ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 77
BAVA KAMA 77 - Dedicated by Dr. and Mrs. Moshe & Rivka Snow of Queens, N.Y.,
in memory of Rabbis Israel Snow and Baruch Mayer Rabinowitz -- both of whose
Yahrzeits are 8 Elul.
(a) When Rebbi Shimon says in a Beraisa that a Parah Adumah is Metamei
Tum'as Ochlin, *because it had a Sha'as ha'Kosher* he means - that it is
considered a food (regarding Tum'ah), because, even after the Shechitah, he
could still have redeemed it.
(b) And when Resh Lakish explains 'Omer Hayah Rebbi Shimon Parah Nifdis
al-Gabei Ma'arechtah', he means - that according to Rebbi Shimon, he is
permitted to redeem it (even mi'de'Rabbanan [see Tosfos]), even though he
did not do so.
(c) We have proved from here - that Rebbi Shimon holds 'Kol ha'Omed Li'fdos
(a) Rebbi Yochanan established Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah when the Ganav
Shechted Temimim inside the Azarah not in the name of the owner. He agrees
with Resh Lakish, who established the case when the Ganav Shechted blemished
(b) He nevertheless declines to explain Rebbi Shimon like him - because he
considers it a Dochek (a pushed answer), to establish it specifically by
(c) Resh Lakish disagrees with Rebbi Yochanan however, based on the fact
that Mechirah does not apply to an animal of Kodshim - because Kodshim
Temimim do not go out to Chulin (only when they are blemished).
(d) The basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish is
whether we compare Tevichah to Mechirah and say wherever Mechirah is not
applicable, Tevichah is not applicable either (Resh Lakish) or not (Rabbi
(a) They follow their reasoning in another Machlokes. Rebbi Shimon says that
a Ganav who steals a T'reifah animal and Shechts it - is Patur from Daled
ve'Hey, because it is a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan says that if the same Ganav sold it (instead of Shechting
it) - he would be Chayav.
(c) According to Resh Lakish, since he is Patur for Shechting it, he is also
Patur for selling it.
(a) 'Ganav Kil'ayim u'T'vachah, T'reifah u'Mecharah, Meshalem Tashlumei
Arba'ah va'Chamishah'. Rebbi Yochanan assumes that the author of the Beraisa
must be Rebbi Shimon - because the Rabbanan would have said 'Ganav Kil'ayim
u'T'reifah, T'vachan O Mecharan, Meshalem Daled ve'Hey'.
(b) Based on this assumption, Rebbi Yochanan asks from the Seifa on Resh
Lakish - because assuming the Tana to be Rebbi Shimon, as we just explained,
we see that even when a Ganav is not Chayav for Shechting a stolen animal,
he is Chayav for selling it.
(c) According to Rebbi Yochanan himself, the Tana confines the Reisha to
Tevichah - because the Seifa is confined to Mechirah.
(a) Resh Lakish, who establishes the author as the Rabbanan, explains the
fact that the Tana confines the Reisha to Tevichah - because he chooses to
establish the Reisha by one, and the Seifa, by the other.
(b) The problem with this is - why the Tana would choose to do such a thing.
Why did he not put them together and obligate both Kil'ayim and T'reifah
Daled ve'Hey, whether he Shechted or sold them (as we explained earlier,
according to Rebbi Yochanan).
(a) Rava learns that the word "Shor, *Seh* Kesavim ve'Seh Izim" (written in
connection with non-Kasher animals - see Tosfos) - is a Binyan Av, which
teaches us that wherever the word "Seh" appears in the Torah, it precludes
(b) Nevertheless, the Tana incorporates Kil'ayim in our Pasuk (by Geneivah)
"Shor O Seh" - because "O" includes it.
(c) The Tana of another Beraisa Darshens the Pasuk in Emor (written in
connection with Kodshim) "Shor O Kesev O Ez", to preclude an animal of
Kil'ayim, and from "O Ez", he precludes a Nidmeh - an animal that resembles
neither its father nor its mother, such as a goat whose father is a ram and
whose mother is a ewe.
(d) This Beraisa appears to clash with our explanation of "Shor O Seh" by
Geneivah - because there "O" came to include Kil'ayim, whereas here it comes
to exclude it.
(a) When Rava explains 'Hacha me'Inyana di'K'ra, ve'Hacha me'Inyana
di'K'ra", he means - that "O" is not fixed one way or the other; it works in
conjunction with the Pasuk in which it appears, as we shall now see.
(b) What makes it logical to include an animal of Kil'ayim by Geneivah, but
to exclude it by Kodshim - is the fact that with regard to the former, the
Torah writes "Shor O Seh", which cannot produce Kil'ayim. It is therefore
obvious that, since the Pasuk itself is not speaking about Kil'ayim, "O"
comes include it; whereas with regard to the latter, it writes "Kesev O Ez",
which can produce Kil'ayim, "O" comes to preclude it.
(c) A sheep and a goat can produce Kil'ayim, because they are both Beheimos
Dakos (small species of animals), but not an ox and a sheep - because one is
a small species and the other, a large one.
(a) Rava just explained that "O" by Kodshim comes to preclude Kil'ayim,
because the Torah writes there "Kesev O Ez" (which can produce Kil'ayim).
True, the same Pasuk also writes "Shor O Kesev ... " (which cannot produce
Kil'ayim), however, the Reisha follows the same pattern as the Seifa.
(b) Bearing in mind that the two things we preclude from "O" are Kil'ayim
and Nidmeh, Rava knows to compare the Reisha to the Seifa (to exclude
Kil'ayim) - because once we have precluded Kil'ayim (whose parents are
different species) from the Dinim of Kodshim, we still need a Pasuk to
preclude Nidmeh (whose parents are the same species). But if we were to
compare the Seifa to the Reisha (to include), then, on the premise that we
always Darshen Kil'ayim first (see Shitah Mekubetzes DH 'Ela'), we would not
need a second D'rashah for Nidmeh, which we automatically learn from a 'Kal
va'Chomer' from Kil'ayim.