ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 12
BAVA KAMA 12 - dedicated by Mr. and Mrs. D. Kornfeld in honor of the Bris of
their nephew, Yair Leb Mandelbrot.
(a) The Dayanim of Pumbedisa authorized a creditor to claim an Eved from
Yesomim. When Rav Chana bar Bizna did the same thing in Neherda'a - Rav
Nachman instructed him to retract, otherwise he would claim his mansion from
him (to compensate the Yesomim).
(b) Rava queried his Rebbe, Rav Nachman's ruling - on the grounds that Ula,
Rebbi Elazar and the Dayanim of Neherda'a all disagreed with him (and held
that Avadim are like Karka).
(c) Rav Nachman answered with a Beraisa cited by Avimi 'P'ruzbul Chal al
ha'Karka ... Metaltelin Niknin Im Karka'. And the Tana adds ...
1. ... that one cannot write a P'ruzbul on Avadim.
(d) The basis of these two rulings is - that 'Avadim ki'Metalteli Dami'.
2. ... that one cannot acquire Metaltelin together with Avadim.
(a) Another Beraisa says that someone who wishing to purchase ...
1. ... Avadim and Karka, makes a Kinyan on the Karka only - does not acquire
(b) We initially resolve this Beraisa with another Beraisa 'Hichzik
ba'Avadim, Kanah Metaltelin' - by establishing that the former holds 'Avadim
ki'Metaltelin Dami', and the latter, 'Avadim ke'Mekarka'i Dami'.
2. ... Avadim and Metaltelin, makes a Kinyan on the Avadim only - does not
acquire the Metaltelin.
(c) Rav Ika B'rei de'Rav Ami establishes that both Beraisos hold 'Avadim
ki'Mekarkai Dami', and the reason that the former gives Avadim the Din of
Metaltelin, is - because Karka needs to be like "the fortified cities in
Yehudah", which were static.
(d) The significance of "Arei Metzuros bi'Yehudah" in this context is - the
fact that we learn the Din of acquiring Metaltelin together with Karka from
the Pasuk in Divrei Hayamim "Va'yiten Lahem Avihem Matanos Rabos le'Kesef
... Im Arei Metzuros bi'Yehudah".
(a) In a second Lashon, Rav Ika B'rei de'Rav Ami establishes that both
Beraisos hold 'Avadim ki'Metalteli Dami'. And he explains the latter Beraisa
('Hichzik ba'Avadim, Kanah Metaltelin') - when the Metaltelin are actually
being carried by the Avadim.
(b) And he acquires the Metaltelin - with a Kinyan Chatzer.
(c) We object to this however - on the grounds that a roving Chatzer cannot
(d) Bearing in mind Rav's principle that when a a moving object cannot
acquire, the fact that it is static will make no difference - Rav Ika B'rei
de'Rav Ami finally establishes the Beraisa - when the Eved is bound.
(a) In light of what we learned earlier 'Hichzik be'Karka, Lo Kanah Avadim',
we will establish another Beraisa 'Hichzik be'Karka, Kanah Avadim' - when
the Avadim are actually standing on the Karka.
We answer both Kashyos in one stroke - by differentiating between both
Metaltelin that moves and Metaltelin that is static, and Karka that moves
and Karka that is static.
(b) We will therefore extrapolate - that the earlier Beraisa is speaking
when the Avadim are not standing on the Karka.
(c) This poses a Kashya on the Lashon of Rav Ika B'rei de'Rav Ami that holds
'Avadim ki'Mekarka'i Dami' - because one can acquire two pieces of Karka
with one Kinyan, even though they are far apart, like Shmuel taught with
regard to someone who purchased ten fields in ten different countries.
(d) The Kashya will be equally applicable according to the Lashon of Rav Ika
B'rei de'Rav Ami which holds 'Avdi ki'Metalteli Dami' - because we rule in
Kidushin that in order to acquire Metaltelin through a Kinyan on the Karka,
they do not actually need to be lying on the Karka.
(a) We extrapolate from the Lashon in our Mishnah 'Nechasim she'Ein Lahem
Me'ilah' - that we are nevertheless talking about Kodshim (and that the
regular Din of Nezikin applies should one damage someone's Shelamim).
Otherwise, why did the Tana not simply say 'Nechsei Hedyot'?)
(b) We are talking about Kodshim Kalim (e.g. Shelamim), according to Rebbi
Yossi Hagelili, who considers them to be the personal property of the owner.
(c) He extrapolates this from the Pasuk "u'Ma'alah Ma'al *ba'Hashem*" -
which obligates bringing an Asham Gezeilos for denying having stolen
something personal belonging to one's friend and swearing falsely that he
was innocent, even though it partially Hashem's (i.e. a Korban) (though one
is exempt from swearing on pure Kodshei Shamayim).
(d) We reconcile the Mishnah in Kidushin 'ha'Mekadesh be'Chelko Bein
be'Kodshei Kodshim, Bein be'Kodshim Kalim, Einah Mekudeshes' with Rebbi
Yossi Hagelili - by establishing it after Shechitah, when even he concedes
that the Kohanim acquire the chest and the right calf, and the Yisrael, the
rest of the animal, from the Divine table.
(a) The Mishnah in Temurah permits selling a live unblemished Bechor.
Assuming that the Tana is referring to a Bechor nowadays (which is unfit to
be brought as a Korban) - the purchaser can do nothing with it until it
obtains a blemish.
(b) The Tana permits selling it specifically when it is alive. He can do
nothing with a Tam Shachut - other than bury it.
(c) The Tana permits a Ba'al Mum - to be sold both when it is alive and
after it has been Shechted.
(d) 'u'Mekadshin Bo es ha'Ishah' pertains - specifically to Kohanim.
(a) We have already cited Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah, who establishes
the Reisha nowadays, when the Bechor cannot be brought as a Korban. Rava
asks Rav Nachman from Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, who considers live Kodshim Kalim
to be the property of the owner - so why did Rav Nachman need to say that?
Ravina has no choice but to establish the Beraisa of "u'Ma'alah Ma'al
ba'Hashem (Rebbi Yossi Hagelili) by Bechor, rather than by Shelamim (even
though this created a problem) - because it is clear from the Seifa that
that is the subject of the Beraisa, as we shall now see.
(b) To answer Rava's Kashya, Ravina establishes the Mishnah in Temurah by a
Bechor in Eretz Yisrael, and Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, by a Bechor in Chutz
la'Aretz, like Rebbi Shimon, who says that a Bechor Tam in Chutz la'Aretz
during the time of the Beis Hamikdash ...
1. ... Lechatchilah - may not be brought, but is sent out to graze until it
obtains a blemish.
(c) Based on the understanding that Rebbi Yossi Hagelili considers *live*
Kodshim Kalim the property of the owner, the problem we now have with Ravina
is why he did not establish the Mishnah in Temurah like the Rabbanan, and
Rabbi Yossi Hagelili even by a Bechor in Eretz Yisrael?
2. ... Bedieved, if it was sent to Eretz Yisrael - it is brought on the
(d) He declined to give this answer - because, in fact, even Rebbi Yossi
Hagelili will agree with the Rabbanan that a Bechor in Eretz Yisrael (like
all of the twenty-four Matnos Kehunah), is not the Kohen's private property,
but is acquired from the table of Hashem.