ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 13
(a) We already discussed the Beraisa "u'Ma'alah Ma'al ba'Hashem", 'Lerabos
Kodshim Kalim she'Heim Mamono, Divrei Rebbi Yossi Hagelili'. ben Azai adds
'Lerabos es ha'Shelamim'. Aba Yossi ben Dustai says - 'Lo Amar ben Azai
Ela bi'Bechor Bil'vad'.
(b) The three Chumros of Shelamim over Bechor are - that it requires
'Semichah' (leaning one's hands on it before the Shechitah), 'Nesachim' (a
drink-offering incorporating a meal-offering) and 'Tenufah' (waving the
chest and the right calf).
(c) Consequently, when ben Azai says 'Lerabos es ha'Shelamim', he cannot
mean to preclude Bechor, only Ma'aser.
(d) We take it for granted that Bechor, like Shelamim, is considered the
property of the owner, as we just intimated. Granted, we just learned that
Matnos Kehunah are not the property of the owner, even according to Rebbi
Yossi Hagelili - but that referred to a Bechor in Eretz Yisrael, whilst we
are speaking about a Bechor in Chutz la'Aretz (which even Rebbi Yossi
Hagelili agrees, belongs to the owner, as we also explained there).
(a) The Tana learns from the fact that the Torah writes in Korach "Lo
Sipadeh" with regard to Bechor, whereas in Bechukosai with regard to Ma'aser
(Beheimah) it writes "Lo Yiga'el" - that whereas a Bechor can be sold, a
Ma'aser animal cannot.
(b) This distinction helps us clarify the opinion of ben Azai, who
incorporates Bechor in the Din of Shelamim, but not Ma'aser.
(c) With regard to a Bechor in Eretz Yisrael, "Lo Sipadeh" implies that it
may not be redeemed (unless it obtains a blemish), and in the time of the
Beis Hamikdash, that it must be sacrificed. With regard to a Bechor in Chutz
la'Aretz (bearing in mind that it may be sold), it implies ...
1. ... (before the animal has been Shechted) - the prohibition of selling it
in a shop (as one does Chulin animas) or selling it by weight.
(d) We learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Lo Yiga'el" "Lo Yiga'el" from
Charamim - that Ma'aser, like Charamim, cannot be sold.
2. ... after its Shechitah - eating it (after it obtains a blemish)
bi'Kedushas Bechor (be'Taharah).
(a) Ravina makes the same inference (precluding specifically Ma'aser, and
not Shelamim), in the Seifa (according to Aba Yossi ben Dustai), as we just
made in the Reisha (precluding Ma'aser, and not Bechor, according to ben
Azai). The edge that Bechor has over Shelamim, according to Ravina is - that
it is holy from the moment it is born.
(b) According to Ravina - Aba Yossi ben Dustai considers Bechor and Shelamim
Mamon Ba'alim, but not Ma'aser.
(c) We prove Ravina wrong from the Lashon of Aba Yossi ben Dustai (whose
very words he is coming to explain) - who says 'Lo Amar ben Azai *Ela*
Bechor L'vad' (implying Bechor and not Shelamim).
(a) Until now, we have taken 'Nechasim she'Ein Bahem Me'ilah' literally (as
a result of which we were forced to establish the author of our Mishnah as
Rebbi Yossi Hagelili). Rava however, interprets it to mean - Nechasim
she'Ein Bahem *Din* Me'ilah (which is another way of saying Nechasim shel
(b) The problem we have with that is - why the Mishnah did not then simply
say 'Nechasim shel Hedyot'.
(a) When Rebbi Aba said 'Shelamim she'Hiziku, Govah mi'Besaran, ve'Eino
Govah me'Eimureihen', he meant - that if a Shelamim animal gored another
animal, for example, the Nizak can only claim from the flesh of the Mazik,
the half damage caused by the flesh, but not the half damage caused by the
(b) He cannot have meant what he said literally - because the Eimurin are
the parts of the animal that are burned on the Mizbe'ach (which can
obviously not be given to the Nizak, if only because they are Asur
(c) We have difficulty in establishing which Tana Rebbi Aba's statement
follows. If it is the Rabbanan, we ask, it is obvious, because they say -
that if one ox pushed another ox into a pit, in the case of ...
