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 45
1) AN OX THAT IS SENTENCED TO STONING
(a) (Mishnah): Reuven's ox was being brought out to be
stoned; he made it Hekdesh - it is not Hekdesh; if he
slaughtered it, the meat is forbidden.
2) THE RESPONSIBILITY OF WATCHMEN
(b) Before a verdict was reached, if he made it Hekdesh, it
is Hekdesh; if he slaughtered it, the meat is permitted.
(c) If he gave it over to a free watchman, borrower, paid
watchman or renter - they are as the owner: a Mu'ad pays
full damage, a Tam pays half-damage.
(d) (Gemara - Beraisa): Reuven's ox killed - before the final
verdict, if he sold it, it is sold; if he made it
Hekdesh, it is Hekdesh; if he slaughtered it, the meat is
permitted; if the watchman returned it to Reuven's house,
it is considered returned;
1. After the verdict (if Reuven did these things) - it
is not sold, it is not Hekdesh, the meat is
forbidden; if the watchman returned it, it is not
(e) Suggestion: Chachamim say that a watchman cannot return
something deposited by him after it became forbidden to
benefit from (rather, he must pay); R. Yakov says, he
2. R. Yakov says, if the watchman returned it, it is
(f) Rejection (Rabah): All agree, one can return something
that became forbidden to benefit from;
1. [Version #1 (Rashi): If that was the argument,
Chachamim should hold that one may not return
Chametz after Pesach (but they do not).]
(g) Rather, they argue whether Beis Din can sentence an ox
that is not there.
2. [Version #2 (Tosfos): If that was the argument, the
argument (here) should have been taught regarding
Chametz on Pesach (so we could not think they argue
on something else).]
1. Chachamim say they may not sentence an ox in its
absence - Reuven can say, you made me lose my ox -
had you returned it to me, I would have hid it, it
would not have been sentenced;
(h) Question: From where do Chachamim learn?
2. R. Yakov says, an ox may be sentenced in its absence
- in any case, it would have been sentenced.
(i) Answer: "The ox will be stoned, and also the owner will
die" - execution of an ox is as execution of the owner;
1. Just as we only sentence a man when he is present,
also by an ox.
2. R. Yakov says, this only applies to a man, who can
make claims - it is unreasonable to learn this by an
(a) (Mishnah): If he gave the ox to a free watchman, a
(b) (Beraisa): Four watchmen are in place of the owner: a
free watchman, a borrower, a paid watchman, and a renter.
1. If the animal is Tam - if it kills, it is killed,
Kofer is not paid;
(c) Question: What is the case?
2. If the animal is Mu'ad - if it kills, it is killed,
Kofer is paid;
i. The watchman must compensate the owner for the
loss of his ox, except for a free watchman.
1. Suggestion: If he guarded the ox - no watchman
should have to compensate the owner!
(d) Answer: The case is, he guarded it poorly.
2. Suggestion: If he did not guard the ox - even a free
watchman must repay the value!
1. This is enough for a free watchman, not for other
(e) Question: Who is the Tana of the Beraisa?
1. Suggestion: If as R. Meir, who says that a renter is
as a free watchman - also a renter should be exempt
from returning the value of the ox!
1) HOW WELL MUST ONE GUARD AN ANIMAL?
2. Suggestion: If as R. Yehudah, who says that a renter
is as a paid watchman - all should be exempt from
Kofer by a Mu'ad (he holds that a poor guarding
suffices for a Mu'ad)!
(f) Answer #1 (Rav Huna bar Chinena): The Beraisa is R.
Elazar, who says that a Mu'ad cannot be guarded, it must
1. Regarding a renter, he holds as R. Yehudah, he is as
a paid watchman.
(g) Answer #2 (Abaye): Really he holds as R. Meir, as Rabah
bar Avuha switches their opinions.
1. (Rabah bar Avuha): R. Meir says, a renter is as a
paid watchman; R. Yehudah says, he is as a free
(h) (R. Elazar): Reuven handed his ox over to Shimon, a free
watchman. If it damaged, Shimon is liable; if it was
damaged, he is exempt.
(i) Question: What is the case?
1. If he accepted to guard it - he should be liable
even if it is damaged!
(j) Answer (Rava): Really, he accepted to guard it - the case
is, he knew it was a gorer.
2. If he did not accept to guard it - he should be
exempt even if it damaged!
1. He expected to have to guard it from damaging - he
did not expect to have to guard it from being
damaged (since animals are afraid of it)!
(a) (Mishnah - R. Meir): Reuven tied his ox with a rope, or
locked (a gate) in front of properly, and it escaped and
damaged - he is liable, whether it is Tam or Mu'ad;
(b) R. Yehudah says, a Tam is liable, a Mu'ad is exempt - "If
he will not guard it", and this is guarded!
(c) R. Elazar says, a Mu'ad cannot be guarded, it must be
(d) (Gemara) Question: What is R. Meir's reason?
(e) Answer: He holds, people normally do not guard their
oxen; the Torah said that a Tam must pay - it requires a
minimal guarding. By Mu'ad it says "If he will not guard
it", that it must be guarded well; we learn Tam (from a
Gezeirah Shavah "Yigach-Yigach") from Mu'ad.
1. R. Yehudah holds, people normally guard their oxen
(minimally); the Torah said that a Tam must pay - it
must be guarded well. By Mu'ad it says "If he will
not guard it", also saying that is must be guarded
well - since this is a second verse coming to
include the same thing, it really comes to exclude,
i.e. a poor guarding suffices for a Mu'ad.
(f) (Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yakov): A minimal guarding
suffices for both Tam and Mu'ad.
i. Question: We should learn Tam from Mu'ad,
through the Gezeirah Shavah!
ii. By Mu'ad it says "If he will not guard it" - a
minimal guarding is not enough for anything
iii. Question: But we need the verse to teach that
one who did not guard it is liable!
iv. Answer: It could have said "If he will not
guard"; "it" is extra, to say that a minimal
guarding only suffices for a Mu'ad.
1. Question: How does he learn?
(g) (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): R. Yehudah only exempts the
additional payment of a Mu'ad side with a minimal
guarding, not the half-damage that a Tam pays.
2. Answer: He learns that a minimal guarding suffices
for a Mu'ad - as R. Yehudah;
i. He learns Tam from Mu'ad from the Gezeirah
Shavah - as R. Meir.
(h) (Rav): An ox Mu'ad to gore with the right horn is not
Mu'ad to gore with the left horn.
(i) Question: (Rav cannot teach about paying half or full
damage - this follows simply from a Mishnah (Mu'ad for
animals is not Mu'ad for people)! Surely, he came to
teach about how well it must be guarded.) As whom does
1. If as R. Meir - but he holds that both Tam and Mu'ad
need a proper guarding!
(j) Answer: Really, he holds as R. Yehudah; Rav does not hold
as Rav Ada bar Ahavah;
2. If as R. Yehudah - even the right horn has both a
Tam and Mu'ad side (so he could have taught about
the levels of guarding the right horn alone)!
1. This is the only case in which R. Yehudah holds that
a Mu'ad has a Tam side.