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 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!
1) DOUBLE LIABILITY
(a) (Mishnah): If he stole and slaughtered on Yom Kipur...
2) SLAUGHTER ON SHABBOS
(b) Question: Why does he pay? Granted, he is not liable to
die - but he is lashed, and one does not get lashes and
(c) Answer #1: The Mishnah is as R. Meir, who says that one
is lashed and pays.
(d) Question: If the Mishnah is as R. Meir, he should be pay
even when he slaughtered on Shabbos!
1. Suggestion: Perhaps R. Meir says that one is lashed
and pays, but one liable to die does not pay.
(e) Answer: Indeed, R. Meir says that one is lashed and pays,
but one liable to die does not pay;
2. Rejection (Beraisa - R. Meir): A thief pays 4 and 5
even for stealing and slaughtering: on Shabbos; to
idolatry; an animal sentenced to be stoned;
3. Chachamim say, he is exempt.
1. R. Yochanan explained, the Beraisa is when the thief
made an agent to slaughter for him.
(f) Question: Must the thief pay for the transgression of his
(g) Answer #1 (Rava): This is an exception - "And he will
slaughter or sell it" - just as (he is liable for)
selling it, which involves another person, also for
slaughtering it through another person.
(h) Answer #2 (Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): "Or" includes that he
is liable through (slaughter by) an agent.
(i) Answer #3 (Tana d'vei Chizkiyah): "In place of" includes
that he is liable through an agent.
(j) Question (Mar Zutra): Do we ever find that Reuven would
be exempt for doing something, he would be exempt, and if
his agent does it, Reuven is liable?!
(k) Answer (Rav Ashi): If the thief would slaughter himself,
really he is liable;
1. He is exempt from paying because he is liable to
(l) Question: If the thief made an agent to slaughter for
him, why do Chachamim exempt the thief?
(m) Answer: Chachamim hold as R. Shimon, that slaughter which
does not permit the meat is not considered slaughter.
(a) Question: This only explains slaughter for idolatry or of
a sentenced ox;
1. But slaughter on Shabbos permits the meat!
(b) Answer: Our Tana holds as R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar.
2. (Mishnah): One who slaughters on Shabbos or Yom
Kipur, even though he is liable to die, the
slaughter is valid.
1. (Mishnah - R. Meir): One who cooks on Shabbos - if
unintentionally, he may eat it (even on Shabbos); if
intentionally, he may not eat it (on Shabbos);
(c) Question: What is the reason of R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar?
2. R. Yehudah says, if unintentionally, he may eat it
after Shabbos; if intentionally, he may never eat
3. R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar says, if unintentionally,
others may eat it after Shabbos; if intentionally,
even others may never eat it.
(d) Answer (R, Chiya): "...Shabbos is Kodesh to you" - just
as one may not eat Kodesh, also what is made on Shabbos;
1. Suggestion: Perhaps what is made on Shabbos should
be forbidden to benefit from, just as Kodesh!
(e) R. Acha and Ravina argued whether R. Yochanan ha'Sandlar
forbids what is made on Shabbos mid'Oraisa or
2. Rejection: "To you" - you may benefit from it.
3. Suggestion: Perhaps even what is made on Shabbos
unintentionally should be forbidden to benefit from!
4. Rejection: "Those that profane (Shabbos) will die" -
this was only said by intentional sinners.
1. The one who says mid'Oraisa - as we expounded!
(f) According to the opinion that it is forbidden mid'Oraisa
- we have answered why Chachamim exempt the thief.
2. The one who says mid'Rabanan - "It (Shabbos) is
Kodesh" - but what is made on Shabbos is not Kodesh.
(g) Question: But according to the opinion that it is
forbidden mid'Rabanan - why do Chachamim exempt him?
3) THE OTHER CASES
(h) Answer: Indeed, they only exempt him in the other cases.
(a) Question: Why does R. Meir obligate him for slaughter to
idolatry - once he starts slaughtering, the animal
becomes forbidden, it is no longer the property of the
4) A HALF-FINE
(b) Answer (Rava): The case is, he said that he only serves
the idolatry with the conclusion of the slaughter.
(c) Question: (Why does R. Meir obligate for slaughter of) a
sentenced animal - it is forbidden, it is not the
property of the original owner!
(d) Answer (Rava): The case is, Levi deposited his ox by a
watchman (Shimon); while by Shimon, it gored and was
sentenced. Reuven slaughtered it; R. Meir holds as R.
Yakov and as R. Shimon.
1. R. Yakov says, even if a watchman returns an animal
after it was sentenced, it is considered returned;
(e) Question (Rav Zvid of Nehardai): How can R. Yochanan say
that our Mishnah (which obligates for slaughter on Yom
Kipur) is only as R. Meir (who obligates lashes and
money), not as R. Shimon?
2. R. Shimon holds, something which is worth money to
someone (even if it is worthless to all others -
here, the ox has value only to Shimon, he can exempt
himself by returning it), one who damages it is
i. (Mishnah - R. Shimon): Sacrifices for which one
must bring a substitute if it itself is not
brought, one who damages them is liable.
1. (End of the Mishnah): R. Shimon exempts in these 2
cases - this implies, he agrees to all the others!
(f) Answer (Rav Kahana): No, it only implies that he agrees
to slaughter for dogs or medicinal needs, which were also
taught in the last clause.
(a) (Mishnah): If he stole from his father and slaughtered or
(b) Question (Rava): Reuven stole and slaughtered an ox of 2
partners, then he admitted to 1 of them (which exempts
him of paying a fine to that partner) - what is the law?
1. The Torah said "Five cattle in place of the ox" -
not 5 half-cattle;
(c) Answer #1 (Rav Nachman): There is no payment of 5
2. Or - "Five cattle" - even 5 half-cattle.
1. Question (Mishnah): If he stole from his father and
slaughtered or sold, then his father died, he pays 4
(d) Answer #2 (retraction - Rav Nachman): He pays 5
i. When the father dies, he inherits part and is
exempt on his part - yet he pays 4 and 5 for
the parts of his brothers!
2. Answer: The case is, Beis Din ruled that he is
liable, and then his father died.
i. Inference: Had his father died before this, he
would be exempt.
3. Question: If so, why does the end of the Mishnah
speak of slaughtering after his father died - it
should say, even when he slaughtered in his father's
life, if his father died before the trial, he is
4. Answer: Indeed, that is true; the Tana preferred the
case of slaughtering after the father died for
(e) Question (end of the Mishnah): If he slaughters after his
father died, he is exempt - why is this different than
(the previous clause), when he slaughtered in the
(f) Answer: "And he slaughtered it" connotes that this was
totally forbidden - that is only in the father's