a Yisrael, or that intended to kill a Nefel, but killed a healthy baby.
Which is the first case in the Mishnah that the Tana exempts?

(b) The animal is not stoned, says Shmuel, but the owner is Chayav to pay Kofer.
What does Rav say?

(c) What is his reason?

(a) We ask why Rav even needs to Darshen "Im Kofer", and why Shmuel actually obligates the ox that was scratching ... .
What is the problem?

(b) In a similar case, where the ox is Chayav Sekilah for falling into a pit and killing someone inside it, Rav establishes the case when it jumped into the pit because it saw some vegetables there.
What is the problem with establishing our case too, when the ox became a Mu'ad by constantly scratching against walls and knocking them down on people?

(c) We answer that here too, the ox scratched against the wall (not in order to knock it down on the people who happened to be standing next to it, but) because its back was itching.
How do we know that?

(d) We ask that the owner should nevertheless be Patur from Kofer, seeing as the damage occurred through Tzeroros, and the Torah only obligates Kofer that occurred through the body of the ox.
What does Rav Mari B'rei de'Rav Kahana reply to this?

Answers to questions



(a) All computations regarding the Chiyuv and P'tur of Miysah and Kofer are possible. Mu'ad be'Kavanah is Chayav by both.
What does the Tana say about ...
  1. ... Mu'ad she'Lo be'Kavanah"?
  2. ... Tam be'Kavanah?
  3. ... Tam she'Lo be'Kavanah?
(b) For whom is this Beraisa a proof?
(a) Rebbi Yehudah obligates an ox to pay for damage she'Lo be'Kavanah.
What is his source for this?

(b) And what is Rebbi Shimon's source for exempting him?

(c) Why does Rebbi Yehudah learn from Kofer and not from 'Miysas ha'Shor'?

(d) And why does Rebbi Shimon learn from the death of the ox and not from Kofer?

(a) What can we extrapolate from our Mishnah, which exempts an ox that meant to kill another ox but inadvertently killed a person from stoning?

(b) Our Mishnah does not conform with the opinion of Rebbi Shimon.
What does Rebbi Shimon learn from the Pasuk ...

  1. ... in Shoftim "ve'Arav Lo ve'Kam Alav"?
  2. ... "ha'Shor Yisakel, ve'Gam Be'alav Yumas"?
(c) What do the Rabbanan hold with regard to 'Niskaven La'harog es Zeh ve'Harag es Zeh'?

(d) Rebbi Yanai explains that the Rabbanan learn from "ve'Arav Lo ve'Kam Alav" a case of 'Zarak Even le'Gav'.
What does this mean?

(a) Why can the case of 'Zarak Even le'Gav' not be speaking when ...
  1. ... there were a majority of Jews in the group?
  2. ... the group was fifty-fifty?
(b) So what is the case?

(c) What principle does the Pasuk then come to teach us?

(a) What do an ox belonging to a woman, to orphans, in the charge of an Apotropus, an ox that roams in the desert, and an ox belonging to Hekdesh or to a Ger who died without leaving relatives, have in common, according to the Tana Kama?

(b) With which three does Rebbi Yehudah argue?

(c) From where do the Rabbanan derive that all six cases in our Mishnah are Chayav to be stoned?

(d) What did Rav Huna extrapolate from the fact that Rebbi Yehudah found it necessary to list both Shor ha'Midbar and Shor shel Ger she'Meis ... (seeing as both are Hefker)? How do we know that Rav Huna is right?

10) What does the Tana of the Beraisa learn from the Pasuk ...
  1. ... "ve'Hu'ad bi'Ve'alav ve'Heimis"?
  2. ... "ha'Shor Yisakeil"?
(a) What does our Mishnah say about a case where the owner declared his ox Hekdesh or Shechted it ...
  1. ... after it was sentenced to stoning?
  2. ... before the sentence?
(b) And what does the Tana say about a case where the owner handed his Tam or Mu'ad ox to one of the four Shomrim to look after?
Answers to questions

Next daf


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