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 98
1) REPAYING IN A DIFFERENT CURRENCY
(a) Question (Rava): Reuven lent Shimon in a coinage, and
they increased the (weight of) the coins - what is the
2) INDIRECT OR UNNOTICEABLE DAMAGE
(b) Answer (Rav Chisda): He must return coins that are
(c) Question (Rava): Even if the new coins are much bigger?
(d) Answer (Rav Chisda): Yes.
(e) Question: But these coins can buy more food (this is
(f) Answer #1 (Rav Ashi): If they buy more because they are
bigger, he only returns coins with the same purchasing
power; if the price of food has declined, he returns the
same monetary amount, even though it can buy more.
(g) Question: But the new coins have more weight (they are
worth more to be melted down)!
(h) Answer #2: A case occurred; Rav Papa and Rav Huna brei
d'Rav Yehoshua checked with a moneychanger, and found
that 8 new coins equal 10 old coins (which were lent);
1. [Version #1 (Rashi): They ruled that 8 new coins
must be returned. (Had they added less to the coins,
the same number lent would be returned.)]
2. [Version #1 (R. Chananel, brought in Tosfos): They
ruled that 10 new coins must be returned. (Had they
added more to the coins, only the same weight of
metal lent would be returned.)
(a) (Rabah): Reuven threw Shimon's coin into the sea - he is
(b) Question: Why is this?
(c) Answer: The coin is there, it can be retrieved.
1. This is only if the water is clear, so the coin can
be seen; if the water is cloudy, he is liable.
(d) Question (Rava - Mishnah): One may not redeem (Ma'aser
Sheni) on coins not in his jurisdiction;
2. This is only if he knocked Shimon's hand - but if he
took the coin and threw it, he stole it, and he must
return the coin to Shimon.
1. If he had coins in a far away place (with no safe
way to get there), or if his coins fell into the
sea, they may not be used.
(e) Answer (Rabah): Regarding redemption of Ma'aser, the
coins must be available to him - "You will bind the money
in your hand". (But normally, money on the sea floor is
not considered lost.)
(f) (Rabah): Reuven rubbed out the writing or picture on
Shimon's coin - he is exempt.
(g) Question: Why is this?
(h) Answer: He did not do (take away) anything!
1. This is only if he pounded it with a hammer - but if
he filed it smooth, he removed some of the metal, he
(i) Question (Rava - Beraisa): A master hit his slave on his
eye, blinding the eye; or, on his ear, deafening the ear
- the slave goes free (even though nothing is missing)!
1. If he hit him near the eye or ear, and he cannot see
or hear, he does not go free.
(j) Answer: Rabah holds that one who deafens his father is
killed, because certainly he made a wound, a drop of
blood fell in his ear (there is a loss).
(k) (Rabah): Reuven made a groove in the ear of Shimon's cow
(disqualifying it from being a sacrifice) - he is exempt.
(l) Question: Why is this?
(m) Answer: The cow is fine; not all cows are reserved to be
(a) Question (Rava - Beraisa): Reuven did work with Shimon's
red heifer, or with his water standing to be sanctified
with ashes of a red heifer (which disqualifies them) -
Beis Din cannot make him pay, but Hash-m holds him
1. He is only exempt for work, for this is not
noticeable - but a notch in the ear is noticeable,
Beis Din makes him pay!
(b) Answer: No - Beis Din does not makes him pay even for a
notch in the ear, which is noticeable;
1. The Beraisa taught that even for work, which is not
noticeable, he is liable at the hands of Heaven.
(c) (Rabah): Reuven burned Shimon's loan contract - he is
1. He can say, I just burned a piece of paper!
2. Question (Rami bar Chama): What is the case?
2) RETURNING SOMETHING FORBIDDEN
3. If witnesses know what was in the document - they
can write another document!
(d) (Rav Dimi bar Chanina): R. Shimon and Chachamim argue
regarding Rabah's law.
4. If no witnesses know what was in the document - how
could we possibly obligate Reuven to pay?
5. Answer (Rava): Reuven believes Shimon to say what
1. R. Shimon holds that something (whose loss) causes a
loss of money, it is considered to have value (even
if it has no intrinsic value) - he obligates for
(e) Question (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): R. Shimon only
said (it is considered to have value) by something which
was originally money, as Rabah's case!
2. Chachamim say, (anything without intrinsic value) is
not considered to have value, they exempt.
