ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 71
BAVA KAMA 71 (Sukos) - dedicated by Rabbi Eli Turkel and his wife. May they
be blessed with much Nachas from their children and grandchildren and may
all of their prayers be answered l'Tovah!
(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Tavach u'Machar be Yom ha'Kipurim, Chayav
Dale ve'Hey'. Based on the fact that Chayvei K'riysus are subject to Malkus,
the problem with this is - that it contravenes the principle 'Ein Lokeh
u'Meshalem' )a person canot be receive two punishments for the same sin.
(b) To answer this Kashya, we establish our Mishnah - like Rebbi Meir, who
holds 'Lokeh u'Meshalem'.
(c) Rebbi Meir says in the Mishnah in Makos that if witnesses testified that
Reuven owed Shimon two hundred Zuz and then became Zomemin, they receive
Malkos as well as having to pay - because the obligation to pay and the
La'av of false testimony stem from two different Pesukim.
(d) Even though the author of our Mishnah is Rebbi Meir, the Ganav is not
Chayav Daled ve'Hey, he stole and Shechted on Shabbos - because although he
holds Lokeh u'Meshalem, he does not hold Meis u'Meshalem.
(a) Rebbi Meir says in a Beraisa 'Ganav ve'Tavach be'Shabbos, Ganav
ve'Tavach la'Avodah-Zarah, Ganav Shor ha'Niskal u'Tevacho, Meshalem Arba'ah
va'Chamishah' - the Rabanan exempt him from paying.
Mar Zutra asked how it is possible for the Ganav to be Chayav Daled ve'Hey
when his Sheli'ach Shechts the animal, considering that he is not Chayav
when he himself Shechts it, to which Rav Ashi replied - that he is not Patur
per se, but because he is Chayav a more stringent punishment. Consequently,
there where the more stringent punishment is not applicable, it stands to
reason that he should be Chayav Daled ve'Hey.
(b) In light of what we just learned (that 'Meis u'Meshalem Leis Lei') -
Rebbi Yochanan quoted as explaining Rebbi Meir's statement 'Ganav ve'Tavach
be'Shabbos ... Meshalem ... ' - by establishing it, not when the Ganav
Shechted the animal himself, but when he engaged a Sheli'ach to do it for
him (in which case, the Sheli'ach is Chayav Miysah, and the Ganav pays Daled
(c) Rava learns from the Pasuk "u'T'vacho O Mecharo" - that just as
Mechirah requires a second person for the Ganav to be Chayav Daled ve'Hey,
so too, is the Ganav Chayav Daled ve'Hey if the Tevichah is performed by
someone else (i.e. a Sheli'ach). Otherwise, it would be difficult to
understand how Reuven can be Chayav for an act performed by Shimon (due to
the principle 'Ein Sheli'ach li'D'var Aveirah').
(d) de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns from "u'Tevacho *O* Mecharo", and de'Bei
Chizkiyah from "Tachas" - that one is Chayav Daled ve'Hey if the Ganav's
Sheli'ach Shechts the animal.
(a) We just cited Rebbi Meir in the Beraisa 'Ganav ve'Tavach be'Shabbos,
Ganav ve'Tavach la'Avodah-Zarah, Ganav Shor ha'Niskal u'Tevacho, Meshalem
Arba'ah va'Chamishah', whereas the Rabanan exempt him from paying. The
Rabbanan's reason is - because the author of the Beraisa is Rebbi Shimon,
who holds 'Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah is not considered a good Shechitah.
(b) 'Ganav ve'Tavach la'Avodah-Zarah' be considered Isurei Hana'ah, because
although one cannot render somebody else's animal forbidden - verbally, or
even by bowing down to it, performing an idolatrous deed on the animal
itself such as Shechitah in the name of Avodah-Zarah, does render it Asur.
