(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 48


(a) We try to resolve the current She'eilah (whether the responsibility that Shimon accepts for the damages to Reuven's ox, even incorporates those that it sustains via a third party), from another Beraisa. What does the Tana there say in a case where Reuven brought his ox into Shimon's Chatzer, and a third person's ox came and gored it, assuming that he entered ...
  1. ... without permission?
  2. ... with permission?
(b) Again, we refute the suggestion that the Tana is referring to the owner of the Chatzer by countering 'Lo, Patur Ba'al ha'Shor, ve'Chayav Ba'al ha'Shor', and again, we try to refute this answer by querying the significance of 'Reshus'.
Why do we not answer like we answered earlier (by differentiating between the Reshus ha'Shutfin and the Reshus ha'Rabim)?

(c) We answer by establishing the Beraisa according to Rebbi Tarfon. What distinction does Rebbi Tarfon draw between Keren in the Chatzer ha'Nizak and Keren in the Reshus ha'Rabim?

(d) How does this resolve our problem? What does 'Patur' now mean?

(a) When a woman who brought her dough someone's Chatzer' with his permission in order to bake, and a goat belonging to the owner ate it, what happened to the goat?

(b) How do we reconcile Rava, who obligated the woman to pay for the goat, with Rav, who ruled earlier that if Shimon's ox ate the fruit that Reuven brought into his Chatzer without permission, he is Patur, because it had the option not to eat?

(c) What can we extrapolate from another case, where a woman, who brought her wheat into someone's house without permission for grinding, was later declared liable to pay damages sustained by the owner's ox after eating the wheat?

(d) We now reconcile the former case, where Rava obligated the woman to pay even if she entered the Chatzer with permission, and the latter case, where she was declared Patur, by restricting the stringency of the former case to baking only.
Why is that?

(a) In a case where Reuven takes his ox into Shimon's Chatzer without permission and the ox digs craters in Shimon's field, it is obvious that Reuven is liable to pay for the damage.
What does Rava say about damage that the craters cause should Shimon subsequently declare his field Hefker?

(b) What do we learn from the Pasuk "Ki Yichreh *Ish Bor*"?

(c) Then why does Rava obligate Shimon to pay in the previous case?

(a) Rava also rules that if Reuven takes his ox into Shimon's Chatzer without permission and the ox injures Shimon or Shimon trips over it, Reuven is liable.
What does he mean when he says 'Ravatz' Patur'?

(b) This is fine according to Shmuel, who considers *all* obstacles 'Bor'.
Why is Rava's ruling not so clear according to Rav? What does Rav say?

(c) How do we resolve Rava's ruling with Rav?

(d) He is only Patur however, for vessels, but not if the feces caused injury to the owner himself. Why do we not apply the principle "Ish or" 've'Lo Shor Bor'?

(a) In a follow-on from the previous case (where Reuven takes his ox into Shimon's Chatzer without permission and the ox injures Shimon or Shimon trips over it), Rava adds that in the event that Shimon injures Reuven's ox, he is Patur.
How does Rav Papa qualify Rava's ruling? Under which circumstances would he be held responsible?

(b) In fact, Rava and Rav Papa follow their own ruling elsewhere, where Rava and some say Rav Papa's issued a statement that if two people were walking with or without permission, and they collided, they are Patur.
What is the meaning of ...

  1. ... with permission?
  2. ... without permission?
(c) What can we extrapolate from their statement?
Answers to questions



(a) How does Rava initially qualify our Mishnah, which obligates Reuven to pay, should the ox that he brought without permission fall into Shimon's pit and foul up his water?

(b) On what grounds do we object, when he attributes this to the principle "Ish Bor", 've'Lo Shor Bor', exempting him from subsequent damage dosne to the water, which is considered a 'vessel'? With whose opinion would this clash?

(c) We therefore amend Rava's distinction to whether it was the body of the ox that caused the damage or the smell.
What exactly does this mean?

(a) To answer the Kashya on our Mishnah, which obligates Kofer if the ox falls into the pit and kills the owner's father or son, Rav establishes the Mishnah by an ox which is Mu'ad to do just that.
What is the problem with Rav's explanation?

(b) Why can we not answer (like we answered earlier to explain how an animal can ever become a Mu'ad) ...

  1. ... that the ox ran away before they could stone it?
  2. ... that the witnesses did not recognize the ox or when the Zomemei Zomemin became themselves Zomemin?
(a) What does Rav Yosef add to Rav's answer to make it viable?

(b) Considering what we learned earlier, that whenever the ox is not stoned, the owner is exempt from Kofer, why is he Chayav Kofer here, even though the ox is Patur from Sekilah?

(c) Is it not unusual for an ox to fall into a pit in this way? Why is the owner Chayav Nezek Shalem?

(a) To answer the above Kashya, Shmuel establishes our Mishnah by Chatzi Kofer like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili.
What does this mean?

(b) Ula too, establishes our Mishnah by a Tam, like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, but he adds that Rebbi Yossi Hagelili holds like Rebbi Tarfon.
Which Rebbi Tarfon? What does Ula gain with his explanation?

(c) What problem do we have, according to Shmuel, with the Tana talking about the owner's father or son being in the pit? Why is this not a problem according to Ula?

(d) How do we reconcile Shmuel with our Mishnah?

(a) Rav rules like the Tana Kama in our Mishnah (who assumes that when the owner permits someone to enter his courtyard, he automatically takes responsibility for the safety of whatever he brings with him.
How does Shmuel rule?

(b) The Reisha of the Beraisa says 'K'nos Shorcha ve'Shamro Hizik Chayav, Huzak Patur'.
How does this clash with the Seifa 'K'nos Shorcha va'Ani Eshmerenu'?

(c) Rebbi Elazar replies 'Tavra, Mi she'Shanah Zu ... '. Rava establishes the entire Beraisa like the Rabbanan.
Why, in that case, does the Seifa need to say 'va'Ani Eshmerenu'?

11) Rav Papa establishes the entire Beraisa like Rebbi. To explain the difference between the Reisha and the Seifa, he establishes Rebbi like Rebbi Tarfon (who says that when Keren occurs in the Chatzar of the Nizak, the Mazik pays full damage).
How will we now explain the Reisha? Why did he need to say 'Shamro', seeing as he ought to be liable anyway?


(a) What distinction does the Tana draw between an ox that meant to gore another ox, and inadvertently struck a pregnant woman, killing her babies, and a man who meant to strike another man, and inadvertently struck a pregnant woman ... ?

(b) According to the Tana Kama, we evaluate the damage by assessing the value of the woman when she was pregnant and her current value and make the Mazik pay the difference.
Why is it the woman's husband who receives the D'mei V'lados, and not the woman herself?

(c) Who receives the D'mei V'lados, should her husband no longer be alive?

(a) Finally, the Tana exempts someone who kills the babies of a Shifchah who was set free or of a Giyores, in the same way.
Why is that?

(b) Why does the Tana refer to the case of a Shifchah who was set free, and not just say 'Haysah Meshuchreres'?

(c) What would be the Din in the same case if it was a Yisre'eilis who was married to a Meshuchrar or to a Ger? Who would then receive the D'mei V'lados?

(d) Then why does the Tana refer specifically to a Meshuchreres and to a Giyores?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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