(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Bava Kama 54

BAVA KAMA 54 (Rosh Hashanah) - dedicated by Rabbi Eli Turkel and his wife. May they be blessed with much Nachas from their children and grandchildren and may all of their prayers be answered l'Tovah!



(a) "ve'Nafal Shamah" is a 'K'lal', and "Shor va'Chamor", a 'P'rat'. The significance of a 'K'lal u'P'rat' is - 'Ein bi'Ch'lal Ela Mah she'bi'P'rat' (the 'K'lal' incorporates the 'P'rat' exclusively).

(b) We know that a Bor is liable for any animals other than an ox or a donkey - because the Torah adds a K'lal "Ba'al ha'Bor Yeshalem", which includes whatever is similar to the 'P'rat'.

(c) The P'rat comes to exclude - anything that is not a live creature.

(a) We initially think that birds will not be included in the 'K'lal u'P'rat u'Ch'lal' - because they are not similar to Shor va'Chamor, inasmuch as their corpses are not Metamei by means of touching or carrying.

(b) Initially, we include birds - from the fact that the Torah writes two P'ratim ("Shor va'Chamor"), when one, ought to have sufficed.

(c) In fact, we reply, we need both Pesukim. Had the Torah written only ...

1. ... "Shor" and not "Chamor" - we would have confined the Chiyuv of Bor to animals that are fit to go on the Mizbe'ach?
2. ... "Chamor" and not "Shor" - we would have confined it to animals that are Kadosh bi'Vechorah from birth (but not horses and camels ... ).
(d) We could learn animals that are not Kadosh bi'Vechorah from "Shor" (not because an ox is not Kadosh bi'Vechorah, but) - because the word is otherwise superfluous (and from a superfluous word, it is possible to Darshen 'Im Eino Inyan' (even something that is not inherent in the word itself).
(a) We now learn (momentarily) from "ve'ha'Meis Yihyeh Lo" (and not from the 'Klal u'P'rat u'Ch'lal') - that a pit is Chayav for whatever dies, even birds.

(b) In spite of this D'rashah, the Rabbanan need a Pasuk ("Chamor") to preclude Keilim, and Rebbi Yehudah is able to include them (from "O") - because when a vessel breaks, it is as if it died?

(c) And by the same token, according to Rav, who obligates a Bor for the Havlas, the Rabbanan need a Pasuk - to preclude new Keilim, and that is what Rebbi Yehudah includes, because vapors do break new vessels.

(d) Despite the fact that both a person and a donkey are incorporated in "ve'ha'Meis Yihyeh Lo", we preclude ..

1. ... Keilim from Bor - because breaking a vessel is not really the same as killing it.
2. ... Adam - because Adam is not of the same species as an ox and a donkey?
(a) We cannot preclude both Adam and Keilim from one D'rashah - because, if we had the choice, we would opt to preclude Adam, who is a living thing, and it is more likely that the Torah comes to preclude living things, since that is what the Pasuk is talking about.

(b) We reject the current D'rashah from "ve'ha'Meis Yihyeh Lo" - on the grounds that Rava has already used this Pasuk to preclude Shor Pesulei ha'Mukdashin, as we learned earlier.

(a) We finally learn that one is liable for birds in a pit from the Pasuk "Kesef Yashiv li'Be'alav" - which include anything that has an owner.

(b) This D'rashah ought to include Adam and Keilim, too. The Rabbanan preclude them however - from "Shor O Chamor" respectively, as we already explained.

(c) Rebbi Yehudah concedes the D'rashah of "Shor", 've'Lo Adam', Rava explains - but we do not know what he learns from "Chamor".




(a) 'Nafal le'Tocho Shor Chashu, Chayav'. The Tana cannot mean a Shor belonging to a 'Chashu' - because that would imply that if the Shor belonged to a Pike'ach, he would be Patur (which makes no sense).

(b) Rebbi Yochanan therefore concludes that he must mean a Shor that is a 'Chashu', from which we can extrapolate - that if the Shor would be a Pike'ach, he would be Patur (which initially, appears senseless too).

(c) Rebbi Yirmiyah interprets Rebbi Yochanan to mean - that when the Tana says that he is Chayav for a 'Chashu' ox, he means that he is *even* Chayav for a 'Chashu' ox, and certainly for one that is a Pike'ach. Otherwise we would have thought that it was its 'stupidity' that caused it to fall into the pit, and he would be Patur.

(d) Initially, Ravina establishes the Beraisa 'Nafal le'Tocho bar Da'as, Patur' - by Adam (and not Shor).

(a) the inference that Bor is Patur if a ben Da'as falls in, but not if the person who falls in is not a ben Da'as (i.e. a 'Chashu') is unacceptable - because of the D'rashah "Shor", 've'Lo Adam' (which exempts the owner, whatever sort of Adam falls into the pit).

(b) So we attempt to explain 'ben Da'as' as - Miyn bar Da'as (the species of bar Da'as [alias Adam]).

(c) We finally reinterpret the previous Beraisa on the basis of another Beraisa, which states that if a Shor ben Da'as falls into a pit - the owner of the pit is Patur.

(a) Rava finally echoes Rebbi Yochanan ('Shor she'Hu Chashu ... '), in disagreement with Rebbi Yirmiyah. According to him, the Tana of our Mishnah specifies a Shor which is a 'Chashu' - because if a Shor Pike'ach were to fall in, he would be Patur.

