ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 6
BAVA KAMA 6 (13 Av) - Chaim Yitzchok and Aviva Esther Fishof have sponsored
today's Daf for the Zechus of the Neshamah of Mordechai ben Rav Yosef Dov
(whose Yahrzeit is today), and for a Refu'ah Shelemah for Yosef ben Ettel.
(a) According to Abaye, 'ha'Tzad ha'Shaveh she'Bahen, she'Darkan Le'hazik
... ' comes to include a stone, a knife or a load that one left on the roof
and which were blown down - by a regular wind.
(b) This cannot be speaking when they damaged ...
1. ... in flight - because then it would be a regular Toldah of Eish, which
is also transported by the wind (and it would not be necessary for the Tana
to add it).
(c) So we establish Abaye - when the stone ... damaged when they were
stationary, and they are not really comparable to Bor - inasmuch as Bor does
not require a wind to make it a Bor, whereas this Bor only became a Bor
because the wind made it into one.
2. ... after they had landed, assuming the owner declared them Hefker -
because then it would be a regular case of Bor, which stands to damage from
the moment the owner dug it in the street or made it Hefker. Here too, the
moment he placed them on the roof, he should have realized that a regular
wind will blow them down and that they stand to damage.
3. ... after they had landed, assuming the owner did not declare them
Hefker - because they would then be a regular Toldah of Bor according to
Shmuel, and Shor, according to Rav (as we learned above).
(d) We get round the problem of 'Ko'ach Acher Me'urav Bo' - by learning it
from a 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' from not only Bor, but Eish, too.
(a) According to Rava, 'ha'Tzad ha'Shaveh she'Bahen, she'Darkan Le'hazik ...
' comes to include a Bor ha'Misgalgel ... ' - which means a stone that one
placed in the street, but which damages wherever it lands after being kicked
from one place to another.
(b) We establish the case when he declared it Hefker. Nevertheless, this is
not really comparable to Bor - because a Bor is placed by the Mazik alone,
whereas this stone damages after being kicked to a new location by others.
(c) We get round the problem of 'Ein Ma'asav Garmu Lo' - by learning it from
a 'Tzad ha'Shaveh' from Bor and Shor (which is also a case of 'Ein Ma'asav
(d) A third interpretation of what we learn from 'ha'Tzad ha'Shaveh
she'Bahen' is that of Rav Ada bar Ahavah - who connects it with the Beraisa,
which permits opening one's gutters (to let out the sewage) and clearing out
one's caves (to throw out the trash into the street) in the winter.
(a) The Tana says that opening one's gutters and cleaning out one's caves
*in the summer* - is prohibitted
(b) We establish this case too, when the sewage and trash have already
landed in the street, and when the owner declared them Hefker. The Chidush
is - that he is Chayav even though he acted with the consent of Beis-Din.
(c) If the sewage or trash damages ...
1. ... whilst it is moving through the air - he will be Chayav because of
Adam ha'Mazik (due to the principle 'Kocho ke'Gufo').
(d) We resolve the problem that whereas a Bor bi'Reshus ha'Rabim is without
permission, this case speaks with the Beis-Din's consent - by learning it
from Bor and Shor (which also walks around with permission, yet one is
nevertheless liable should it cause damage).
2. ... after it is stationary, but before the owner declares it Hefker - it
will be a Toldah of Bor according to Shmuel, and of Shor, according to Rav.
(a) Ravina has a fourth explanation (of what we learn from 'ha'Tzad
ha'Shaveh she'Bahen' in our Mishnah). He cites a Mishnah in Bava Metzi'a,
which exempts the owner of a wall or a tree that fell into the street and
damaged from paying. He will however, obligate him to pay - if Beis-Din
ordered him to cut down the tree or to break down the wall by a certain
date, and they fell and damaged after that date.
Rav Yehudah Amar Rav ascribes the unusual Lashon 'Chav ha'Mazik' used by the
Tana of our Mishnah (instead of 'Chayav ha'Mazik') - to the Yerushalmi
author of this Mishnah, who spoke a Yerushalmi dialect.
