ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 15
1. Rav Yehudah Amar Rav and Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learn from the Pasuk
(in connection with the Korban Shevu'as ha'Pikadon by Gezel ha'Ger) "Ish O
Ishah Asher Ya'aseh mi'Kol Chat'os ha'Adam" - that a woman is equal to a man
regarding all punishments (La'avin [Chayvei Malkos]) in the Torah.
(b) Having taught us that women are compared to men regarding ...
2. de'Bei Rebbi Elazar learns from the Pasuk ... "ve'Eileh ha'Mishpatim
Asher Tasim Lifneihem" - that they are equal to men as regards civil laws.
3. de'Bei Chizkiyah and Rebbi Yossi Hagelili from the Pasuk in Mishpatim
"ve'Im Shor Nagach Hu ... ve'Heimis Ish O Ishah" - that one is Chayav Miysah
for killing a woman just as one is for killing a man.
1. ... punishments, we nevertheless need a second Pasuk to compare them as
regards civil laws - because we would otherwise have thought that it is only
in the former case that the Torah compares them to men, because they, like
men, require atonement.
2. ... civil laws, we nevertheless need the first Pasuk to compare them as
regards punishments - because we would otherwise have thought that it is
only in the former case that the Torah compares them to men, because if it
did not, they would be shunned by the business world, and precluded from
ever being able to buy and sell anything.
3. ... both of these cases, we nevertheless need a third Pasuk to compare
them as regard the death penalty - because we would otherwise have thought
that it is for killing a man who is Chayav all Mitzvos (including
Torah-study) that one receives the death-sentence, but not for killing a
4. ... the latter case, we nevertheless need the first two Pesukim - because
we would otherwise have thought that it is only in the last case that the
Torah compares a woman to a man, because it has pity on the soul of the
deceased woman, but not in other regards.
(a) According to Rav Papa, Palga Nizka (Chatzi Nezek) is Mamon. Rav Huna
Brei de'Rav Yehoshua says - that it is a K'nas (a penalty).
(b) The reason of ...
1. ... Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua is - because oxen are generally
considered guarded, and the owner cannot therefore be blamed for his ox's
(c) Nevertheless, the Torah obligates the Mazik to pay only half - because
it has pity on him, presumably because his responsibility is constant, and
it is impossible to assess when the animal is likely to get excited.
2. ... Rav Papa is - because oxen are generally not considered guarded, and
the owner is therefore obligated to guard it (in which case he is guilty if
he fails to do so).
(d) The Halachic ramifications of the Machlokes - are regarding the Halachah
'Modeh bi'K'nas Patur', should the Mazik admit to his ox having damaged
(according to Rav Papa, he will of course, be obligated to pay).
(a) When the Tana of the Beraisa says 'ha'Nizak ve'ha'Mazik be'Tashlumin',
he means, according to ...
1. ... Rav Papa ('Palga Nizka Mamona') - that the Nizak must literally share
in the loss (since he really ought to receive full damage, yet he receives
(b) Having taught us that 'P'chas Neveilah de'Nizak' ...
2. ... Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua ('Palga Nizka K'nasa') - that he must
accept the 'P'chas Neveilah', because, as we learned above 'P'chas Neveilah
1. ... in our Mishnah by a Shor Tam, the Tana nevertheless needs to have
said it earlier by a Shor Mu'ad - to teach us that even though the Mazik who
allowed the ox to become a Mu'ad, it is still the Nizak who must bear the
brunt of P'chas Neveilah.
(c) The Tana of the Mishnah (later) lists two differences between a Tam and
a Mu'ad - that a Tam pays half the damage from the body of the ox, whereas a
Mu'ad pays full damage from his pocket.
2. ... earlier by a Shor Mu'ad, the Tana need to repeat it here by a Shor
Tam - to teach us that even though the Mazik only pays half, we still place
the onus of P'chas Neveilah on the Nizak.
(a) According to Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua, the Tana not add to the list
that whereas a Shor Tam does not pay on his own admission, a Shor Mu'ad
does - because he also omits the case of Chatzi Kofer.
(b) Chatzi Kofer is - when a Shor Tam kills a person and the owner is Patur,
even though he would have been Chayav if the ox had been a Mu'ad.
(c) We then go on to say that this is not really an omission, since the
author of the Beraisa is Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, who says - 'Tam Meshalem
(d) We find it necessary to immediately retract from our original
explanation - to accommodate Rav Papa, according to whom a Shor Tam does pay
on his own admission, in which case it is not an omission, and we would
otherwise need to explain why the Tana omitted Chatzi Kofer.
(a) The Beraisa states 'Heimis Shori es P'loni O Shoro shel P'loni, Harei
Zeh Meshalem Al-Pi Atzmo'. Assuming that the Tana is referring to a Tam ...
1. ... the author of the first statement - will be Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, who
holds 'Tam Meshalem Chatzi Kofer'.