1. (Rabah): Reuven stole Shimon's Chametz before
Pesach; Levi burned it during Pesach - he is exempt,
for all are commanded to burn Chametz on Pesach;
(f) (Ameimar): According to the opinion that obligates for
Garmi ((Tosfos - direct) causation), he must pay the full
value of the document;
2. If he burned it after Pesach - R. Shimon, who holds
that something (whose loss) causes a loss of money,
it is considered to have value, obligates him;
i. Chachamim, who say that it is not considered to
have value, exempt him.
3. We never find that R. Shimon obligates for something
which never had intrinsic value!
1. According to the opinion that exempts for Garmi, he
pays the value of the paper.
(a) (Mishnah): Reuven stole Shimon's Chametz, and Pesach
passed - he can return the Chametz and say, behold, here
is your Chametz.
3) CRAFTSMEN THAT RUINED AN OBJECT
(b) Question: Who is the Tana of our Mishnah, that one may
say 'behold, here is your object' even if it is forbidden
to benefit from it?
(c) Answer (Rav Chisda): It is R. Yakov.
1. (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;
(d) Rejection (Rabah): No, all agree, one may say 'behold,
here is your object', even if it is forbidden to benefit
i. If Shimon had been appointed to watch it, and
he returned it to Reuven's house, it is
2. After the verdict (if Reuven did these things) - it
is not sold, it is not Hekdesh, the meat is
i. If Shimon returned it, it is not considered
ii. R. Yakov says, it is considered returned.
i. Suggestion: R. Yakov holds, one may say
'behold, here is your object' even if it is
forbidden to benefit from it; Chachamim (the
first Tana) say, he may not say this.
3. [Version #1 (Rashi): If that was the argument,
Chachamim should hold that one may not return
Chametz after Pesach (but Chachamim do not say
(e) (Rabah bar Shmuel - Beraisa) Question: "He will return
the stolen object" - why must it say "that he stole"?
4. [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).]
5. Rather, they argue whether Beis Din can sentence an
ox that is not there.
i. Chachamim say they may not sentence an ox in
its absence - Reuven can say, you made me lose
my ox (by giving it over to Beis Din) - had you
returned it to me, I would have hid it, it
would not have been sentenced;
ii. R. Yakov says, an ox may be sentenced in its
absence - in any case, it would have been
(n) Answer: To teach that he returns similar to what he
1. If he stole a coin and it was disqualified, fruit
and they rotted, wine and it soured, Terumah and it
became Tamei, Chametz and Pesach came, an animal and
a person slept with it or it was disqualified from
being a sacrifice, or if (it killed but) was not yet
sentenced to be stoned, he can say 'behold, here is
2. This Tana holds that after it was sentenced to be
stoned, he cannot return the animal - this is as
Chachamim - yet he holds, one may return Chametz
after Pesach! (This supports Rabah, who says that
all agree that stolen objects that became forbidden
may be returned.)
(a) (Mishnah): Reuven gave (something) to a craftsman to fix;
the craftsman ruined it - he is liable;
1. If he gave a chest, box or tower to a carpenter, who
ruined it - he is liable;
(b) (Gemara - Rav Asi): The Mishnah is only when he gave a
chest, box or tower to a carpenter to insert a nail, and
in doing so, he broke it;
2. A builder was hired to dissemble a wall - if he
broke or damaged the rocks, he is liable;
i. If he was dissembling from one side, and it
fell from the other side, he is exempt;
ii. If it fell because of the blow, he is liable.
1. But if he gave him wood to make a chest, box or
tower, and then he broke it, he is exempt, because a
craftsman acquires ownership in a vessel which he
(c) Question (Mishnah): Reuven gave (something) to a
craftsman, and he ruined it - he is liable.
1. Suggestion: He gave him wood.
(d) Answer: No, he gave him a chest, box or tower.
(e) Question: But the next clause is when he gave a chest,
box or tower - implying that in the first clause, he gave
(f) Answer: The second clause explains the first clause: he
is liable when he gave a chest, box or tower.
1. Support: We must say that the second clause explains
the first clause;
2. If the first clause is when he gave him wood - we
would learn that a craftsman does not acquire
ownership in a vessel that he improves - there would
be no need for the second clause to teach that he is
liable for breaking a vessel!
3. Rejection: We can say that the second clause is
needed to reveal that the first clause is when he
gave wood, not when he gave a vessel.