(b) Here again, if the owner declared the wall or the tree Hefker, it is a
Toldah of Bor, and if not, it is Bor according to Shmuel, Shor according to
Rav. And here again, we establish the case - when he declared them Hefker,
and the Chidush is that he is Chayav even though, unlike Bor, they did not
initially stand to damage.
(c) He is nevertheless Chayav - because we learn it from a 'Tzad ha'Shaveh'
from Bor and Shor (which does not initially stand to damage either).
(a) According to Rebbi Yishmael, "Meitav Sadeihu u'Meitav Karmo" refers to
that of the Nizak, which we initially explain to mean - that, if the ox ate
a row of vegetables from the Nizak's field, the owner is obligated to pay
the value of the best quality row in the Nizak's field (even though that is
not the one the ox ate).
(b) Rebbi Akiva says 'Lo Ba ha'Kasuv Ela Li'Gvos le'Nizakin min ha'Idis' -
meaning that he only pays for what his animal ate, only he pays it with his
own best quality fields.
(c) Rebbi Akiva then adds - 'Kal va'Chomer le'Hekdesh' (which will be
(a) The problem with Rebbi Yishmael's opinion is - why we make the Mazik pay
more than the damage that his ox caused.
(b) We reject Rav Idi bad Avin's suggestion that Rebbi Yishmael is speaking
when we do not know which quality row the ox ate - on the grounds of the
principle 'ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro, Alav ha'Re'ayah' (in case of a Safek, the
defendant always pays the lesser amount).
(c) So Rav Acha bar Ya'akov establishes the case when the Idis (best-quality
fields) of the Nizak is on a par with the Ziburis (the worst-quality fields)
of the Mazik.
(d) Rebbi Yishmael holds that the Mazik can pay with his own Ziburis
(because it is equivalent to the Idis of the Nizak), whereas according to
Rebbi Akiva, he must pay with his own Idis.
(a) Rebbi Yishmael derives his opinion from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Sadeh"
("Meitav Sadeihu ... Yeshalem") "Sadeh" ("u'Bi'er bi'S'dei Acher") - which
teaches us that just as the latter clearly refers to the Nizak, so too, does
(b) Rebbi Akiva (who does not learn the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' for this D'rashah)
derive his opinion from the former Pasuk "Meitav Sadeihu u'Meitav Karmo
Yeshalem" - which indicates that the Mazik pays with *his* Idis.
(c) Rebbi Yishmael establishes Rebbi Akiva's D'rashah - in a case where the
Mazik's Ziburis is not on a par with the Nizak's Idis, in which case he will
now have to pay with his own Idis (like Rebbi Akiva).
(a) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Chi Yigof Shor Ish es *Shor Re'eihu*" - that
one is only Chayav to pay for one's ox goring another Jew's ox, but not if
it gores an ox belonging to Hekdesh.
(b) *ve'Lo Shor Hekdesh* might be no more than an example (and the D'rashah
really pertains to fields of Hekdesh too). On the other hand, it might refer
specifically to an ox of Hekdesh, and not to a field of Hekdesh that his ox
ate - because there is simply no such thing (since a Sadeh Cherem belongs to
the Kohanim, and a field that one donated to Bedek ha'Bayis is either
redeemed immediately [either by the owner or by someone else], or it goes to
the Kohanim in the Yovel; whereas prior to the Yovel, there is no Me'ilah on
Karka and one is obligated to pay just like the property of a Hedyot (see
(c) In any event, it is clear that, when Rebbi Akiva said 'Kal va'Chomer
le'Hekdesh', he cannot have meant that if a private ox gored a Hekdesh ox,
he must certainly pay with Meitav. He cannot have meant that if someone
undertakes to give a Manah to Bedek ha'Bayis, the treasurer demands Idis -
because there is no reason for Hekdesh to be any different than any other
creditor, who claims Beinonis, and not Idis.
(d) And he cannot mean that even assuming that a regular creditor claims
Idis - because having just learned from "Shor Re'eihu", that the Torah is
more lenient when it comes to damages against Hekdesh, we can no longer use
a Binyan Av to learn stringencies on Hekdesh from Hedyot.