(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 55



(a) When the Amora'im speak about "Tov" being mentioned in the second Luchos but not in the first ones - they are referring to "Lema/an Yitav Lach", which appears in the Mitzvah of Kibud Av va'Eim in the second Luchos, but not in the first.

(b) When Rebbi Chiya bar Aba was asked the reason for this - he commented that, rather than ask him why "Tov" was written in the second Luchos, he should ask him whether it was written since he did not know (see Gilyon ha'Shas, though Tosfos' explanation is all but incomprehensible).

(c) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi heard a reason for it, namely - that the first Luchos were destined to be broken.

(d) Consequently, Rav Ashi elaborated, it would signify that 'Tov' has been stopped from Yisrael.

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi states that it is good omen to see a 'Tes' in a dream, because it signifies 'Tov' which is written in the Torah for the good.
How does he know that 'Tov' does not signify the Pasuk ...
1. ... "ve'Ta'tesiyhah bi'Meta'atei Hashmeid" (with its connotations of destructions) - because he is talking about one 'Tes', not two.
2. ... "Tum'asah be'Shuleheh' - because he is talking about 'Tes' 'Beis' (and not just 'Tes').
3. ... "Tav'u ba'Aretz She'arehah" - because what Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi really meant to say that it is a good omen because the first time a 'Tes' appears in the Torah is in the Pasuk "Va'Yar Elokim es ha'Or Ki Tov" (in which case, all the Kashyos that we asked are irrelevant).
(b) He also says - that if someone sees 'Hesped' in a dream it signifies that although he was meant to suffer some tragedy, the Heavenly Court took pity on him ad redeemed him.

(c) He is referring to - the word 'Hesped' in writing (as opposed to actually witnessing a eulogy).

(a) Resh Lakish extrapolates from our Mishneh - that a rooster, a peacock and a quail are considered three species as regards Kil'ayim.

(b) If his Resh Lakish had not made this statement, we might otherwise have thought that - since these three species commonly grow up together in the farmyard, they are considered one species.

(c) Shmuel states that a gander and a wild gander are considered Kil'ayim. The reason for this cannot be because one of them has a large beak, and the other, a small one - because in that case, a Persian camel and an Arabian camel will also be Kil'ayim, because one has a thick neck and the other, a thin one (and where will we draw the line?).

(d) Abaye attributes the distinction between the two species to the fact that the testicles of the wild gander protrude, whereas those of the regular gander do not. Rav Papa attributes it to the fact - that a wild gander only carries one egg at a time, whereas a regular gander carries a few.

4) Rebbi Yirmiyah Amar Resh Lakish learns from a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from "le'Miyneihu" "le'Miyneihu" (one written by land creatures, the other, by sea creatures) - that Kil'ayim applies to sea-creatures, just like it applies to land-creatures.


(a) Rachbah asks whether Kil'ayim will apply if someone draws a wagon the river-bank using a goat and a fish - whether seeing as the two can never work together on land or in the water, the Isur of Kil'ayim does not apply to them; or whether since we see that they now are working together, Kil'ayim will apply.

(b) Ravina queried his She'eilah by asking whether, by the same token, someone held a wheat and a barley kernel in his hand, and standing on the border of Eretz Yisrael and Chutz la'Aretz, he planted one in Eretz Yisrael and one in Chutz la'Aretz (within three Tefachim of each other - see Tosfos DH 'Ela'). What he meant to ask was - that just as there, the Isur of Kil'ayim does not apply, it should not apply here either.

(c) Rachbah countered Ravina's query however - on the grounds that it is different there, since the Isur of Kil'ayim by two seeds does not pertain to Chutz la'Aretz (whereas here, the Isur pertains to water just as it does to land, as we just ascertained).

(d) Our Sugya goes like the Rabbanan, who require any two seeds of any two species to constitute Kil'ayim in Eretz Yisrael. According to Rebbi Yashiyah - any three seeds (even of two species, constitute K'lai Zera'im (Tosfos, ibid).

***** Hadran Alach Shor she'Nagach es ha'Parah *****



***** Perek ha'Kones *****


(a) The Tana of our Mishnah says that if a sheep in a pen escaped and damaged ...
1. ... by day - the owner is Patur as long as he closed the door of the pen properly, but liable if he didn't.
2. ... by night (see Tosfos DH 'Nifretzah'), or through robbers breaking in even by day - he is Patur.
3. ... if robbers actually took it out - the robbers take over the liability.
(b) If someone left his sheep in the sun or in the charge of ...
1. ... a 'Chashu' - he is liable.
2. ... a shepherd - the shepherd takes over the liability.
(c) If the sheep ate a row of vegetables in someone's vegetable garden ...
1. ... after falling into it from a raised field or street - the owner only needs to pay for what he benefited from the sheep having eaten, but not for the damage.
2. ... after walking down on its own volition - then he is liable to pay for the damage.
(d) Beis-Din reckon the value of the row of vegetables that his sheep ate according to ...
1. ... the Tana Kama of the Mishnah - via a Beis-Sa'ah in the field (which will be explained later in the Sugya).
2. ... Rebbi Shimon - independently, assuming that what it ate was fully-grown.
(a) The Beraisa defines 'ka'Ra'uy' (for which the Mishnah exempts the owner of the sheep from paying after escaping from a closed pen) - as a door that will not open in a regular wind.

(b) Rebbi Mani bar Patish establishes our Mishnah (with regard to the previous Halachah) like Rebbi Yehudah - who holds that a superficial Shemirah will suffice for a Mu'ad.

(c) We reject Rebbi Mani's suggestion on the grounds that our Mishnah is speaking (not about Mu'ad of Keren, but) about Shein, by which Rebbi Meir concedes that no more than a superficial Shemirah is required.

(d) Rabah proves this - by the fact that the Tana switches from Shor to Tzon, rather than switching from Tam to Mu'ad (by Shor itself). Clearly then Rebbi Meir, who argues with Rebbi Yehudah by a Mu'ad of Keren (which is Kavanaso Le'hazik), agrees with him when it comes to Shein.

(a) The establishing of our Mishnah like Rebbi Meir is based on a statement by Rebbi Elazar (or on a Beraisa), who lists four things that only require a superficial Shemirah - Bor, Eish, Shein and Regel (the four Avos of the opening Mishnah of the Masechta, according to Shmuel).

(b) Rebbi Elazar learns that a superficial Shemirah suffices by Bor - from the Pasuk "ve'Lo Yechasenu" (implying that merely covering the pit will exempt him from liability.

(c) We learn from ...

1. ... "Shalem Yeshalem ha'Mav'ir es ha'Be'eirah" - that one is only liable for lighting a fire if he virtually burned the Nizak with his own hands (by not guarding it at all).
2. ... "u'Bi'er bi'S'dei Acher" and "ve'Shilach es Be'iroh" - that he is only liable for Shein and Regel if he virtually caused his animal to eat the Nizak's crops or to walk on them (by not guarding his animal at all).
(a) Rebbi Yehoshua in a Beraisa says that if Reuven breaks down a wall in front of Shimon's animal, which goes and causes damage, bends Shimon's corn into the path of a fire, hires false witnesses to give testimony or declines to testify on behalf of a litigant - he is Patur mi'Diynei Adam, but Chayav be'Diynei Shamayim' (i.e. morally obligated to pay).

(b) In the first of the four cases, Rebbi Yehoshua cannot be referring to a stable wall - because then he would be fully liable to pay.

(c) He is clearly referring to a rickety wall, which is destined to fall anyway (only he hastened the process).

Next daf


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