ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 49
(a) We can extrapolate from our Mishnah, which exempts an ox that meant to
gore another ox, and inadvertently gored a pregnant woman, killing her
babies - that had the ox originally meant to gore the woman, the owner is
(b) We reconcile this Mishnah with Rav Ada bar Ahavah, who exempts the ox
even in the latter case too. The Tana specifically present the case in this
way - to balance the Seifa, where he wants to teach us that the man is
Chayav even if he did not originally aim at the woman.
(c) If an ox gores a pregnant Shifchah, killing her babies - the owner is
liable to pay - because in effect, he wounded a pregnant donkey, for which
he is obligated to pay.
(d) We Darshen from the Pasuk (in connection with the Akeidah) "Sh'vu Lachem
Poh im ha'Chamor" - 'Am ha'Domeh la'Chamor' (that as Eved is like a donkey).
(a) We query the Lashon 'Keitzad Meshalem *D'mei V'lados*' in our Mishnah -
on the grounds that he is not paying for the intrinsic value of the V'lados,
but for the extent that they increase the value of their mother.
(b) So we amend it to read 'Keitzad Meshalem D'mei V'lados u'Sh'vach
(c) This assessment does not incorporate the personal Nezek sustained by the
woman - which is assessed independently.
(d) The proportion of the woman's personal Nezek that goes to the husband,
and the proportion that goes to the woman herself is ...
1. ... in the case of revealed blemishes - two thirds to the husband, and
one third to herself.
2. ... hidden blemishes - one third to her husband and two thirds to
(a) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel argues with the Tana Kama in our Mishnah. He
says 'Im Kein, mi'she'ha'Ishah Yoledes Meshabachas', which Rava interprets
to mean that - on the contrary, a woman is worth more after the babies are
born than before (due to the element of life-danger involved). In that case,
the Mazik will not be obligated to pay anything at all.
(b) According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - on assesses the actual babies
(c) In a Beraisa which supports Rava's explanation, Raban Shimon ben Gamliel
adds 'u'Sh'vach V'lados Cholkin'. We reconcile this with our Mishnah, where
Raban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees with those who hold that there is such a
thing as Sh'vach V'lados - by establishing our Mishnah by her first baby
(where the danger to her life is much higher), and the Beraisa, to
subsequent births, where it is lower.
(a) Bearing in mind that the Torah has already written "ve'Yatz'u
Yeladehah", it seems obvious that the Pasuk is talking about a pregnant
women. The Rabbanan therefore learn from the word "ve'Nagfu Ishah *Harah*" -
that the Sh'vach Heirayon (the appreciation caused by the pregnancy) goes to
the husband (as the Torah writes there).
(b) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel Darshens it like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, who
restricts the obligation of the man who struck the woman - to when he struck
her in the vicinity of the stomach (which is what Raban Shimon ben Gamliel
learns from the word "Ishah Harah").
(c) Rav Papa extends Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov's qualifiction - to the
entire torso (precluding only the arms and the legs).
(a) According to Rabah, it is only if the incident under discussion took
place during the lifetime of the Ger, who died only afterwards, that the man
who dealt the stroke is exempt from paying, but not if the Ger was no longer
alive at the time of the incident - because then, the woman takes over the
monetary rights in her babies.
(b) Rav Chisda vehemently objects to Rabah's statement, on the grounds -
that babies are not bundles of money over which people have monetary rights
(other than what the Torah specifically states.
(c) 'Mari Dichi' means - 'Master of that statement' (with reference to
Rabah, in this particular case).
(d) So Rav Chisda rules - that as long as the husband (or one of his heirs)
is alive, he has the exclusive rights to the money. If he is no longer
alive, then the Mazik who is Muchzak on the money, automatically acquires
(a) We ask on Rabah from the Beraisa that we cited already in the previous
Perek. The Tana says there that in the current case, the Nezek and Tza'ar go
to the woman and the D'mei V'lados to her husband. In the event that ...
1. ... the woman is no longer alive - her heirs get the Nezek and Tza'ar.
(b) The problem with Rabah from this Beraisa is - that according to him, if
the incident took place after the death of the Ger, the Giyores takes over
the rights of her babies, whereas the Beraisa states that the Mazik may
2. ... the husband is no longer alive - his heirs get the D'mei V'lados.
3. ... the woman is a Shifchah or a Giyores - the Mazik retains the Nezek
and Tza'ar and the D'mei V'lados.
(c) Rabah resolves the problem in one of two ways; one of them, by
establishing the Beraisa when the incident took place during the lifetime of
the Ger (like he established our Mishnah). Alternatively, the Beraisa is
speaking when it took place after the death of the Ger. In that case, he
will amend the Beraisa ('Haysah Shifchah O Giyores, Zachah') - to read (not
'Zachah', but) 'Zachsah'.
(a) We cite a Beraisa which discusses a pregnant bas Yisrael who is married
to a Ger and whom someone struck, killing her baby. If this took place
during her husband's life-time, says the Tana, the D'mei V'lados go to the
Ger. If it happened after his death, there are two opinions - one says
'Chayav, and the other, 'Patur'.
(b) We initially try to correlate this Machlokes with that of Rabah and Rav
Chisda currently under discussion - by connecting Rabah with the Tana who
holds Chayav, and Rav Chisda, with the Tana who holds Patur.