(c) The above reason also apply to the first case 'Ganav ve'Tavach
be'Shabbos' because Rebbi Shimon holds like Rebbi Yochanan ha'Sandlar, who
holds that if someone cooks on Shabbos be'Meizid - that dish is forbidden
forever for anyone to eat.
(d) The Mishnah in Chulin says that if someone Shechts an animal on
Shabbos - the Shechitah is valid.
(a) Rebbi Meir says 'ha'Mevashel be'Shabbos be'Shogeg, Yochal, be'Meizid, Lo
Yochal'. He is referring to eating the cooked dish on Shabbos itself (from
Motza'ei Shabbos onwards, according to Rebbi Meir, everything is permitted).
(b) In the Seifa, where he cooked be'Meizid - nobody is permitted to eat it
on the same day, neither the person who transgressed Shabbos nor anyone
(c) be'Shogeg, Rebbi Yehudah forbids even others to eat it on the same day.
When it was cooked be'Meizid - then the person who transgressed is forbidden
to eat it forever, whereas others may eat it already on Motza'ei Shabbos.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan ha'Sandlar learns from the Pasuk in Ki Sisa ...
1. ... "u'Shemartem es ha'Shabbos *Ki Kodesh Hi* Lachem" - that even others
are forbidden to eat it ever ('Ma'aseh Shabbos Asur').
(b) In the case of a Shogeg - he holds that others may eat the cooked dish
as from Motza'ei Shabbos, but not the person who transgressed.
2. ... "Ki Kodesh Hi *Lachem*" - that it is not Asur be'Hana'ah.
(c) Rav Acha and Ravina argue over Ma'aseh Shabbos according to Rebbi
Yochanan ha'Sandlar. One of them learns that it is d'Oraysa, as we just
explained. The other one learns from "Kodesh Hu" - that *Shabbos* is Kodesh,
but not Ma'aseh Shabbos.
(d) One cannot ask how according to the one who holds that it is only
mi'de'Rabbanan, the Rabbanan in the Beraisa that we quoted earlier exempt
someone who Shechts on Shabbos from Daled ve'Hey - because in fact they
pertain to the other two cases in the Beraisa 'la'Avodah-Zarah' and 'Shor
ha'Niskal', as we explained, but not to Ganav ve'Tavach be'Shabbos'.
(a) We ask why, according to Rebbi Meir in the Beraisa, the Ganav is Chayav
Daled ve'Hey for Shechting the stolen animal to Avodah-Zarah, seeing as,
once he makes the initial cut to Avodah-Zarah, and the rest is Asur
be'Hana'ah - and Isurei Hana'ah are considered ownerless (whereas the Chiyuv
Daled ve'Hey is confined to Shechting the animal belonging to the person
from whom one stole it).
(b) To ask such a Kashya, we have to assume - that 'Yeshnah li'Shechitah
mi'Techilah ve'Ad Sof' (Shechitah constitutes the entire cutting process
from beginning to end [and not just the final cut that kills the animal]).
(c) He is not already Chayav Daled ve'Hey for the initial cut - because, as
we will see later, the entire Shechitah must be performed be'Isur.
(d) Rava answers the Kashya - by establishing the Mishnah when the Ganav
specifically stated that he only intended to worship Avodah-Zarah with the
final part of the cut (in which case the entire Shechitah was performed on
the animal belonging to the owner.
(a) We ask the same Kashya on the next case in the Beraisa ('Ganav Shor
ha'Niskal ... '). And we answer that the Tana speaks about an animal that
became a Shor ha'Niskal in the house of a Shomer, from where it was stolen.
And the Ganav is Chayav Daled ve'Hey because Rebbi Meir holds like ...
1. ... Rebbi Ya'akov, who says - that if a Shomer returns the animal that
became a Shor ha'Niskal by him to the owner, he has fulfilled his duty and
is exempt from paying for the damage.
(b) Rebbi Shimon is speaking about paying Kefel and Daled ve'Hey for
stealing and Shechting 'Kodshim she'Chayav be'Acharayusan' from the owner.