1. ... a Shor Tam - the Nizak claims a quarter of the damages from the body
of the ox, and nothing from the owner of the pit.
(d) The owner of the pit is Patur from paying in both cases - because the ox
that pushed the Nizak into the pit is considered the sole Mazik.
2. ... a Shor Mu'ad - he claims a half from the owner of the ox, and nothing
from the owner of the pit.
(a) Rebbi Nasan says in the case of ...
1. ... a Tam - that the Nizak claims a quarter of the damages from the body
of the ox, and the rest from the owner of the pit.
(b) Rebbi Nasan's reasoning is - because the Nizak can say to the owner of
the pit 'I found my ox in your pit! Consequently, whatever I cannot claim
from the owner of the ox, I will claim from you!'
2. ... a Mu'ad - he claims half from the owner of the ox, and the rest from
the owner of the pit.
(c) We conclude that Rebbi Aba could hold like either Tana. He might hold
1. ... the Rabbanan, because we might otherwise have thought that they
would concede in the case of a Shelamim animal, that the Nizak *can claim
the entire damage from the flesh* - since it is a matter of two parts of one
body (the Eimurin and the flesh), unlike their case, where the two partners
are two independent bodies (the ox and the pit).
2. ... Rebbi Nasan - because he may well concede to the Chachamim here,
seeing as undeniably, the Eimurin caused as much damage as the flesh, and
his ruling is restricted to the case of the ox and the pit, where at the end
of the day, the Nizak can say to the owner of the pit 'I found my ox in your
pit ... ' (as we explained earlier [making the owner of the pit fully liable
in a sense]).
(a) Although we accept the above explanation of Rebbi Aba's statement, we
might explain 'Lo Tzericha Ligvos mi'Besaran Keneged Eimurehen' to mean -
that according to Rebbi Aba, one does indeed claim the damage of the Eimurim
from the flesh.
(b) We will then amend the original problem 'I Aliba ...
1. ... de'Rabbanan 'P'shita! Ha Amru Ki Leka le'Ishtelumi me'Hai, Lo
Mishtalem me'Hai?' by omitting the word 'P'shita!'
(c) We reject this explantion however - on the grounds that it is more
likely that the answer follows the Kashya ('P'shita, Eimurim le'Gavohah
Salki'), which was from the Seifa of Rebbi Aba's words ('ve'Eino Govah
me'Eimurehen'), and not from the Reisha ('Govah mi'Besaran'), as the answer
would now suggest.
2. ... de'Rebbi Nasan 'Ha Amar Ki Leka le'Ishtelumi me'Hai, Mishtalem
me'Hai' by adding - 'P'shita!'
(a) The problem with Rava's statement 'Todah she'Hizikah, Govah mi'Besarah,
ve'Eno Govah mi'Lachmah' is - that there is not the least reason to think
otherwise. So what is the Chidush?
(b) Rava's Chidush actually lies in the Seifa of his words - 'Nizak Ochel
Basar, u'Miskaper Meivi Lechem'.
(c) The Chidush in that statement is - that the owner cannot say to the
Nizak 'You are eating the Korban; you bring the loaves!' Rava is teaching us
that in fact, the loaves remain the obligation of the original owner.
(a) When the Tana of our Mishnah says ...
1. ... 'Nechasim she'Hein shel B'nei B'ris - he is coming to preclude the
property of a Nochri that one damaged.
(b) We need one Mishnah later, which specifically exempts the ox of a Jew
which gores that of a Nochri, and another, which specifically exempts two
oxen chasing a third ox, where one of them kills it, and each one blames the
other one - merely to explain the two respective Mishnos here, which are
both vaguely worded.
2. ... 'Nechasim ha'Meyuchadim' - he is coming to preclude a case where we
are not certain who caused the damage.
