ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 37
BAVA KAMA 37 - This Daf has been sponsored by Marcia and Lee Weinblatt of
Teaneck, NJ, in honor of the marriage of their daughter, Jodi Weinblatt, to
Yaakov Mugrabi, on Sept 2, 2001.
(a) Our Mishnah cites three cases where an ox might be Muad for one thing
but not for another. The first two are when it is Mu'ad for oxen but not for
other species, the second, when it is Mu'ad for people but not for animals,
and the third - when it is Mu'ad for small (baby) animals, but not for big
(b) In all these cases - the Tana rules that the Mazik pays Nezek Shalem for
whatever it is Mu'ad, but Chatzi Nezek for whatever it is not.
(c) Rebbi Yehudah draws the same distinction between an ox that is Mu'ad for
Shabbasos but not for weekdays. The ox is acutely aware of this (not because
it observes Shabbos, but) - because it does not work on Shabbos, with the
result that it becomes arrogant.
(d) In this latter case, the ox reverts to its Tamus - by seeing the animals
for which it was Mu'ad on three consecutive Shabbasos, and leaving them
(a) According to Rav Z'vid, the text in our Mishnah reads 'Shor she'Mu'ad
le'Miyno, ve'Eino Mu'ad le'she'Eino Miyno'. We extrapolate from the 'Vav' -
that it is only if it has actually failed to gore other species that it is
not a Mu'ad for them, but 'S'tama, Havei Mu'ad'.
(b) Rav Papa reads the Mishnah 'Shor she'Mu'ad le'Miyno, Eino Mu'ad
le'she'Eino Mien' (in which case it is automatically not a Mu'ad for those
(c) Rav Zvid derives his opinion from the third case 'Mu'ad li'Ketanim
ve'Eino Mu'ad li'Gedolim', which would be superfluous if not for the
inference ('Ha S'tama Havi Mu'ad'), because if from Ketanim to Ketanim (of
two species) it does not become a Mu'ad, then how much more so from Ketanim
to Gedolim (of the same species)? According to Rav Papa, the Tana finds it
necessary to insert this case - because it is feasible to say that it has
got into the habit of goring its own kind (big and alike small), but will
ignore other animals, even small ones.
(a) Rav Papa derives his opinion from the Reisha (which is really the middle
case) 'Mu'ad le'Adam Eino Mu'ad li'Beheimah' - because, if as Rav Z'vid
maintains, 'S'tama Havi Mu'ad', is that not obvious from the previous case
of 'Mu'ad le'Miyno ... ' (since the difference between Adam and Beheimah is
greater than that of one species of animal to another)?
(b) To counter Rav Papa's proof, Rav Z'vid establishes the Reisha - by
Chazarah, meaning that if the ox retracted from goring animals but not
people, the Rabbanan validate the retraction (despite the fact that it did
not retract from Adam).
(c) Sumchus says - that 'Mu'ad le'Adam, Mu'ad li'Beheimah'.
(d) To refute the proof that, if Sumchus holds ' ... Eino Mu'ad
li'Beheimah', the Rabbanan must hold 'Mu'ad ... ' - Rav Z'vid establishes
Sumchus when the animal retracts from Beheimah but not from Adam.
(a) Rav Ashi proves from the Seifa of our Mishnah, where Rebbi Yehudah's
Talmidim asked him 'Harei Zeh Hayah Mu'ad le'Shabbasos ... ' and from his
answer - that Rav Z'vid's version of the text is the correct one; because if
the text were to read 'Harei Zeh Hayah Mu'ad le'Shabbasos, Eino Mu'ad
le'Chol', why did they need to tell this to Rebbi Yehudah, and why did Rebbi
Yehudah need to repeat what they had already told him?
(b) Rav Yanai substantiates this from the Reisha, which concludes 'es
she'Mu'ad Lo, Meshalem Nezek Shalem ... ' - and which only makes sense if it
follows the phrase 'Mu'ad li'Ketanim *ve'Eino Mu'ad* li'Gedolim' (just like
we just asked with regard to the Rabbanan and Rebbi Yehudah).
(c) We conclude with the statement 'Nagach Shor, Chamor ve'Gamal, Na'aseh
Mu'ad la'Kol' - on the assumption that, even though the text of our Mishnah
reads like Rav Z'vid, Halachically we will still hold that when the ox is
Mu'ad for the one, it is not Mu'ad for the other (like Rav Papa). And it is
in that context that we conclude that nevertheless, once the ox becomes a
Mu'ad for three different species (goring each one just once), it is a Mu'ad
for all species.
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa describes a 'Mu'ad le'Sirugin'. An ox becomes a
Mu'ad le'Sirugin ...
1. ... for oxen - by goring one ox, ignoring the second one that it sees,
goring the third one, ignoring the fourth, goring the fifth and ignoring the
(b) The Chidush of this last statement is - that one does not need three
gorings for each species, but one will suffice.
2. ... for all species of animals - by following the same pattern as a Mu'ad
li'Shevarim, but involving six different species of animals.
(c) An 'Arod' is a wild donkey.
(a) We ask what the Din will be if, after goring three oxen in the same
sequence, an ox gores a donkey and a camel in the same sequence. Assuming
that, in this case, we go after the first sequence, we ask - whether that is
because we follow the *first* sequence, in which case here too, we will link
the first goring of an ox with the previous two gorings; or whether it is
because it is more logical to link the goring of an ox with the two other
gorings of an ox, irrespective of whether they come first or last.
