ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 40
(a) We have learned in a Beraisa that, even though Apotropsin must pay for
damages out of their own pockets, they are exempt from Kofer - because Kofer
is a Kaparah, and Yesomim do not require a Kaparah.
(b) In another Beraisa, the Tana Kama learn from the Pasuk "ve'Nasan Pidyon
Nafsho" - that if a Mu'ad kills a person, the owner is liable to pay the
value of the dead man to the dead man's heirs.
(c) Rebbi Yishmael the son of Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah says - that he pays
them his own value.
(a) Rav Chisda suggests that the author of the first Beraisa is Rebbi
Yishmael the son of Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah. In his opinion - the Tana
Kama in the second Beraisa holds that Kofer is Mamon, whereas according to
Rebbi Yishmael, it is Kaparah.
(b) Rav Papa rejects Rav Chisda's suggestion, establishing the first Beraisa
even like the Tana Kama. In his opinion - even the Tana Kama concedes that
Kofer is Kaparah, and they argue over the interpretation of "Pidyon
*Nafsho*". The Tana Kama interprets it as the value of the dead man ('D'mei
Nizak'), Rebbi Yishmael ... , as 'D'mei Mazik' (the Mazik's own value).
(c) The Tana Kama bases his opinion on the Gezeirah-Shavah "Shisah" ("Im
Kofer Yushas Alav") "Shisah" ("ke'Chol Asher Yuhas Alav"). The second Pasuk
is written in the context of - someone who struck a pregnant woman and
killed her unborn fetuses.
(d) According to Rebbi Yishmael ... the Pasuk "ve'Nasan Pidyon Nafsho"
(implying the Nefesh of the Mazik) takes preference over the
Gezeirah-Shavah. The Tana Kama maintains - that the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' forces
us to interpret "Nafsho" as 'D'mei Nizak'.
(a) When Rava boasted about Rav Acha bar Ya'akov's greatness - Rav Nachman
responded - with a request to bring him to him to put that greatness to the
(b) When Rava obeyed and brought Rav Acha before him, he asked Rav Nachman -
whether, if a Shor of two partners which killed a person, each has to pay
Kofer (in spite of the fact that the Torah obligates only one Kofer, and not
two), or whether each pays only half the Kofer (in spite of the fact that
the Torah obligates one Kofer and not a half).
(c) He had no problem with the equivalent case by Nezek - where it is
obvious that they pay half each (seeing as the Torah's concern is to
supplement the Nizak's loss, whereas here, where the Torah is concerned
about the Mazik obtaining a Kaparah, that may well not suffice.
(a) Rav Acha then asked Rav Nachman a second She'eilah in connection with a
Mishnah in Erchin, where the Tana says 'Chayvei Erchin Memashkenin Osam' -
meaning that the treasurer of Hekdesh can force a person who undertook to
pay someone's Erech to Hekdesh, to provide a security until he pays.
(b) The reason that he differentiates between Chayvei Erchin and Chayvei
Chata'os and Ashamos (by precluding the latter from the treasurer's right to
claim) on the grounds - that seeing as they are a Kaparah, the sinner does
not require an incentive to 'remind' him to fulfill his obligation.
(c) He therefore asked Rav Nachman whether, seeing as Kofer is a Kaparah, no
Mashkon is necessary (like Chayvei Chata'os and Ashamos), or whether it is
more comparable to Chayvei Erchin, since, like Erchin, Kofer is only a
monetary obligation, that goes to one's fellow man and not to Hashem, and
which one therefore tends to take less seriously.
(d) Rav Nachman responded to the second She'eilah - by begging him for a
respite, as he was still stymied by the first She'eilah.
(a) In a case where Reuven borrows an ox from Shimon on the understanding
that it as a Tam, and after turning out to be a Mu'ad, it subsequently gores
in Reuven's domain, the Tana of the Beraisa obligates Reuven to share the
costs with Shimon. In the Seifa, where the ox became a Mu'ad before Reuven
returned it and it subsequently gored again - he obligates Shimon to pay
Chatzi Nezek, and exemps Reuven from having to pay anything.
(b) Reuven cannot claim that ...
1. ... he borrowed an ox, and not 'a lion' - because the Tana speaks when he
was aware that the ox was a goring ox (only he did not know that it already
gored three times.
(c) We nevertheless remain with a query on the Reisha (as it stands),
according to ...
2. ... he borrowed a Tam and not a Mu'ad - because, had he borrowed a Tam,
he would also have had to pay for its damages.
3. ... even if he had had to pay for the Tam's damages, it would have been
out of the body of the ox, but not out of his own pocket - because even
then, he would have had to reimburse Shimon out of his own pocket.
1. ... the Halachah that 'Palga Nizka K'nasa' - by exempting Reuven on the
grounds that had the ox been a Tam, as he stipulated, he would had the
option of admitting and being Patur.
2. ... those who hold 'Palga Nizka Mamona' - by exempting him on the basis
that, had the ox been a Mu'ad, he could anyway have exempted himself by
letting it loose in the marshes, where the Mazik would not have had access
(a) To avoid the problem of Reuven admitting and being Patur or of his
letting the ox loose in the marshes, we finally establish the Reisha of the
Beraisa where - Beis-Din seized the ox on behalf of the Nizak (in which
case, even if it had been a Tam, there is nothing that Reuven could have
done about it).
(b) Nevertheless, Shimon is Chayav to pay for half the damages. He cannot
claim that ...
1. ... Reuven should have returned the ox to him, and not allowed it to fall
into the hands of the Nizak - because Reuven can retort - that even if he
had returned the ox to him, the Nizak would have claimed it from him.
