ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 79
(a) The Beraisa lists various cases of Ganavim who pay Daled ve'Hey, the
first of which is 'Ganav veNasan le'Achar ve'Tavach ... u'Machar'. The Tana
cannot mean that he gave it to him as a gift - because then, the Ganav would
be Chayav immediately (which in fact, is one of the subsequent cases in the
Mishnah), even without the recipient Shechting or selling it).
(b) The Tana continues 'Ganav ve'Hikdish, Ganav ve'Hikif, Ganav ve'Hichlif,
Ganav ve'Nasan be'Matanah'. 've'Hikif' means that he sold it to him on
(a) And the Tana concludes 'Ganav u'Para be'Chovo, Ganav u'Para be'Hekeifo,
Ganav ve'Shalach Sivlonos be'Veis Chamiv, Meshalem ... '. 'Sivlonos le'Beis
Chamiv' are - gifts that a Chasan sends to his father-in-law's house.
(b) The Chidush in the Reisha (the first two cases) is that he is Chayav
even though *he* did not Shecht or sell it (but someone someone else). We do
not apply the principle 'Ein Sheliach li'D'var Aveirah' here - because, as
we have already learned, we extrapolate 'Tevichah Dumya li'Mechirah', to
render one Chayav even where there is a third party involved.
(c) The only other Chidush lies in the case of Ganav ve'Hikdish - which
comes to teach us that there is no difference between selling to a Hedyot
and selling to Hekdesh (as we learned above).
(a) If the Ganav stole an animal in the domain of the owner and Shechted it
or sold it outside his domain, he is Chayav Daled ve'Hey - because as he led
it out of the owner's domain, he acquired it, taking upon himself all the
obligations of a Ganav.
(b) If he stole it ...
1. ... outside his domain and Shechted or sold it inside, or if he stole it
outside his domain and Shechted it there too - he is also Chayav.
(c) If someone steals a lamb, and it dies ...
2. ... inside his domain and Shechted it there too - he is Patur, because he
did not yet acquire it (though he is obviously liable for damages.
1. ... as he is leading it towards the exit of the owner's domain - he is
Patur from Kefel.
2. ... just after he has led it throught the gate - he is Chayav.
3. ... after he has picked it up still inside the owner's field - he is
Chayav, because a Kinyan Hagbahah is effective anyewhere, even in the
(a) In a case where the Ganav told a Kohen to take the sheep that he wanted
to steal, as payment for Pidyon ha'Ben, his creditor to take it as payment
of his debt, or if he instructed any of the four Shomrim to take it and look
after it, and it died ...
1. ... whilst still in the owner's domain - he is Patur.
(b) One of the reasons that the Tana cannot be referring to when *the owner*
gave it to a Kohen to redeem his first-born son ... or to one of the four
Shomrim to look after, is because a Sho'el, why should a Shomer be Chayav
for Meisah ke'Darkeh, which is a pure O'nes? The other reason is - that in
the cases of giving it to a Kohen or to his creditor, the Lashon 'Patur' or
'Chayav' is inappropriate (since it is a question of whether he has lost or
not). What the Tana should rather have said is 'Hifsid' or 'Lo Hifsid'.
2. ... after the person concerned had taken it out of the owner's domain -
he is Chayav.
(a) The ramifications of Ameimar's She'eilah whether the Chachamim
instituted Meshichah by a Shomer or not are - whether the Shomer is liable
to pay if something happened to the animal prior to his having made a
(b) Ameimar tries to refute Rav Yeimar's proof from our Mishnah 'Nasno
li'Bechoros B'no ... Hayah Moshcho u'Meis'. The Tana may be talking (not
about the Shomer leading the animal [as we explained in our Mishnah] but) -
when the Ganav led the animal out of the domain of the Kohen, the creditor
or the Shomer.
(c) When Rav Yeimar queried Ameimar from the fact that the Tana has already
taught us the Din of a Ganav in the Reisha, when he stole from the domain of
the owner - he replied that the Reisha teaches us the Din of a Ganav who
steals from the domain of the owner, and the Seifa adds the Din of a Ganav
who steals from the domain of a Shomer ...
(d) Rav Ashi sides with Rav Yeimar, to conclude 'Sh'ma Mi'nah, Tiknu
Meshichah be'Shomrim - because what on earth is the difference whether the
Ganav steals from this domain or that one (once we know the one, we know the
(a) Rav Ashi has the support of a Beraisa which states - 'ke'Derech
she'Tiknu Meshichah bi'Lekuchos, Kach Tiknu Meshichah be'Shomrim'.
(b) The Tana continues 'u'ke'Shem she'ha'Karka Nikneis be'Kesef, bi'Sh'tar
u've'Chazakah, Kach Sechirus Nikneis ... '. He can only be referring to
S'chirus of Karka, says Rav Chisda - because one cannot acquire Metaltelin
with a Sh'tar (or with Chazakah).
(c) We cannot bring the same proof from Kesef - because Kesef does acquire
Metaltelin with regard to a 'Mi she'Para' (the curse that one receives for
retracting from a sale after paying for goods which one has not yet
(d) There is no 'Mi she'Para' for retracting from a sale on which one has
written a Sh'tar (which is considered no more than words).