(b) The reason for this is - because we expect a healthy ox to look where it is going (just like we expect a person to do).

(c) We know that Rav's explanation is the correct one - because it has the support of a Beraisa.

(d) The Beraisa says that if an ox falls into a pit ...

1. ... at night or if the ox is blind - the owner of the pit is liable.
2. ... when it is healthy and during the day - he is Patur.
(a) Regarding an animal falling into a pit, separating the animals from Har Sinai, paying double for stealing an animal, returning a lost animal or unloading it and muzzling a working animal the Mishnah says - that all animals have the same Din as a Shor.

(b) The two other regards that all animals are compared to 'Shor' are - Kil'ayim and Shabbos.

(c) This comparison extends to wild beasts and birds too.

(d) The reason the Torah refers specifically to "Shor va'Chamor" in all the cases is - because they were the most commonly used animals.

(a) We learn that all animals are included in the Chiyuv of Bor - from Kesef Yashiv li'Be'alav" ('Kol de'Is Leih Ba'alim'), as we learned on the previous Amud.

(b) All animals were included in the Mitzvah to separate the animals from Har Sinai, from the Pasuk "Im *Beheimah* Im Ish Lo Yichyeh". We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Zos ha'Beheimah Asher Tocheilu ... Ayal u'Tzvi ... " - that whenever the Torah writes "Beheimah", it incorporates Chayah.
2. ... "*Im* Beheimah ... " - that birds are included in the command to separate the animals from Har Sinai.
3. ... "Al Kol D'var Pesha" - that a thief is obligated to pay double for all animals that he stole (even though the Torah singled out "Shor va'Chamor".
4. ... "le'Chol Aveidas Achicha" - that one must return any lost article that one finds, including any species of animal, even though the Torah singled out "Shor va'Chamor".
(c) We learn the Mitzvos of unloading an animal and not muzzling a working animal from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ("Chamor" and "Shor" respectively) - from Shabbos.

(d) Kil'ayim too, is derived from Shabbos with the Gezeirah-Shavah of "Shor" or "Behemtecha". Kil'ayim requires two 'Gezeirah-Shavahs - one for the Isur of plowing with two animals together, and one for the Isur of breeding them together.

(a) By Shabbos, the Torah specifically includes all animals when it writes in Yisro (in the first set of Aseres ha'Dibros) "Avdecha, va'Amascha u'Vehemtecha". Rebbi Yossi in the name of Rebbi Yishmael (in a Beraisa) learns from the fact that, in the second set in Va'eschanan, the Torah writes "ve'Shorcha va'Chamorcha u've'Chol Behemtecha" - that (by means of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' that we just explained), this inclusion extends to the other cases too.

(b) We do not consider "Behemtecha" of the first Dibros to be a 'K'lal', and ''Shorcha va'Chamorcha" of the second Dibros, a 'P'rat', precluding all other species - because "ve'Chol Behemtecha" of the second Dibros forms a second 'K'lal', to include them.

(c) Birds whose carcasses (unlike those of oxen and donkeys) are not Metamei, are not automatically included in 'Beheimah'. We reject the original suggestion (to include them in the Isur Melachah on Shabbos on the grounds that either "Shor" or "Chamor is superfluous), because both in fact, are necessary (as we explained on the previous Amud). In fact, we include them - from the word "*ve'Chol* Behemtecha".

(d) We query the explanation that "Kol" is (not a 'K'lal', but) a Ribuy (including everything), on the basis of a Beraisa. The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "ve'Nasata ha'Kesef *be'Chol* Asher Te'aveh Nafshecha ('K'lal'), ba'Bakar, u'va'Tzon, u'va'Yayin u'va'Sheichar (Prat), *u've'Chol* Asher Tish'alcha Nafshecha" ('P'rat') - that only something that is 'P'ri mi'Pri' (such as wine from grapes or oil from olives) and that grew from the ground (including animals) can be purchased with Ma'aser Sheini.

(a) The previous 'K'lal u'P'rat u'Ch'lal' regarding Ma'aser comes to exclude - mushrooms, water and salt (which are not P'ri mi'P'ri), and fish (which grow from water, but not from the ground).

(b) We reconcile "Kol" being a 'Ribuy' with this Beraisa - by differentiating between "Kol", which is a 'Ribuy', and be'Chol', which is a 'K'lal'.

(c) Alternatively, we conclude, "Kol" is normally a 'Klal' (and not a 'Ribuy'). But here (by Shabbos) it is a Ribuy, because the Torah ought to have written "Behemtecha", like it did in the first Dibros.

(d) Even though "Kol" (in the Pasuk in Shabbos) is a 'Ribuy', as we just concluded, the Torah nevertheless needs to write "Behemtecha" in the first Dibros, and "Shor" and "Chamor" in the second - to learn from them the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' on to unloading an animal, muzzling an working animal, Kil'ayim of plowing and Kil'ayim of breeding, as we learned above.

(a) Bearing in mind that a person is certainly forbidden to work on Shabbos, the problem now is why we do not use the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' to include a person in the prohibition of Kil'ayim of plowing (together with any animal)?

(b) Papuna'i was the only one who knew how to solve this problem. 'Papuna'i' is - Rav Acha bar Ya'akov.

(c) Rav Acha bar Ya'akov resolves it from the Pasuk "Lema'an Yanu'ach Shorcha va'Chamorcha" - from which we infer that the Torah restricts the comparison of animals to people (or vice-versa), to working on Shabbos, but not to any other issue.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,