(c) This is a valid argument, assuming that Shimon has money with which to
pay. Even if he does not however - he has no leg to stand on, because just
as the ox was Meshubad to him (when it damaged in the Reshus of Reuven), so
too, was it Meshubad to his creditor (the Nizak, for whom he must accept
partial responsibility, as we explained above), because of 'Shibuda de'Rebbi
2. ... had the ox been in his possession, *he* would have let it loose in
the marshes - because, seeing as the ox was a Mu'ad, the Nizak would have
claimed 'min ha'Aliyah'?
(d) Rebbi Nasan learns from the Pasuk "ve'Nasan la'Asher Asham Lo" - that if
Reuven owes Shimon money and Shimon owes Levi, Levi may claim directly from
(a) We learned in the Seifa of the Beraisa, where the ox became a Mu'ad
before Reuven returned it and it subsequently gored again - that Shimon pays
Chatzi Nezek, whilst Reuven pays nothing. The reason that Shimon does not
pay full damages, according to Rebbi Yochanan, is - because 'Reshus
(b) He establishes two different authors for the two sections of the
Beraisa - because the Tana of the Reisha, which obligated Nezek Shalem,
despite the fact that the animal changed hands from the owner to the
borrower, clearly holds 'Reshus Einah Meshaneh'.
(c) According to Rabah, both sections of the Beraisa hold 'Reshus Einah
Meshaneh' and the reason that in the Seifa, Shimon pays only Chatzi Nezek,
is - because he can argue that Reuven does not have the authority to turn
his Tam into a Mu'ad.
(d) Rav Papa takes the opposite view. He holds that, despite the fact that
the Beraisa holds 'Reshus Meshaneh', nevertheless, in the Reisha, the ox
remains a Mu'ad in the domain of the borrower - because a borrowed ox always
remains the property of the owner (and although it is now under the
jurisdiction of the borrower, it is not considered a new domain).
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that a Shor ha'Itztadin is not Chayav Miysah.
According to Rav, it is Kasher to go on the Mizbe'ach - because it killed
(b) Shmuel holds - that it is disqualified from going on the Mizbe'ach.
(a) The Tana Kama of a Beraisa precludes an animal that raped or that was
raped from the Pasuk in Vayikra "Min ha'Beheimah", an animal that was
worshipped in the name of idolatry from "min ha'Bakar", a Muktzah (dedicated
to the worship of idolatry) from "Min ha'Tzon". From the "Vav" of "u'Min
ha'Tzon" - he precludes an ox that gored.
(b) A 'Muktzah' animal is - one that has been designated for idol-worship,
even though it was not yet worshipped.
(c) An animal that raped, that was raped or that killed a person requires a
Pasuk to disqualify it from the Mizbe'ach - in a case where there was only
one witness, or that the owner alone saw it happen, in which case the animal
is not put to death.
(d) The problem that Rebbi Shimon has with 'Noge'ach' and 'Rove'a' is - why
the Torah finds it necessary to preclude them both. Why can we not learn one
from the other?
(a) The leniency that ...
1. ... Noge'ach has over Rove'a is - that it is not Chayav be'O'nes like
(b) We know that the P'sul of Rove'a applies even to an O'nes - by virtue of
the fact that it extends to Nirva (which, by an animal, is automatically an
2. ... Rove'a has over Noge'ach is - that it does not pay Kofer.
(a) We try and disprove Shmuel (who said that an animal that gored be'Ones
is Pasul to go on the Mizbe'ach), from the first of the two previous
distinctions of Rebbi Shimon - because when he says that Rove'a is not
Chayav be'O'nes like Ratzon, we initially interpret this to mean that it is
not disqualified from going on the Mizbe'ach.
(b) To resolve Shmuel with the Beraisa - we establish Rebbi Shimon (when he
says that Rove'a is not Chayav be'O'nes like Ratzon) by the death-sentence.
(c) Rebbi Shimon now learns from the fact that a Noge'ach be'Ones is Patur
from the death sentence - that we cannot derive that a Noge'ach be'Ratzon is
disqualified from the Mizbe'ach from Rove'a, and that a Pasuk is therefore
(d) We substantiate this interpretation, because - according to the original
one, we are taking for granted that the Torah disqualifies a Noge'ach
be'O'nes from the Mizbe'ach, whereas in fact, there is nothing in the Pasuk
itself to differentiate between a Noge'ach be'Ratzon and a Noge'ach
(a) In the second of the above distinctions, Rebbi Shimon said that O'nes
pays Kofer, whereas Rove'a does not. The problem that we have with this,
assuming that ...
To substantiate Rav's opinion regarding bringing a bull-fighting ox on the
Mizbe'ach, the Beraisa says that a Shor ha'Itztadin is not Chayav Miysah and
that it is Kasher to go on the Mizbe'ach, because is an O'nes.
1. ... the animal killed the person with the Revi'ah - is that, why there
should be any distinction between an ox that killed with its horns and one
that killed by means of Revi'ah.
(b) Abaye replies that the person was subsequently killed in Beis-Din - and
that we might therefore have considered the ox as being responsible for his
2. ... the person did not die is - in that case, it is obvious that the ox
is not killed, seeing as the person did not die.
(c) Rava establishes the Beraisa when the animal did kill the person with
the Revi'ah. And he answers the Kashya - by making a distinction between
killing him with its horns (which is deliberate) and killing him through
Revi'ah (which is not).
(d) The connection between this case and that of an animal that walked over
a child in the street and killed it - is that is the classical case over
which they argue (whether an animal which killed via Regel in the street is
Chayav Kofer (Abaye) or not (Rava), and we now extend the Machlokes to Shen,
where the animal derives benefit.