(c) Alternatively, we are speaking about property of Hefker. The Mishnah is
obviously not concerned with - someone whose ox damaged an ox of Hefker,
because in that case, there is no claimant.
(d) We therefore conclude that the Mishnah comes to preclude a Hefker ox
that gored a private one, and he cannot just go and take the ox - because it
speaks when someone subsequently acquired it from Hefker, and teaches us
that he is no longer permitted to claim it.
(a) Ravina has a third interpretation of what 'Nechasim ha'Meyuchadim' comes
to preclude, conforming with Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, who learns from the
Pasuk "ve'Hu'ad bi'Ve'alav ve'Heimis" - that the Nizak only claims the Shor
ha'Mazik if it has changed hands between the goring and the time that it was
taken to Beis-Din.
(b) Based on the end of the Pasuk "ha'Shor Yisakel", we amend Rebbi
Yehudah's statement - to include the period of time from when it is taken to
Beis-Din until Beis-Din's final ruling.
(a) If the Mazik's ox damaged someone else's ox that strayed into his field
he is Patur from paying - because he can say to the Nizak 'What is your ox
doing in my field?'
(b) Rav Chisda Amar Avimi renders partners who damage each other's property
by means of Shen or Regel liable - Rebbi Elazar exempts them.
(c) We explain our Mishnah ' ... Chutz me'Reshus ha'Meyuchedes u'Reshus
ha'Nizak ve'ha'Mazik ke'she'Hizik, Chav ha'Mazik ... ' according to ...
1. ... Rav Chisda - ' ... Chutz me'Reshus ha'Meyuchedes. u'Reshus ha'Nizak
ve'ha'Mazik ke'she'Hizik, Chav ha'Mazik ... '.
(d) According to Rav Chisda, 'ke'she'Hizik, Chav ha'Mazik ... ' must refer
to Shen ve'Regel and not to Keren - because Keren is Chayav even in the
Reshus ha'Rabim, and it would be quite superfluous to inform us that it is
also Chayav in their joint Reshus.
2. ... Rebbi Elazar - ' ... Chutz me'Reshus ha'Meyuchedes u'Reshus ha'Nizak
ve'ha'Mazik. ke'she'Hizik, Chav ha'Mazik ... '.
(a) According to Rebbi Elazar, 'ke'she'Hizik Chav ha'Mazik ... ' come to
include Keren, which has not yet been mentioned. However, that is only
according to Shmuel, who learns 'Shor le'Raglo' and 'Mav'eh le'Shino'.
According to Rav (who includes Keren in 'Shor') it comes to include the four
Shomrim (as we will now explain).
(b) The Tana of the Beraisa, who states this Chidush, adds that if the ox
the Shomer is looking after broke out in the night or was let out by
robbers - the Shomer is Patur (because he is an O'nes).
(c) When the Tana of the Beraisa, commenting on our Mishnah 'ke'she'Hizik
Chav ha'Mazik ... ' explains 'Lerabos Shomer Chinam ... ve'ha'Sho'el ... ',
he cannot be speaking when it is ...
1. ... the borrowed ox which damaged the ox of the Shomer (at least so we
think initially) - because the owner can say to the Sho'el 'If my ox had
gored someone else's ox, you would have had to pay. Why, now that it gored
your ox, should I be liable'?
2. ... the Shomer's ox which gored the borrowed one - because he can then
say 'If someone else's ox had gored my ox, you would have had to pay full
damages. Now that it is your ox that did the goring, why should I only
receive half the damages'?
(a) We finally establish the case when it was the borrowed ox that gored
the ox of the borrower - and to evade the Kashya that we asked earlier - we
establish the case when the borrower undertook to guard the animal against
damages done to it by others, but not for damages done by the animal to
(b) We can infer from the Seifa 'Nifretzah *ba'Laylah* ... , Patur' - 'Ha
(c) True, we just established the Reisha of the Beraisa when the Shomer did
not accept the liability of damages caused by the ox he is guarding - but we
amend the Seifa to read 'Im Kibel Alav Shemiras Nizakav, Chayav. Nifretzah
ba'Laylah ... Patur'.