ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 95
(a) The Beraisa discusses a case when someone steals a sheep which is ith
wool or which is pregnant, and the animal is subsequenntly shorn or gives
birth. According to Rebbi Meir, the Ganav must return everything to the
owner. This does not necessarily mean that Rebbi Meir holds 'Shinuy Eino
Koneh'. He may well hold 'Shinuy Koneh', only we fine the Ganav, so that he
should not benefit from his ill-gotten gains.
(b) The difference whether Rebbi Meir's reason is because of 'Shinuy Eino
Koneh' or because of K'nas will manifest itself - in a case where the stolen
article deteriorated, where K'nas is not applicable and which he will he
have to replace with a new animal or with the value thereof if he holds
'Shinuy Koneh', but which he will able to return as is should he hold
'Shinuy Eino Koneh'.
(c) Rebbi Yehudah says 'Gezeilah Chozeres be'Einehah', by which he means -
that he returns the animal as it is plus the difference between it and that
of an animal in full fleece or which is pregnant, then he pays that, too
(because he holds Shinuy Koneh, like the Tana of our Mishnah (though he uses
a different Lashon than him because he is speaking in slightly different
case [see Sugya Amud Beis]).
(d) Rebbi Shimon says - 'Ro'in Osah Ke'ilu Hi Shuma Etzlo be'Kesef. He
basically agrees with Rebbi Yehudah, and we shall see later in which point
(a) In a case where someone steals an animal or Avadim and they grow old,
the Tana Kama of the Mishnah (later in the Perek) rules 'Meshalem ke'Sha'as
ha'Gezeilah' - because he holds 'Shinuy Koneh'.
(b) Rebbi Meir says 'ba'Avadim Omer Lo Harei she'Lecha Lefanecha'.
(c) We infer from the fact that he confines this ruling to Avadim, that
with regards to the animal, he agrees with the Tana Kama. Avadim - are
different, he holds, because Avadim are like Karka, which cannot be stolen
(even with Shinuy).
(a) According to this interpretation of Rebbi Meir, we have proved - that
Rebbi Meir too, holds 'Shinuy Koneh', and that his reason in the previous
Beraisa is because of K'nas.
(b) We refute this proof however. Really, we say - Rebbi Meir disagrees with
them even in the case of the stolen animal too, because he holds 'Shinuy
(c) And when we explain that 'Rebbi Meir le'Divreihem de'Rabbanan Ka'amar
Lehu', we mean that Rebbi Meir was asking them whether they would not at
least agree with him that he can return the Avadim as is, because Avadim are
compared to Karka?
(d) To which the Rabbanan's replied - that in their opinion, Avadim are not
compared to Karka in this regard, and that just as Shinuy is Koneh in the
case of the stolen animal, so too is it Koneh in the case of the stolen
(a) We will learn in another Mishnah later, that if Reuven gives Shimon a
garment to dye red and he dyes it black, or vice-versa, Rebbi Meir obligates
Shimon to pay only the value of Reuven's wool. What do we finally prove
from there - proving once and for all that Rebbi Meir holds 'Shinuy Koneh'
(otherwise he ought to pay him for the improved garment as well).
(b) Alternatively, we arrive at the same conclusion by citing Rav's version
of the previous Mishnah ('Gazal Beheimah ve'Hizkiynah ... ') - Rav switches
the opinions there and quotes Rebbi Meir as saying 'Parah ve'Hizkiynah,
Avadim ve'Hizkiynu, Meshalem ke'Sha'as ha'Gezeilah', proving that Rebbi
holds 'Shinuy Koneh', and that his reason in the Beraisa above (where he
obligates the Ganav to return the babies too) is because of K'nas.
(c) In fact, on account of Rav's version of the Mishnah, that was not the
She'eilah in the first place. The She'eilah was - whether the K'nas extends
to a case of Shogeg (i.e. someone who purchased the stolen property from the
Ganav without knowing that the goods were stolen).
(a) The Beraisa discusses Peyros, Sh'vach Peyros, ha'Mekabel Alav La'zun ben
Ishto, u'bas Ishto, Get Chov she'Ein Bo Achrayus and Kesuvas Ishah she'Ein
Bo Ach'rayos - all of whom, the Beraisa states, may only claim from B'nei
Chorin (property actually in the defendants Reshus), but not from Meshubadim
(that he has sold).
(b) 'Peyros' and 'Sh'vach Peiros' are the fully-grown fruits which grew in
the field and the various improvements that the purchaser made in the field
that he bought from a Ganav, respectively.
(c) Despite the fact that the purchaser claims the Keren from Meshubadim, he
may not do so from the Peyros and Sh'vach Peyros - because the amounts are
(d) The reason for the last two cases in the Beraisa ('Get Chov she'Ein Bo
Ach'rayus and Kesuvas Ishah she'Ein Bo Ach'rayos') is because Ach'rayos was
not written in the Sh'tar.
(a) The author of the Beraisa must be Rebbi Meir - because the last two
cases speak when Ach'rayos was simply omitted from the Sh'tar (as opposed to
when the Sofer specifically wrote 'without Ach'rayos'), and Rebbi Meir is
the one who holds 'Ach'rayos La'av Ta'us Sofer Hu' (the omission of
Ach'rayos is deliberate, and was not just omitted erroneously by the Sofer).
(b) We attempt to resolve our current She'eilah (whether the Chachamim
extended the K'nas to Shogeg as well, or not) from this Beraisa - by
presuming that the purchaser was an Am ha'Aretz, who did not know the
principle that 'Karka Einah Nigzeles', yet even he is obligated to pay the
Sh'vach Peyros to the owner (which is certainly no more than a K'nas).
(c) In order to refute this suggestion, we establish the Beraisa - by a
Talmid-Chacham, who knows that 'Karka Einah Nigzeles'.