(b) What leads us to believe that the Tana is indeed speaking about a Shor
Tam is - the fact that instead of going on to differentiate between Mu'ad
and Tam, he continues 'Heimis Shori es Avdo shel P'loni, Ein Meshalem al-Pi
2. ... we will prove from the second statement - that 'Palga Nizka Mamon'
(like Rv Papa).
(c) He is Patur in that case - because, seeing as one pays thirty Shekalim
for one's ox killing an Eved, it is a K'nas and 'Modeh bi'K'nas Patur'.
(d) We refute this proof - by establishing the entire Beraisa by a Mu'ad
because the Tana is not concerned with a Tam, and that explains why he
prefers to go on to the case 'Heimis Shori Mu'ad es Avdo shel P'loni' rather
than a Shor Tam.
(a) We can infer from the Beraisa 'Zeh ha'K'lal, Kol ha'Meshalem Yoser al
Mah she'Hizik, Eino Meshalem al-Pi Atzmo' - 'Ha Pachos mi'Mah she'Hizik,
Meshalem al-Pi Atzmo' (a Kashya on Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua).
(b) We refute the suggestion that the Tana really implies 'Ha Kemah
she'Hizik Meshalem al-Pi Atzmo' - because then the Tana ought to have said
'Zeh ha'K'lal, Kol she'Eino Meshalem Kemah she'Hizik' (incorporating both
someone who pays more than the damage and someone who pays less).
(c) Nevertheless, we conclude 'Tiyuvta ve'Hilchesa' - because the Tana could
not really have said what we just suggested, because of the case of 'Chatzi
Nezek Tzeroros', where the Mazik pays by his own admission, in spite of the
fact that he pays less than the full damage, even according to Rav Huna Brei
de'Rav Yehoshua (because, as we learned earlier, it is a 'Halachah le'Moshe
mi'Sinai' that it is a Toldah of Regel and not Keren).
(a) Based on 'Palga Nizka' K'nasa, if a dog ate a lamb, or a cat, a
chicken - the owner pays only half damages, because it, too is unusual, and
is therefore a Toldah of Keren.
(b) These damages cannot be claimed in Bavel - because all Dinim of K'nas
require S'muchin, and there is no Semichah in Bavel.
(c) But if the Nizak seized the Mazik - we allow him to retain it (see
Tosfos DH 've'I Tafas').
(d) We qualify the previous Halachah - by restricting it to a large lamb and
a large chicken respectively; but should the dog eat a small lamb or the
cat, a small chicken, they must pay in full, because it is then considered
Shen, and not Keren.
(a) If, in the previous case, the Nizak asks for a Din Torah in Eretz
Yisrael - the Mazik is obligated to go (together with the rogue animal), and
what's more, should he fail to comply, we place a Niduy on him.
(b) Rebbi Nasan extrapolates from the Pasuk "Lo Sasim Damim be'Veisecha" -
that one is forbidden to raise a dangerous dog or place a rickety ladder in
(c) And as long as the Mazik fails to carry this out - we place a Niduy on
him (to force him to do so).
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah lists five Tamin and five Mu'adin. The five
Tamin are - Negichah, Negifah, Neshichah, Revitzah and Be'itah.
(b) Shen is Mu'ad to eat what is fitting for it, and Regel to break as it
walks along. The third Mu'ad is Shor ha'Mu'ad. The fourth is - a Shor
ha'Mazik bi'Reshus ha'Nizak (as will be explained in the Sugya), who pays
full damage even though it did not gore three times.
(c) The fifth Mu'ad is - Adam ha'Mazik.
(d) Despite the fact that the Tana lists Keren and its four Toldos as *five*
Tamin, he lists them as only *one* once they become Mu'adin - because they
all become Mu'ad in the same way (through witnesses and warnings).
(a) The Tana Kama states that wild beasts (such as wolves, lions, bears,
leopards and panthers) that are privately owned, are considered Mu'ad from
the start. According to Rebbi Elazar - once they are trained, they become
(b) Rebbi Elazar concedes however - that a snake is always a Mu'ad.
(a) We extrapolate from our Mishnah 'ha'Shen Mu'edes Le'echol ... ' - that
the Tana must be speaking in the Reshus ha'Nizak.
(b) And we infer from the next statement 'Beheimah Einah Mu'edes (Leshalem
Kuleih)' - that Shor Tam pays half damages even in the Reshus ha'Nizak.
(c) Having just proved that the Tana is speaking in the Reshus ha'Nizak,
the author of this statement is - the Rabbanan of Rebbi Tarfon.
(a) The author of the statement 've'Shor ha'Mazik bi'Reshus ha'Nizak' - is
Rebbi Tarfon (who holds that Keren in the Reshus of the Nizak pays full
(b) We reconcile the discrepancy in the Mishnah - by establishing the Reisha
like the Rabbanan, and the Seifa, like Rebbi Tarfon, as we learned earlier