POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Bava Kama 5
BAVA KAMA 5 - dedicated by Rabbi Ari and Esther Maryles in honor of
the publication of Sefer Toras Shimon -- Divrei Torah from the
great Chassidic master, Rebbi Shimon Maryles, the Rebbe of
1) WHY R. OSHIYAH OMITTED THESE CASES
(a) Question: Why did R. Oshiyah omit these other 11 cases?
2) EXCLUDED CASES
(b) Answer: He only lists payments of principle, not fines.
(c) Question: He should have listed (the principle paid by) a
thief and Gazlan!
(d) Answer: These are included in the cases of the watchmen.
(e) Question: Why did R, Chiya list them separately?
(f) Answer: By a watchman, the money came to his hand in a
permitted way; a thief or Gazlan took the money in a
(g) Question: R. Oshiyah should have listed Edim Zomemim, for
they pay principle!
(h) Answer: He holds as R. Akiva, who says they do not pay if
they admit (i.e. it is a fine).
1. Question: If he holds as R. Akiva, he should list
separately an ox that damages a man from an ox that
damages an animal!
(i) Question: R. Oshiyah should have listed a rapist, enticer
and Motzi Shem Ra, for these pay principle (in addition
to a fine)!
i. (Mishnah - R. Akiva): Even a Tam (an animal not
established to be a gorer) that damages a man
pays the full damage, less what the man damaged
2. Answer: R. Akiva says that (even when a Tam gores a
person), payment comes only from the animal - R.
Oshiyah only listed damages that are paid from Idis
i. (Beraisa - R. Akiva): "Will be done to it" -
payment comes only from the animal.
(j) Answer: Regarding the Nezek, pain, and embarrassment - he
1. Regarding the blemish - this is Nezek!
(k) Question: R. Oshiyah should have listed one who makes
Tamei, one who mixes Terumah with Chulin, and one who
pours libations to idolatry, for these pay principle!
2. Regarding the fine - he is not listing fines!
(l) Answer #1: If unrecognizable damage is considered damage
- this is Nezek!
(m) Answer #2: If unrecognizable damage is not considered
damage - a mi'Derabanan fine obligates them to pay, R.
Oshiyah is not listing fines!
1. Suggestion: R, Chiya cannot hold that unrecognizable
damage is considered damage, for then these cases
are included in Nezek!
2. Rejection: He can hold that it is considered damage
- he lists separately recognizable and
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah gave the number of damagers (4),
to exclude those of R. Oshiyah and R, Chiya;
3) WHY THE TORAH WROTE ALL THE DAMAGERS
1. R. Oshiyah gave the number of damagers (13), to
exclude those of R, Chiya;
(b) Question: What did R, Chiya come to exclude by saying
there are (only) 24 damagers?
(c) Answer: He excludes a Moser (one who informs to the
government to take someone's property) and Mefagel (a
Kohen who disqualifies a sacrifice through improper
(d) Question: He should have listed them!
(e) Answer #1: He did not list Mefagel, for he deals only
(f) Answer #2: He did not list Moser, for he damages by mere
words - R, Chiya does not list such damagers.
(g) Question: But he listed Motzi Shem Ra, who damages with
(h) Answer: A Motzi Shem Ra is only obligated if he also did
an action (relations).
(i) Question: But he listed Edim Zomemim, who damage with
(j) Answer: The Torah calls their words an action - "As he
plotted to do".
(k) The Tana of our Mishnah mentioned primary damagers,
because there are also secondary damagers;
(l) Question: R. Oshiyah and R, Chiya also mentioned primary
damagers - what are the secondary damagers of their
(m) Answer (R. Avahu): They are all called primary because
they pay from Idis.
(n) Question: From where do we know this?
(o) Answer: From an extended Gezeirah Shavah - by all 24, it
says "Tachas" or "Nesinah" or "Yeshalem" or "Kesef".
(a) (Mishnah): The leniency of an ox is unlike that of
(b) Question: Why does the Mishnah say this?
(c) Answer (Rav Zvid): The Mishnah suggested, 1 damager could
have been learned from another - it then shows why it
could not be learned.
(d) (Mishnah): The leniency of these 2, which are alive...
(e) Question: Why does the Mishnah say this?
(f) Answer (Rav Mesharshiya): The Mishnah suggested, 1
damager could have been learned from 2 damagers - it then
shows why it could not be learned.
(g) (Rava): A pit and any of the others could teach (through
a Tzad ha'Shavah) the remaining 2;
1. The only exception is Keren - this could not be
learned, for the sources are Mu'ad from the
beginning, but Keren is not Mu'ad from the
(h) Question: If so, why did the Torah write all 4?
2. According to the opinion that it is more reasonable
to obligate Keren, for it has intention to damage,
even Keren could be learned.
(i) Answer: By each, we learn its special laws.
1. Keren - to distinguish between Tam and Mu'ad;
2. Shen and Regel - to exempt them in a public domain;
3. A pit - to exempt vessels damaged in a pit;
i. Question: R. Yehudah obligates even vessels -
what special law of a pit does he learn?
4. Fire - to exempt things that were concealed.
ii. Answer: To exempt a man that is damaged in a
i. Question: R. Yehudah obligates even what was
concealed - what special law of fire does he
ii. Answer: To include when a field or rock was