2. ... Rebbi Shimon, who says - 'Davar ha'Gorem le'Mamon (something which
has no intrinsic value to the owner, but which saves him from having to pay
for it as long as he is able to return it intact), ke'Mamon Dami'. In other
words, since the article concerned is worth money to the person who has it,
it is considered as if it was his article.
1. 'Kodshim she'Chayav be'Acharayusan' is - Kodshim which the owner is
obligated to replace (i.e. Kodshim which he declared by saying 'Harei Alai',
in which case the obligation is on *him*, rather than on the animal that he
2. ... 'Kodshim she'Eino Chayav be'Achrayusan' is - Kodshim which he is not
obligated to replace (i.e. Kodshim which he declared by saying 'Harei Zu',
in which case, it is the designated animal which is Kadosh, and there is no
obligation on him to replace it should anything happen to it).
(a) Rav Z'vid from Neherda'a queried establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi
Meir and not like Rebbi Shimon - because, the fact that Rebbi Shimon argues
in the last two cases in the Mishnah (T'reifah and Chulin ba'Azarah),
implies that he concurs with the rest of it.
(b) Rav Kahana refute his Kashya - on the grounds that the statement of
Rebbi Shimon pertains specifically to the final section of the Mishnah,
precluding 'Tavach u'Machar li'Refu'ah ve'li'Kelavim', with which Rebbi
Shimon concurs (because it is a Shechitah that is fit to eat (as we
explained in the Mishnah).
(a) Rava asked Rav Nachman what the Din will be if a Ganav stole and
Shechted a cow belonging to two partners and confessed to one of them - if
subsequently, two witnesses testified independently that this is what he
did. Rava wanted to know whether he would have to pay half of the Daled
ve'Hey to the second partner.
(b) The basis of the She'eilah is - whether when the Torah writes "Chamishah
Bakar ... ", it includes 'Chamishah Chatza'ei Bakar', or whether it means
specifically "Chamishah Bakar" (a full five-fold and not half).
(c) Rav Nachman's initial reply was - 'Chamishah Bakar, Amar Rachmana, ve'Lo
Chamishah Chatza'ei Bakar'.
(d) We learned in our Mishnah 'Ganav mi'Shel Aviv ve'Tavach u'Machar
ve'Achar-Kach Meis Aviv, Meshalem Tashlumei Arba'ah va'Chamishah'. This
poses a Kashya on Rav Nachman - because, if as we assume, it was his
brothers who took him to Beis-Din, then seeing as he himself inherits a
portion (from which he is obviously Patur from paying), it should be no
different than the previous case where the Ganav confessed to one of the
owners, and according to Rav Nachman, he ought to be Patur.
(a) We answer that the Tana speaks when the Ganav's father had already taken
his son to Beis-Din before his death, in which case, the animal belonged
entirely to the father, and the son is obligated to pay the full Arba'ah
va'Chamishah to him. But then, we ask on the Seifa 'Ganav mi'Shel Aviv
u'Meis, ve'Achar-Kach Tavach u'Machar, Eino Meshalem ... ' - the Tana should
rather have presented the same case as the Reisha (even when he Shechted or
sold it before his father's death), but when the father had not yet taken
his son to Beis-Din when he died.
(b) The very next morning Rav Nachman changed his mind, and Darshened
"Chamishah Bakar", 'va'Afilu Chamishah Chatza'ei Bakar'.
(c) The reason that he gave for not answering correctly the night before
was - that he not eaten meat, meaning that he had not yet thought the matter
out properly (see also Tosfos).
(d) According to Rav Nachman's conclusion, despite the fact that the son is
Chayav to pay even Chamishah Chatza'ei Bakar in the Reisha, he is Patur from
paying in the Seifa - because seeing as he only Shechted it after his
father's death (in which case, he was a partner in the cow), the Shechitah
was not performed fully be'Chiyuv.