(c) But we conclude that, although Rabah must hold like this, Rav Chisda
need not. Rav Chisda will say - that in fact both Tana'im agree with him,
that the Mazik is Patur from D'mei V'lados, because their Machlokes concerns
(d) The Tana who holds Chayav will then be Raban Shimon ben Gamliel (who
holds that half the Sh'vach V'lados goes to the woman), and the Tana who
holds Patur is the Chachamim, who holds that it goes entirely to the
(a) Rabah cannot establish both Tana'im like him - because according to him,
nobody would say 'Patur'.
(b) Despite the fact that the author of the Beraisa that says Chayav is
Raban Shimon ben Gamliel (as we just concluded, according to Rav Chisda),
the Tana speaks specifically in a case where the husband *died* (even
though, according to him, the Mazik would even be Chayav in the Ger's
lifetime) - because the Tana is coming to teach us that, after her husband's
death, the woman receives the entire sum (whereas in his lifetime, she will
only have received half).
(a) Alternatively, we establish both Beraisos like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel,
which is possible - by establishing the Beraisa which says Patur, by *D'mei*
(b) Seeing as, after the death of her husband, the woman receives Sh'vach
V'lados, according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, we ask why he will not say
the same concerning D'mei V'lados. If that were so, we would say it with
regard to Sh'vach V'lados according to the Chachamim, too.
(c) We reject this suggestion however - on the grounds that it is excluively
Sh'vach V'lados according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, which she shares with
her husband in his lifetime, that she inherits completely after his death,
but D'mei V'lados, according to Raban Shimon him, and even Sh'vach V'lados,
according to the Chachamim, of which she receives nothing in her husband's
lifetime, she will receive nothing after his death, either.
(a) Rav Yeiva Saba asked Rav Nachman about someone who is holding the
documents of a Ger who dies - whether his intention is to acquire the
contents of the Sh'taros exclusively, in which case he will not even acquire
the Sh'taros either (and anyone who takes them from him may keep them), or
whether his mind is on the Sh'taros themselves (as well as on their
contents, which he cannot acquire anyway), in which case he at least
acquires the Sh'taros.
(b) The ramifications of the She'eilah are - whether the paper is his to use
as bottle-stoppers (or whatever he wishes to use it for) or not.
(a) Rabah rules that if a Yisrael seizes the Mashkon (security) ...
1. ... that a Ger received from his Jewish debtor, after the death of the
Ger - he must return it to the debtor, because the Shibud of the Ger fell
away with his death.
(b) We ask why, in the latter case, the creditor's Chatzer did not acquire
the remainder of the Mashkon on his behalf. And we initially answer - that
we are speaking in a case when the creditor is out of town.
2. ... that a Yisrael received from his debtor who is a Ger, after the
death of the Ger - he may keep it, after the creditor has taken the amount
of his loan from it.
(c) Indeed, we maintain - as long as the creditor is not there to claim the
Mashkon in person, his Chatzer will not acquire it on his behalf, either.
(d) This is not the Halachah however. In fact, we are speaking - when the
Mashkon was not lying in the Chatzer (otherwise he would acquire it
irrespective of where he was).
(a) Our Mishnah says that someone who digs a pit in the Reshus ha'Yachid
which opens into the Reshus ha'Rabim or to another Reshus ha'Yachid, or in
the Reshus ha'Rabim which opens into the Reshus ha'Yachid - is Chayav.
(b) We cannot extrapolate from this Mishnah that a Bor bi'Reshus ha'Rabim is
Patur (due to the fact that it has no owner) - because we will learn in the
Seifa that it is Chayav.
(c) In the case when he dug the pit in the Reshus ha'Rabim with its opening
to the Reshus ha'Yachid, must we say that he declared his Reshus Hefker -
because otherwise, he can ask the Nizak what he is doing in his Reshus, in
the first place?
(a) Rebbi Yishmael say about someone who digs a pit in the Reshus ha'Yachid
which opens into the Reshus ha'Rabim - that this is the pit which the Torah
is referring to.
(b) Rebbi Akiva says - that the pit which the Torah is referring to is one
where the owner declared his Reshus Hefker, but not his pit.
(c) According to Rabah, Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva argue over a Bor
bi'Reshuso. Rebbi Akiva learns from the Pasuk "Ba'al ha'Bor Yeshalem" - that
even a pit which has an owner is Chayav too.
(a) According to Rabah, both Tana'im will agree - that a Bor bi'Reshus
ha'Rabim is Chayav.
(b) And they learn this from the Pasuk "Ki Yiftach Ish Bor" ... "ve'Chi
Yichreh Ish Bor". Having obligated someone who opens a pit to pay, why does
the Torah need to add that he is also liable for digging one", unless it is
to teach us that one is Chayav for digging or opening a pit, even though he
does not own it (to include a Bor bi'Reshus ha'Rabim).
(c) Rebbi Yishmael interprets "Ba'al ha'Bor" to mean - Ba'al ha'Takalah
(meaning the man responsible for the damage (irrespective of the fact that a
pit in the Reshus ha'Rabim does not belong to him)?
(d) Bearing in mind that Rebbi has a Pasuk for a Bor bi'Reshus ha'Rabim as
well as for a Bor bi'Reshuso, when he says 'Zehu Bor ha'Amur ba'Torah' - he
means that this is the Bor which the Pasuk speaks about first.