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 15
1) LAWS OF COLLECTING DAMAGES
(a) (Mishnah): According to witnesses...
2) HALF-PAYMENT FOR THE DAMAGE OF A TAM
(b) This excludes one who admits to a fine, and later
witnesses come - the person is exempt.
1. This fits the opinion that if one admits to a fine,
and later witnesses come, the person is exempt.
(c) Question: According to the opinion that one who admits to
a fine, and later witnesses come, the person is liable -
what does the Mishnah teach?
(d) Answer: The Chidush is the end of the Mishnah - free men,
members of the covenant.
1. Free men - this excludes slaves; members of the
covenant - this excludes Nochrim.
(e) (Mishnah): Women are include in damages.
2. We need to hear both.
i. If we only heard by slaves - one might have
thought, this is because they have no lineage;
but Nochrim have lineage, they would collect
ii. If we only heard by Nochrim - one might have
thought, this is because he has only 7 Mitzvos;
but slaves have Mitzvos (that women have), they
would collect damages.
(f) Question: From where do we know this?
(g) Answer (Rav Yehudah): "A man or woman that will do any
sin" - the Torah equates men and women for all
(h) (D'vei R. Elazar): "These are the judgments that you will
put in front of them" - the Torah equates men and women
for all (monetary) judgments;
(i) (D'vei Chizkiyah): "And (an ox) will kill a man or woman"
- the Torah equates men and women regarding death.
(j) We need to hear all of these.
1. If we only heard by punishments - one might have
thought, this is just so she will get atonement -
but (monetary) judgments are for men;
2. If we only heard by judgments - this is so she can
do business and earn a living, but only men get
punishments for atonement, for they are obligated in
all the Mitzvos;
3. If we only heard these 2 - for the reasons of
atonement and business, but Kofer (ransom) would
only be by a man, not a woman - we hear, this is not
4. If we only heard by Kofer - this is because a life
was lost; but without loss of life, women are not as
men - we hear, this is not so.
(a) (Mishnah): The damager and damagee are both involved in
(b) (Rav Papa): Half-damage paid by a Tam - this is principle
(i.e. not a fine).
(c) (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): It is a fine.
1. Rav Papa holds, oxen are not considered guarded;
really, the owner should pay full damage;
(d) (Mishnah): The damager and damagee are both involved in
i. The Torah was lenient, because he was not yet
warned to guard it.
2. Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua holds, oxen are
considered guarded; really, the owner should be
i. The Torah fined him, to encourage him to guard
(e) This fits the opinion that half-damage is principle - the
damagee loses half of what he deserves.
(f) Question: But according to the opinion that it is a fine
- the damagee receives what he does not deserve, can we
say he is involved in the payments?!
(g) Answer: The Mishnah refers to the decrease in value of a
carcass, which the damagee suffers.
(h) Question: A previous Mishnah already taught this -
'Payments of damage', which teaches that the damagee
deals with the carcass!
(i) Answer: The Mishnah teaches this by a Tam and Mu'ad; we
need to hear by both.
i. If we only heard by a Tam - one might have
thought, because the damager was not yet warned
to guard his ox, the Torah did not make him
lose the decreased value of the carcass (but by
a Mu'ad, he would lose this)
(j) (Mishnah): The difference between Tam and Mu'ad, is that
a Tam pays half-damage (up to) its own value, and a Mu'ad
pays full damage, even above its own value.
ii. If we only heard by a Mu'ad - because he pays
full damage, we do not make him suffer the
decrease in value of the carcass (but buy a
Tam, he would).
1. Question: If half-damage is a fine - the Mishnah
should also say, a Tam does not pay according to
admission of the owner!
2. Answer: The Tana did not list all differences.
3. Question: Surely, he did not omit only 1 thing -
what else did he omit?
4. Answer #1: That only a Mu'ad pays Kofer.
5. Objection: That answer is not acceptable - our
Mishnah is as R. Yosi ha'Galili, who says that a Tam
(k) (Mishnah): My ox killed Ploni, or Ploni's ox - he pays by
his own admission.
3) TAM AND MU'AD
1. Suggestion: This refers to a Tam.
(l) (Beraisa): The general rule is: any payment more than the
damage is not paid by the person's admission.
2. Rejection No, it is by a Mu'ad.
3. (Inference): But a Tam would not pay by its own
i. Question: If so, why did the end of the Mishnah
say 'My ox killed Ploni's slave - he does not
pay by his own admission';
ii. The Mishnah could have distinguished within the
first case - he pays by his own admission by a
Mu'ad, not by a Tam!
iii. Answer: The Mishnah deals only with a Mu'ad.
(m) (Inference): Any payment less than the damage is paid by
the person's admission.
(n) Rejection: No - the inference is, any payment equal to
the damage is paid by the person's admission.
(o) Question: But less than the damage is paid by the
1. If so, why did the Mishnah say 'any payment more
than the damage is not paid by the person's
admission' - it should have said, any payment not
equal to the damage is not paid by the person's
admission, implying more or less!
(p) Since we say that half-damage is a fine - if a dog ate a
sheep, or a cat eats a chicken, this is abnormal (hence a
derivative of Keren), we do not collect it in Bavel (as
all other fines).
2. Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua is refuted.
3. The law is, half-damage is a fine.
4. Question: That was refuted, it cannot be the law!
5. Answer: The refutation was because the Mishnah did
not say 'any payment not equal to the damage is not
paid by the person's admission' - the Mishnah could
not say this, for it is not always true.
i. A tradition from Moshe from Sinai teaches that
half-damage of pebbles is not a fine.
1. This is only if they ate a large sheep or chicken -
it is normal for them to eat small ones.
(q) In any case, we excommunicate him until he removes the
2. If the damagee grabbed payment, we do not make him
3. If the damagee requested to fix a time to go to
Eretz Yisrael to judge the case, we comply; if the
damager does not agree, we excommunicate him.
1. (Beraisa - R. Noson): "Do not put blood in your
house" - this forbids one to have a wild dog or
rickety ladder in his house.
(a) (Mishnah): There are 5 Tam damagers, and 5 Mu'ad
1. An animal is not Mu'ad to gore, push, bite, crouch
(b) (Gemara): Since it says Shen is Mu'ad to eat fitting
food, this must be in the damagee's premises; and it
says, a Tam pays half-damage.
2. Shen is Mu'ad to eat food fitting for it; Regel is
Mu'ad to break things as it walks;
3. A Mu'ad ox; an ox that damages in the damagee's
premises; and man.
4. A wolf, lion, bear, leopard, Bardelus, and snake are
i. R. Elazar says, if they are domesticated, they
are not Mu'ad, except for a snake, which is
1. This is as Chachamim, who say that Keren pays
half-damage in the damagee's premises.
2. Question: The end of the Mishnah includes an ox that
damages in the damagee's premises as Mu'ad - this is
as R. Tarfon!
i. Is the beginning of the Mishnah as Chachamim,
and the end as R. Tarfon?!
3. Answer #1 (Shmuel): Yes!
4. Answer #2 (R. Elazar): The whole Mishnah is as R.
Tarfon; the beginning of the Mishnah is in a field
in which only the damagee may leave fruit, and both
the damagee and damager may have animals;
i. Regarding Shen, it is as the yard of the
damagee; regarding Keren, it is as public