ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 67
BAVA KAMA 67 - Dedicated by Mr. and Mrs. D. Kornfeld (Yerushalayim) in honor
of the Bat Mitzvah of their granddaughter, Malkie, this past Yom Kipur. "May
you Hashem bless you as Sarah, Rivkah, Rachel and Le'ah!"
(a) According to the Tana of the Beraisa - a half-pipe that was first carved
and then fitted to a Mikveh invalidates the Mikveh, whereas one that was
first fitted and then carved does not.
(b) Clearly then, we do not contend with Shinuy ha'Shem (otherwise, the
Mikveh would be Pasul even in the Seifa, seeing as what was a piece of wood
has now become a pipe - a Kashya on Rav Yosef, who holds that Shinuy ha'Shem
(c) We resolve this problem - by pointing out that the P'sul of Mayim
She'uvim (drawn water) is only mi'de'Rabbanan, who were lenient in the
(d) Nevertheless, the Mikveh is Pasul in the Reisha (in the case where the
pipe was carved first and fitted afterwards) - because it was already a
vessel during the time that it was detached.
(a) The Beraisa discusses a Ganav, a Gazlan or an Anas with regard to
Hekdesh, Terumah and Ma'asros of the crops that they stole. An 'Anas' - is
someone who steals an article, even though he pays for it.
(b) The Tana says - that the Hekdesh is Hekdesh, the Terumah is Terumah and
the Ma'aser is Ma'aser.
(c) We have no proof from here that Yi'ush is Koneh, because there too,
there is Shinuy ha'Shem (seeing as the article was first Chulin and then it
became Hekdesh, first Tevel and then Terumah or Ma'aser). Note, it is
unclear how a Ganav can separate Terumah from crops that are not his, unless
he acquires the Chulin too, by Shinuy ha'Shem (from 'Tevel' to 'Mesukan'),
but then, why did the Gemara not say so?
(a) Rav Chisda Amar Rebbi Yonasan learns from the Pasuk "Asher Gazal" that
Shinuy acquires, like Rabah on the previous Amud. We query this however, on
the grounds that this Pasuk is needed for a different D'rashah - to teach us
that if a man steals, swears that he didn't admits that he swore falsely,
and then dies, his son is not obligated to pay the extra fifth.
(b) We answer - that the Torah could have written "es Gezeilo" to teach us
the latter Din. The fact that it chose to add the words "Asher Gazal",
enables us to learn that Shinuy is Koneh, as well.
(c) The second Lashon learns from "ve'Heishiv es ha'Gezeilah" - that the
Ganav must return the article that he stole at all costs (i.e. Shinuy is
(d) He learns from "Asher Gazal" - that a son is not obligated to pay an
extra fifth for the article that his father stole.
(a) Ula learns from the Pasuk in Mal'achi "ve'Heivesem Gazul es ha'Pise'ach
ve'es ha'Choleh" - "Gazul" Dumya de'Pise'ach" (meaning that, just as a
permanently lame animal cannot be brought as a Korban under any
circumstances, so too, can a stolen animal never be brought as a Korban,
even after Yi'ush).
(b) Rava learns that Yi'ush is not Koneh from the Pasuk "Korbano" (like
Abaye on the previous Daf). He knows that the Pasuk is not speaking before
Yi'ush - because then it would be obvious that a stolen animal cannot be
brought as a Korban (as we explained above).
(c) Initially, we resolve the apparent contradiction between this statement
of Rava, and that what he said earlier (that the Pasuk speaks when he stole
his friend's Korban) by explaining that Rava retracted from what he said
there. Alternatively - one of the statements was made by Rav Papa.
(d) We might have confused Rava and Rav Papa's statements - because Rav Papa
was Rava's successor, and because he was his Talmid, who may have issued
statements which we thought were said in his Rebbe's name, but which were
really his own.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that Midas Arba'ah va'Chamishah is confined to
an ox and sheep. When we ask 'Let us learn "Shor" "Shor" from Shabbos, we
mean to ask - why we do not learn from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Shor" "Shor"
from Shabbos to include all animals (like we Darshened in Perek ha'Ko'nes
regarding other issues).
(b) Rava answers that "Shor and "Seh" are superfluous (enabling us to
preclude all other animals). He cannot be referring to the "Shor" and "Seh"
of the Seifa, because had the Torah (omitted "Shor" and "Seh" from there,
and) concluded "Chamishah Bakar Yeshalem Tachtav, ve'Arba Tzon Tachtav" we
would have thought - that the Ganav has to pay (not four or five times, but)
nine, five bulls and four sheep.
(c) Nor can we counter this with the argument that this is why the Torah
writes twice "Tachtav", to preclude from this suggestion - because we need
the second "Tachtav", to teach us that the Ganav cannot pay four or five
near-dead animals, if the Nizak's animal was healthy.
(a) So we switch to "Shor va'Seh" of the Reisha. Perhaps they are
superfluous. We initially think that, had the Torah written "Ki Yignov Ish
u'Tevacho O Mecharo", Chamishah Bakar Yeshalem ... " - that the Ganav is
only Chayav if he stole two animals and Shechted them both or sold them
(b) We reject this suggestion on the grounds that the Torah writes
"u'Tevacho O Mecharo" (in the singular). We then conclude that, had the
Torah not written "Shor O Seh", we might learn from this Pasuk - that he
would only be Chayav Daled ve'Hey if he stole the two animals and Shechted
one of them or sold one.
(c) Consequently, when Rava said that we preclude all animals from the extra
"Shor" and "Seh", he must have meant - that "Seh" is superfluous in the
Reisha and "Shor" in the Seifa (because the Torah could have written "Ki
Yignov Ish Shor u'Tevacho ... Chamishah Bakar Yeshalem, ve'Arba Tzon Tachas
(a) Our Mishnah exempts someone who steals from a Ganav from paying Kefel.
Rav qualifies this Halachah - by confining it to where the owner had not
been Meya'esh, but if he had, then the first Ganav would acquire the animal,
and the second Ganav would be obligated to pay Kefel to the him.
Nevertheless, we conclude, that according to Rav, Rebbi Akiva speaks when
there was no Yi'ush. And when he says 'Mipnei she'Nishtaresh be'Chet', he
simply means - that it is because he sinned twice that the Torah fines him
(b) Based on Rebbi Akiva in a Beraisa, Rav Sheishes objected to Rav's
Chidush in no uncertain terms. Rebbi Akiva attributes the Din of four or
five times to the fact that the Ganav extended the roots of the sin by
Shechting the animal (by acquiring the animal).
(c) What caused Rav Sheishes to believe that Rebbi Akiva must be speaking
after Yi'ush is - the fact that otherwise, how can he accuse the Ganav of
extending his sin, seeing as his second sin (of Shechting the animal) did
not yield the Ganav any benefits.
(d) It is therefore clear from Rebbi Akiva, that not only the Shechitah, but
also the selling of the animal achieves something (i.e. it creates a
Kinyan), through Yi'ush and Shinuy Reshus. Now, if Yi'ush alone was Koneh,
as Rav maintains, then the first Ganav would have already acquired the
animal. Why then, would he be Chayav Daled ve'Hey if he Shechted the animal?