POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Bava Kama 47
1) EVALUATION OF THE FETUS
(a) (Rava): (In the beginning of the Mishnah, a dead calf was
found by a gored cow) we do not evaluate the cow by
itself and the calf by itself - rather, we evaluate how
much the calf increased the value of the mother.
2) BRINGING PROPERTY INTO ANOTHER'S DOMAIN
1. To evaluate it by itself would make the damager pay
(b) Similarly: if Reuven cut off the hand of Shimon's slave,
or damaged his field (we do not estimate the act of
damage itself, rather we evaluate the loss in value of
the slave and field).
(c) Question (R. Acha brei d'Rava): Why is it considered 'too
much' if that is what the damager should pay?
(d) Answer (Rav Ashi): The damage was done to a pregnant cow,
so that is what we evaluate.
(e) Obviously: if Reuven owns the cow and Levi owns the calf,
Reuven gets the compensation for the increased fattiness;
(f) Question: Who gets paid for the increased value due to
the larger volume (it looks fatter and healthier)?
(g) Answer #1 (Rav Papa): Reuven.
(h) Answer #2 (R. Acha brei d'Rav Ika): They share it.
1. The law is, they share it.
(a) (Mishnah): Shimon brought his pots or fruit into Reuven's
yard without permission; Reuven's animals broke or ate
them - he is exempt;
1. If Reuven's animals were damaged by the pots or
fruit, Shimon is liable.
2. If Shimon had permission to bring them in, Reuven is
(b) Shimon brought his ox into Reuven's yard without
permission; Reuven's animals damaged it - he is exempt;
3) AN ANIMAL THAT WAS DAMAGED BY EATING
1. If the ox damaged Reuven's animals, or fell into a
pit and dirtied the water, Shimon is liable;
(c) Rebbi says, in all cases one is not liable unless he
accepted responsibility for the other's property.
2. If Reuven's father or son was inside the pit, Shimon
3. If Shimon had permission to bring his ox in, Reuven
(d) (Gemara) Inference: Shimon is liable because he had no
permission - if he had permission, he would be exempt
when Reuven's animals were damaged;
1. We do not say that Shimon accepted to guard Reuven's
animals - this is as Rebbi, who says that normally,
one does not accept responsibility for another's
(e) Question: The Mishnah continues - if Shimon had
permission to bring his pots in, Reuven is liable - this
is as Chachamim, who say that normally one accepts
responsibility for to guard himself from damaging
1. The Mishnah concludes with Rebbi's opinion - can the
beginning and end of the Mishnah be as Rebbi, and
the middle as Chachamim?!
(f) Answer #1 (R. Zeira): Different Tana'im taught the
Mishnah (the Tana of the middle clause holds that
Chachamim do not argue on Rebbi).
(g) Answer #2 (Rava): The entire Mishnah (until Rebbi's
opinion) is as Chachamim; when Reuven gives permission,
he accepts to guard Shimon's property even from falling
in the wind!
(a) (Mishnah): Shimon brought his fruit into Reuven's yard...
(b) (Rav): Shimon is only liable for damage to Reuven's
animal if they slipped on the fruit; but if they got sick
by eating the fruit, Shimon is exempt.
(c) Question: Why is this?
(d) Answer: The animals should not have eaten them.
(e) Question: (Rav Sheshes - Beraisa): Levi put poison in
front of Yehudah's animal - Beis Din cannot make him pay,
but Hash-m holds him accountable.
1. Inference: This is only by poison, which animals do
not normally eat - but fruit, which they normally
eat, even Beis Din forces him to pay!
(f) Answer #1: Even by fruit, Beis Din cannot make him pay;
2. According to Rav, he should be exempt, the animal
should not have eaten!
1. The Mishnah spoke of poison to teach that even
though animals normally don't eat it, Hash-m holds
(g) Answer #2: The Mishnah speaks of a poisonous fruit (which
is normal for animals to eat - even so, Beis Din does not
make him pay).
(h) Question (Beraisa): A woman, without permission, brought
wheat into Reuven's premises to grind it. Reuven's animal
ate it - he is exempt.
1. If Reuven's animal was damaged, she is liable.
(i) Answer: Just as Rav explains that the Mishnah is when the
animal slipped on the fruit - also the Beraisa!
2. According to Rav, we should say that Reuven's animal
should not have eaten!
(j) Question: This is obvious - the one who asked, what did
(k) Answer: The Mishnah says, 'Reuven's animal was damaged
Bahen (through them)' - this can mean, it slipped on
1. But the Beraisa only says, 'Reuven's animal was
damaged' - this connotes, it ate them!
(l) (Beraisa): Shimon brought his ox into Reuven's yard
without permission; it ate wheat, fell sick and died -
Reuven is exempt;
2. Rav says, both can be explained to mean that it
slipped on them.
1. If Shimon had permission to bring his ox in, Reuven
2. According to Rav, we should say that Shimon's animal
should not have eaten!
(m) Answer (Rava): You cannot compare when there was
permission to when there was not!
1. One who gives permission accepts responsibility,
even if the animal chokes itself!