(a) The Mishnah later discusses the Din with regard to Shimon, who dyed
Reuven's garment black instead of red or vice-versa. According to Rebbi
Meir - Shimon is obligated to pay only for the wool.
(b) This proves - that the Rabbanan did not fine the Ganav (or the one who
bought from him) be'Shogeg, only be'Meizid (otherwise, Shimon would have had
to pay the Sh'vach, too).
(a) We learned in the Beraisa above 'Rebbi Yehudah Omer, Gezeilah Chozeres
be'Eineihah. Rebbi Shimon Omer, Ro'in Osah Ke'ilu Hi Shuma Etzlo be'Kesef'.
Both Tana'im hold - 'Shinuy Koneh'.
(b) According to Rav Z'vid, they argue over a case where the stolen animal's
value increased (e.g. it became pregnant) whilst in the domain of the
Ganav - Rebbi Yehudah holds that this too (the difference between the sheep
before the pregnancy and after it) is returned to the owner (should he
subsequently claim it); whilst according to Rebbi Shimon, it belongs to the
(c) Rav Papa disagrees. According to him, Rebbi Yehudah concedes that
'Sh'vach she'al-Gabei Gezeilah, de'Gazlan Havi'.
(d) When he establishes their Machlokes by 'le'Mechtzah, li'Shelish
1. ... Rebbi Yehudah will hold - that the entire Sh'vach goes to the Gazlan
(as is implied in his words 'Gezeilah Chozeres be'Einehah' [but no more]).
2. ... Rebbi Shimon will hold - that basically, the Sh'vach on the Gezeilah
goes to the owner. However, the Gazlan receives a half, a third or a
quarter, in accordance with the local custom concerning animal handlers.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Gazal Parah ve'Nis'abrah Etzlo ve'Yaldah ...
Meshalem ke'Sha'as ha'Gezeilah', from which we can infer - that had the
animal not given birth, he would have had to return it to the owner as is.
(b) This concurs only with the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah, according to the
explanation of Rav Z'vid.
(c) Rav Papa therefore (explain this Mishnah, which, according to the
inference, appears to go neither like Rebbi Yehudah nor like Rebbi Shimon) -
disagrees with this inference. According to him, the Tana mentions 'Yaldah'
(not to preclude a case where the animal did not give birth [which in fact,
has the same Din as when it did, but]) - in order to balance with the Reisha
of the Mishnah, which talks about Yaldah.
(d) The Chidush of 'Yaldah' in the Reisha is - that the Ganav does not pay
the value of the stolen animal as much as it is worth now, but as much as it
was worth when he stole it (to teach us 'Shinuy Koneh').
(a) We support Rav Papa's opinion with a Beraisa, where the Tana quotes
Rebbi Shimon as saying - 'Ro'in Osah ke'Ilu Hi Shuma Etzlo be'Kesef,
le'Mechtzah, li'Shelish ve'li'Revi'a'.
(b) Rav Ashi and his colleagues asked Rav Kahana - whether, according to
Rebbi Shimon, one is permitted to pay the Ganav his half, third or quarter
with cash, or whether he is entitled to demand part of the animal.
(a) Rav Nachman Amar Shmuel says - that 'Bechor le'Pashut, Ba'al-Chov
le'Loke'ach and Ba'al-Chov li'Yesomim' who claim from the Pashut, the
Loke'ach and the Yesomim respectively, may compensate them with money, if
they so wish.
(b) All three are claiming the Sh'vach together with the field (though in
our Sugya, we are concerned only with the Sh'vach).
(c) The case of 'Bechor le'Pashut' is - when the Bechor claimed, shall we
say, twelve Zuzim worth of Sh'vach that grew on account of the Pashut. Now
the Bechor is not entitled to a double portion of the Sh'vach. Consequently,
if he claimed eight Zuzim worth, he must return two.
(d) Rav Ashi resolved Rav Kahana's She'eilah from here - because although
Shmuel specifically said 'Sheloshah Shamin ... ', his ruling incorporates
all similar cases, even those that are a number not mentioned by him (see
Tosfos DH 'Sheloshah').
(a) Ravina queries Rav Ashi regarding a discrepancy in Shmuel. When Shmuel
says 'Ba'al-Chov Govah es ha'Shevach', he means - that the creditor may
claim the Sh'vach from the purchaser without having to recompensate him at
(b) Rav Ashi reconciles this statement with Shmuel's previous ruling, where
he obligated the Ba'al-Chov to compensate the purchaser - by establishing
the earlier ruling by 'Sh'vach ha'Magi's li'Kesafim' (when the produce had
all but fully-grown, and was sufficiently ripe to be picked), and the later
ruling to where the crops still needed to remain in the ground (since it is
considered part of the ground).
(c) When Shmuel regularly claimed even Sh'vach ha'Magi'a li'Kesafim from the
purchaser without charging compensation - he did so in cases where the
creditor was owed the combined value of the field plus the Sh'vach (whereas
whenever he did charge, it was when the creditor was only owed the value of
the field but not of the Sh'vach).
(a) One opinion holds that a purchaser is obligated to give the creditor the
portion of land that is Meshubad to him, and not money. Others - permit him
to settle with money, should he so wish.
(b) This second opinion poses a Kashya on Shmuel's previous ruling (that the
creditor is permitted to compensate the purchaser with money) - because if
the purchaser has the basic right to pay the creditor money when he has it,
why can he not then demand of the creditor, who has claimed the Sh'vach
(because he did not have money to give him) at least to leave him land as
(c) To answer Ravina's Kashya - Rav Ashi establishes Shmuel's case by an
Apotiki Mefurash (where the debtor was initially Meshabed specifically this
piece of land, and which consequently, the purchaser could not have settled
with money even if he had had it).