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 77
BAVA KAMA 77 - Dedicated by Dr. and Mrs. Moshe & Rivka Snow of Queens, N.Y.,
in memory of Rabbis Israel Snow and Baruch Mayer Rabinowitz -- both of whose
Yahrzeits are 8 Elul.
1) SOMETHING FITTING TO BE REDEEMED
(a) Likewise, he holds that anything fitting to be redeemed,
it is considered as if it was redeemed.
(b) (Beraisa - R. Shimon): A red heifer receives Tum'ah of
foods because there was a time when it was fitting to be
2) THE DIFFERENT ANSWERS
1. (Reish Lakish): R. Shimon holds that a red heifer
may be redeemed even (after slaughter) by the wood
(when it is about to be burned).
2. It receives Tum'ah even though it was never actually
permitted to eat, but it was fitting to be eaten had
it been redeemed - since it could have been
redeemed, we considered it as if it was redeemed.
(a) R. Yochanan (bottom of 76A) did not answer as Reish
Lakish - he wanted to establish the Mishnah even by
(b) Question: Why didn't Reish Lakish answer as R. Yochanan?
(c) Answer: "And he slaughtered it or sold it" - a thief is
only liable (4 or 5) for slaughtering if he would have
been liable for selling.
1. Since unblemished Kodshim cannot be sold, a thief is
not liable for slaughtering them.
(d) R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish are consistent with what
they said elsewhere.
1. (R. Yochanan): R. Shimon obligates a thief that
sells a Treifah - even though he would be exempt for
slaughtering it (since this does not permit the
meat), he is liable for selling it;
(e) Question (R. Yochanan - Beraisa): A thief stole Kilayim
(a crossbreed) and slaughtered it, or a Treifah and sold
it - he pays 4 or 5.
2. (Reish Lakish): R. Shimon exempts him - since he is
exempt for slaughtering it, he is exempt for selling
1. Suggestion: This is as R. Shimon - even though he
would be exempt for slaughtering it, he is liable
for selling it.
(f) Answer (Reish Lakish): No, it is as Chachamim.
(g) Question: If as Chachamim (who say that one is liable for
slaughter even if the meat is not permitted), he is
liable even for slaughtering a Treifah!
1. Counter-question: (Even) if you will say it is R.
Shimon, he should be liable for selling Kilayim!
(h) Answer: Also by a Treifah, Chachamim mentioned selling
it, the same applies to slaughtering it!
2. Answer: You must say, the Tana mentioned
slaughtering Kilayim, but the same is true of
(i) Rejection (R. Yochanan): We understand if the Mishnah is
as R. Shimon - since the Tana could only teach 1 thing
(selling), he also taught only 1 (slaughter) by Kilayim
(even though both apply);
1. But if the Mishnah is as Chachamim, they should be
taught together - for slaughtering or selling a
Treifah or Kilayim, he pays 4 or 5!
2. This is left difficult (for Reish Lakish).
(a) Question: Why does he pay 4 or 5 for Kilayim - the Torah
said "Seh" (a sheep or goat);
1. (Rava): Wherever the Torah says "Seh", this excludes
(b) Answer: It says "Ox or Seh" - to include Kilayim.
(c) Question: Is it really true that 'or' always comes to
1. (Beraisa): "An ox or lamb" - to exclude Kilayim; "or
goat" - to exclude a Nidmeh (an animal that does not
resemble its parents (a child of 2 sheep that looks
like a goat)).
(d) Answer (Rava): 'Or' changes what we would have otherwise
understood from the verse.
1. By theft, it says "Ox or Seh" - mating them cannot
produce Kilayim, one would have thought that 4 or 5
does not apply to Kilayim - 'or' teaches, it does
2. By Kodshim, it says "Lamb or goat" - mating them can
produce Kilayim, one would have thought that Kilayim
are valid sacrifices - 'or' teaches, they are not.
3. Question: But by Kodshim it also says "Ox or lamb",
which cannot produce Kilayim - we should say, 'or'
comes to include Kilayim!
4. Answer: Since the second 'or' in the verse comes to
exclude, also the first 'or' excludes.
5. Question: To the contrary! We should say, since the
first 'or' comes to include, also the second 'or'!
6. Answer: No - as we learned is reasonable, after
excluding Kilayim, we must also exclude Nidmeh;
i. But if the first 'or' comes to include Kilayim,
all the more so a Nidmeh is a valid sacrifice,
we do not need another 'or'!