(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 45


(a) What distinction does the Tana of the Beraisa draw between an owner who, after his ox killed someone, sold it, Shechted it or declared it Hekdesh before it had been sentenced to stoning and afterwards?

(b) And what does he say about a Shomer who returned the ox that gored someone to death to its owner ...

  1. ... before the sentence?
  2. ... after the sentence?
(c) With which of the Tana Kama's rulings does Rabbi Ya'akov disagree?

(d) Assuming the basis of their Machlokes to be whether one can say to the owner of Isurei Hana'ah 'Harei she'Lecha Lefanecha', what other practical ramifications will their Machlokes have.

(a) Rabah concludes that in fact, even the Tana Kama concedes that one can say to the owner of Isurei Hana'ah 'Harei she'Lecha Lefanecha'.
Then what is the Tana Kama's reason for saying 'Hichziro Shomer le'Beis Ba'alav, Eino Muchzor? What makes this case worse than Chametz on Pesach?

(b) What does Rebbi Ya'akov hold? On what grounds does he argue with the Rabbanan?

(c) How does Rabah know that this is the Rabbanan's reason and not because they hold that one cannot say to the owner 'Harei she'Lecha Lefanecha'?

(d) And how do we know that Rabah's reason in the Rabbanan is because the Shomer failed to return the owner's ox to him, thereby depriving him of the possibility of saving it (as the Lashon suggests)?

(a) Rebbi Ya'akov maintains that it is possible to conclude the Din of an ox even in its absence.
How does he counter the Rabbanan's proof from the principle 'ke'Miysas ha'Ba'alim, Kach Miysas ha'Shor'?

(b) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Mas'ei "Ad Omdo Lifnei ha'Eidah la'Mishpat"?

(a) We have learned in a Beraisa that the four Shomrim take the place of the owner.
What will the difference then be whether the ox that they are guarding and that killed someone, is a Tam or a Mu'ad?

(b) Which of the Shomrin does the Tana exempt from reimbursing the owner for the loss of his ox?

(c) We ask 'Mah Nafshach', if they guarded the ox, then they should all be Patur, and if they did not, they should all be liable.
What do we answer?

Answers to questions



(a) The Beraisa currently under discussion goes neither like Rebbi Meir nor like Rebbi Yehudah.
Why can it not go like ...
  1. ... Rebbi Meir? What does Rebbi Meir say about a Socher?
  2. ... Rebbi Yehudah? What does Rebbi Yehudah say regarding the Shemirah of a Mu'ad?
(b) We initially establish the Beraisa like Rebbi Eliezer.
How will he deal with both of the above problems?

(c) Abaye establishes the author as Rebbi Meir, and he answers the Kashya on this with the words 'ke'de'Machlif Rabah bar Avuhah'.
What does Rabah bar Avuhah say? How does this answer the Kashya?

(a) Rebbi Elazar obligates a Shomer Chinam to pay, should the ox he is looking after cause damage.
What does he say about paying the owner in the event that the ox is injured?

(b) What would the Din be if the Shomer Chinam ...

  1. ... accepted full responsibility (in the case of a regular ox)?
  2. ... did not accept the responsibility for damages?
(c) Rava establishes Rebbi Elazar's case when he did indeed accept responsibility.
Then why is he Chayav for the one and Patur from the other?
(a) Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah, obligates the owner to pay for damages done by one's ox after he tied it by its reigns or locked the door in front of it.
Why is that?

(b) Rebbi Yehudah disagrees.
What does he learn from the Pasuk "ve'Lo Yishmerenu Be'alav" (written in connection with a Mu'ad)?

(c) Rebbi Eliezer is the most stringent of all.
What does he say with regard to a Mu'ad?

(a) Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah argue over the interpretation of the Pasuk "ve'Lo Yishmerenu" (written in connection with Mu'ad).
Over which basic premise do they argue (that will determine their respective interpretations)?

(b) What does 'S'tam Shevarim be'Chezkas Shimur Kaymi' mean?

(c) Based on the premise 'S'tam Shevarim La'av be'Chezkas Shimur Kaymi', how does Rebbi Meir subsequently interpret "ve'Lo Yishmerenu"?

(d) From where does Rebbi Meir then learn that a Tam also requires a a proper Shemirah?

(a) Based on the premise 'S'tam Shevarim be'Chezkas Shimur Kaymi', and that the Torah therefore obligates a proper Shemirah by a Tam, how does Rebbi Yehudah interpret "ve'Lo Yishmerenu"?

(b) Why does he not Darshen the Gezeirah-Shavah ('Negichah le'Tam, Negichah le'Mu'ad'), like Rebbi Meir?

(c) Seeing as we need "ve'Lo Yishmerenu" to teach us the initial Chiyuv by a Mu'ad, how can we now use the same word to teach us the 'Miy'ut'?

(d) The most lenient opinion of all is that of Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov. On the presumption that he follows the basic D'rashah of Rebbi Yehudah, from where does Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov learn that even a Tam requires only a Shemirah Pechusah?

10) According to Rav Ada bar Ahavah, even though Rebbi Yehudah exempts a Mu'ad from a proper Shemirah, the owner will nevertheless be liable to pay half.
Why is that?


(a) According to Rav, Ha'ada'ah on an ox's right horn does not cover its left one.
Will the reverse also be true?

(b) Why can Rav not be referring to the Din of how much the owner has to pay?

(c) Then to what is he referring?

(d) Why can Rav then not hold like ...

  1. ... Rebbi Meir?
  2. ... Rebbi Yehudah, according to Rav Ada bar Ahavah?
(a) Like whom *does* Rav ultimately hold?

(b) What is he then coming to teach us?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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