(a) Rebbi Elazar obligates someone who hides in the forest in order to steal
animals and then Shechts them to pay Daled ve'Hey -because he considers him
(b) The Ganav concerned acquires the animals, Rav Chisda explains - by
hitting them with a stick (which is a form of Meshichah).
(c) Despite the fact that people saw him he is nevertheless a Ganav and not
a Gazlan - since he hides from them.
(a) According to Rebbi Avahu, a Gazlan is someone who steals openly like
Benayahu ben Yehoyada - who actually grabbed the spear out of the hands of
an Egyptian and killed him with it.
(b) Rebbi Avahu does not agree with Rebbi Yochanan, who gives an example of
a Gazlan as someone who lies in ambush (like the Ba'alei Sh'chem in
Shoftim), because, when all's said and done, they did hide. Rebbi Yochanan
counters this argument - by pointing out that they only hid in order to
prevent their victims from escaping (and not because they were afraid of
them) see Tosfos DH 've'Rebbi Yochanan.
(a) A Ganav is more stringent than a Gazlan - inasmuch as he pays Daled
ve'Hey (whereas a Gazlan does not).
(b) The reason that Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai give his Talmidim for this is -
because whereas the Gazlan does not respect (fear) Hashem less than his
fellow man, a Ganav does (since he fears man, but not Hashem).
(c) What the Pesukim "Hoy ha'Ma'amakim me'Hashem, Lastir Eitzah ve'Hayah
be'Machshach Ma'aseihem" (Yeshayah); "va'Yomru Lo Yir'eh Kah ve'Lo Yavin
Elokei Ya'akov" (Tehilim); "ve'Amru Azav Hashem es ha'Aretz, ve'Ein Hashem
Ro'eh" (Yechezkel) have in common is - that they all describe the Ganav.
(d) To describe Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai's explanation, Rebbi Meir in the
name of Raban Gamliel gave a Mashal to two people who organized a party -
one of whom invited the townspeople but not the king, whereas the other
invited neither. It is obvious that the first of the two is more deserving
of punishment than the second.
(a) Rebbi Meir in the name of Raban Gamliel extrapolates the importance of
work from the Parshah of Daled ve'Hey - from the fact that the Ganav has to
pay fourfold for Shechting or selling a lamb, but fivefold for an ox
(because whereas the latter works [and that is what he deprived the owner
of], the former does not).
(b) According to Raban Yochanan ben Zakai, the reason that the Ganav pays
less for Shechting or selling a lamb is because, whereas the ox walked with
the Ganav on its own volition, the lamb had to be carried on his shoulders,
involving a degree of shame - from which we can extrapolate the importance
(a) Our Mishnah forbids rearing small animals in Eretz Yisrael - because
they tend to wander off into other people's fields, and to eat the produce.
(Chazal term this 'Yishuv Eretz Yisrael', safeguarding the property of Eretz
(b) The Mishnah permits it in Syria, despite the fact that David ha'Melech
captured it, because ' 'Kibush Yachid Lo Sh'mei Kibush' (Land that was
conquered before the conquest of Eretz Yisrael had been completed, is not
considered part of Eretz Yisrael).
(c) He permits it even in Eretz Yisrael however - in the deserts.
(d) Chazal forbade ...
1. ... anyone to rear chickens in Yerushalayim - because of the Kodshim that
were constantly being brought there, and chickens tend to carry dead
2. ... Kohanim anywhere in Eretz Yisrael to do so - due to the same fear,
seeing as they are obligated to eat Terumah (which must be kept Tahor).
(a) It is forbidden to rear Chazeirim anywhere. One may ...
1. ... rear dogs - as long as they are constantly kept on a chain.
(b) The reason that Chazal forbade rearing dogs is - because they bite and
bark (and sometimes even cause women to lose their babies through the fear
that results from their barking).
2. ... spread nets to trap doves - provided they are placed at least thirty
Ris (four Ris = one Mil) from the town.
(c) The Beraisa permits rearing small animals in the Chorshin of Eretz
Yisrael. 'Chorshin' means - forests.
(d) They also permitted rearing them in the desert of Yehudah and of the
border of Acco. They did not extend the decree to big animals (which are
needed for carrying and plowing), because it was too difficult a burden for
the community to bear - because to import them from outside the country was
(a) Chazal permitted a person to keep small animals - thirty days before his
son's wedding or before Yom-Tov.
(b) If for example, one purchased an animal fifteen days before Yom-Tov, he
is not permitted to retain it for fifteen days after Yom-Tov, in order to
make the most of the thirty-day concession.
(c) A cattle-dealer is permitted to keep small animals as from thirty days
prior to market-day until market-day.
(d) The Tana discusses whether a cattle-dealer who purchased animals fifteen
days before market-day may retain them until the end of the thirty-day
period (just as he did with regard to keeping animals that remained after
Yom-Tov). When he writes 'u'Vil'vad she'Lo Yashheh *ha'Agunah* she'Bahen
Sheloshim Yom', he means - that he is not permitted to retain *the last of
them* for the full thirty days, only until market-day.