(b) Similarly, we ask what the Din will be if an ox gores on three
consecutive Shabbasos, and on the Sunday and Monday following the third
Shabbos. And we then ask what the Din will be if it gored on Thursday and on
Friday and then on three consecutive Shabbasos - on the assumption that in
the previous case, we link the first Shabbos to the two previous Shabbasos
(following exactly the same pattern as the previous She'eilah [only one of
them concerns the contrast between species, the other, between days]).
(c) We conclude both She'eilos with - 'Teiku'.
(a) According to Rav, if, for the first time, a woman sees blood on the
fifteenth of Iyar, say, on the sixteenth of Sivan and on the seventeenth of
Tamuz, this becomes her new Veses. According to Shmuel, it will only become
her Veses - on the eighteenth of Av (because, in his opinion, it is skipping
three times that creates the Veses, not the three dates on which she saw).
(b) This Machlokes affects ...
1. ... our Sugya - inasmuch as the same Machlokes will apply in a case where
an ox gored six times following the same sequence, and where according to
Shmuel, it will not become a full-fledged Mu'ad until it gores a seventh
time, whereas according to Rav, it will.
(c) Rava rules that, in a case where an ox gored following the three
occasions that it heard a Shofar-blast - it becomes a Mu'ad'.
2. ... the Beraisa (that we cited on the previous Amud) which describes a
Mu'ad le'Sirugin as where an ox that gored one ox, ignored the second one
that it saw, gored the third, ignored the fourth, gored the fifth and
ignored the sixth) - inasmuch as, according to Shmuel there too, the Mazik
will only be obligated to pay full damage when it gores the seventh animal,
whereas according to Rav, he is obligated already after the sixth.
(d) This is not so obvious as it may seem. One may well have thought - that
the first time that it reacted in this way was merely out of shock, in which
case it would not combine with the other two times to make the animal a
(a) If an ox belonging to a Hedyot gores an ox belonging to Hekdesh, the
owner is Patur - and vice-versa.
Assuming that Rebbi Shimon ben Menasyah exempts a Hekdesh ox that gored the
ox of a Hedyot due to "Re'eihu (like the Rabbanan), we cannot then say that
he obligates a Tam ox of a Hedyot which gored one of Hekdesh to pay full,
from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from an ox belonging to a Hedyot which gored an ox
belonging to a Hedyot - because then we would apply 'Dayo' to pay only
Chatzi Nezek (like a Hedyot ox that gores a Hedyot ox).
(b) The Tana learns this - from the Pasuk "ve'Chi Yigach Ish es Shor
*Re'eihu*" (which precludes property of Hekdesh).
(c) The distinction drawn by our Mishnah between the ox of a Yisrael goring
one of a Nochri and vice-versa is - that the former is Patur, whereas the
latter, is Chayav Nezek Shalem, even for a Shor Tam.
(d) Rebbi Shimon ben Menasyah in a Beraisa - agrees with the Tana Kama with
regard to a Hekdesh ox goring one of a Hedyot, but in the reverse case, he
obligates the Hedyot ox to pay full damages, even for a Shor Tam.
(a) Ultimately, Resh Lakish learns Rebbi Shimon ben Menasyah's Chumra by a
Hedyot's Tam which gored Hekdesh from "Re'eihu" from which he extrapolates -
that for "Shor Re'eihu" one pays Chatzi Nezek, and Mu'ad, Nezek Shalem, but
for Shor Hekdesh, one always pays Nezek Shalem.
(b) What prompts him to Darshen it this way, rather than to simply exempt
the Hedyot from having to pay for the damage to a Shor shel Hekdesh (like
the Rabanan) is - the fact that the Torah writes "Re'eihu" by Shor Tam and
not by "Mu'ad".
(c) The P'tur by a Shor Mu'ad of Hekdesh that gored a Shor Hedyot, Rebbi
Shimon ben Menasyah learns from the Pasuk "ve'Hu'ad bi'Ve'alav" (which is
not applicable to a Shor shel Hekdesh). The P'tur of a Shor Tam that caused
damage to a Hedyot he learns from the Pasuk - "ve'Chi Yigof Shor Ish es Shor
Re'eihu, because Hekdesh is not called 'Ish'.
(a) According to an alternative interpretation of Resh Lakish's explanation,
he only comes to avoid the 'Kal va'Chomer. In that case, he learns the P'tur
of a Hekdesh ox that gored that of a Hedyot - from "Re'eihu", 've'Lo Shor
shel Hekdesh' (like the Rabbanan).
(b) He does not however, Darshen "Re'eihu" in connection with a Hedyot ox
that gored one of Hekdesh in the same way as he Darshened it in connection
with the reverse case - because the Torah writes "Re'eihu" by a Tam and not
by a Mu'ad (indicating that the leniency of Tam as against Mu'ad, only
applies to "Shor Re'eihu", but not to a Shor belonging to Hekdesh).
(c) Neither can he Darshen "Re'eihu" by Shor shel Hekdesh ... in the same
way as he Darshens it by a Shor shel Hedyot ... - because a Hekdesh Shor is
not included in "Shor Re'eihu" (period).
(d) And he knows that a Shor Mu'ad of Hekdesh is Patur as well (despite the
fact that "Re'eihu" is not written there) - because the Torah only obligates
payment of full damages in the case of a Mu'ad which paid Chatzi Nezek when
it was a Tam.