(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 83



(a) Lashon Sursi (the Syriac language [see also Tosfos DH 'Lashon Sursi']) is not needed in Eretz Yisrael, says the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, because one has a choice of two other languages - Lashon ha'Kodesh or Greek.

(b) And Rebbi Yossi holds that Aramaic is not needed in Bavel, because one has a choice of two other languages - Lashon ha'Kodesh or Persian.

(c) We reconcile the Tana Kama with the curse on someone who teaches his son Greek philosophy - by differentiating between Greek philosophy (which is forbidden) and the Greek language (which is permitted).

(a) Based on the Pasuk "Eini Olelah le'Nafshi mi'Kol B'nos Iyri", Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, quoting Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, explains the catastrophe that befell his father's family as being - that, in the space of one generation, of the thousand youths of the family, only two remained ...

(b) ... himself and his cousin (the son of his father's brother), who lived in Asya.

(c) Five hundred out of the original thousand studied Torah - the other five hundred studied Greek philosophy.

(a) We reconcile the fact that so many members of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's family studied Greek philosophy with the ban of which we just spoke, by comparing it to Avtulmus ben Reuven, whom they gave a special dispensation 'Le'saper Kumi' - since that kind of haircut (which we will explain immediately) was normally considered Darkei ha'Emori (a fashion practiced by gentile idolaters).

(b) This haircut might entail cutting the hair in front, but leaving it long at the back. Alternatively, it might entail - cutting the hair above the ears, like the Romans used to do.

(c) They gave Avtulmus ben Reuven (and the members of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's family) this special dispensation - because he was close to the ruling power (and sometimes needed an entree to them in order to help negate evil decrees).

(a) Chazal permit keeping a dog - provided it is permanently chained.

(b) They permitted keeping dogs in a border town - provided they are kept chained by day (but not necessarily at night).

(c) The ramification of Rebbi Eliezer, who claims that Chazal compared keeping dogs to keeping Chazeirim - are that someone who contravenes the former prohibition, is subject to the same curse as the latter one.

(a) Rav Yosef bar Minyumi Amar Rav Nachman - compared Bavel to a border town, as far as keeping dogs is concerned.

(b) We interpret Bavel in this respect - as Neherda'a.

(c) Rebbi Dustai be'Rebbi Yanai Darshens from the Pasuk "Shuvah Hashem Rivevos Alfei Yisrael" - that the Shechinah does not rest in Yisrael when there are less than twenty-two thousand Jews.

(d) Consequently, he says - in a situation where K'lal Yisrael is one short of that number, and someone's dog barks at a pregnant woman, causing her to lose her baby, he is responsible for driving the Shechinah from Yisrael.

6) When the dog owner of the dog that had barked at a certain woman who was pregnant, assured her that its fangs had been removed - she retorted that his consolation was in vain, since her baby had already died from the shock.


(a) We learned in our Mishnah that one may only place dove-traps at a distance of at least thirty Ris from the town. The minimum distance that the Mishnah in Bava Basra requires to ensure that his doves do not eat up the local crops and fruit is - fifty Amos.

(b) Abaye reconciles the two Mishnos - by differentiating between safeguarding the crops and the fruits (since the birds eat their fill in the space of fifty Amos), and catching other people's birds (which tend to fly up to thirty Ris from their nests).

(c) A Beraisa forbids placing traps in the vicinity of an inhabited area even at a distance of a hundred Mil from the town. To resolve the apparent discrepancy between the Beraisa and our Mishnah, Rav Yosef establishes the Beraisa by a Yishuv of vineyards, which enables the doves from town to hop from one vineyard to another. Rabah establish it - by a Yishuv of dove-cots.

(d) To explain why spreading traps should not then be forbidden because of the dove-cots, we give three answers: that the Tana is speaking about Shovchin belonging to Nochrim - that are Hefker or that actually belong to the owner of the traps.

***** Hadran Alach Merubeh *****



***** Perek ha'Chovel *****


(a) We have already learned that the Mazik is Chayav to pay Nezek, Tza'ar, Ripuy, She'ves and Bo'shes. Beis-Din assess ...
1. ...Nezek - by considering the Nizak to be an Eved Ivri (others say an Eved Cana'ani), and by evaluating him with his arm (say) and without it (and charging him the difference).
2. ... Tza'ar' (even when there is no Nezek [e.g. if the Mazik burned him on his nail, for example]) - by assessing how much a person such as the Nizak would accept to be burned in this way (this will be explained later).
(b) Should a scab grow on the wound, then - as long as it is the direct result of the wound, the Mazik continues to be liable to pay for its cure, otherwise, he is Patur.

(c) If the wound keeps on fluctuating, the Mazik is liable to keep on paying for its cure - provided it has not yet cured completely.

(d) Beis-Din assess She'ves - as a guard in a cucumber-field (which, in those days, was the lowest paid worker. However, this too, will be explained later in the Sugya).

(e) Bo'shes depends on the status of both the Mazik and the Nizak. With regard to ...

1. ... the Mazik - the lower his status, the more he has to pay.
2. ... the Nizak - the higher his status, the more the Mazik has to pay.
(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Makeh Adam ... "u'Makeh Beheimah" - that just as Makeh Beheimah ... " speaks about paying, so too, does "Makeh Adam", in which case, "Ayin Tachas Ayin" is clearly not meant literally.
2. ... "ve'Lo Sikchu Kofer le'Nefesh Rotze'ach La'mus" - le'Nefesh Rotze'ach I Atah Loke'ach Kofer, Aval Atah Loke'ach Kofer le'Rashei Evarim she'Ein Chozrin' (that someone who damages a limb needs to pay with money rather with his own limb).
(b) The first Pasuk cannot be that of "Makeh Beheimah Yeshalmenah, u'Makeh Adam Yamus" - because it is speaking about a case of murder.

(c) In that case, the Tana must be referring to the Pasuk "Makeh Nefesh Beheimah Yeshalmenah Nefesh Tachas Nafesh. ve'Ish Ki Yiten Mum ba'Amiso Ka'asher Asah Kein Ye'aseh Lo". And when he said "Makeh" "Makeh", he meant not the actual words, but 'Haka'ah Haka'ah' (that we learn a case of 'striking' from another case of 'striking').

(a) An earlier Pasuk stated "ve'Ish Ki Yakeh Kol Nefesh Adam, Mos Yumas". On the assumption that this Pasuk is not speaking about killing a person but about wounding him, in light of what we have just learned, we interpret it to mean Mamon, too (see Tosfos DH 'Af').

(b) We know that the Pasuk is not in fact, speaking about murder - because a. it is compared to "Makeh Nefesh Beheimah Yeshalmenah" (Mamon), and b. the Pasuk continues "Ka'asher Yiten Mum ba'Adam Kein Yinasen Bo" (which has nothing to do with murder).

(c) After learning 'Mamon' from a Pasuk In Emor ("Makeh Adam ... "u'Makeh Beheimah"), the Torah switched to a Pasuk in Masei ("ve'Lo Sikchu Kofer le'Nefesh Rotze'ach La'mus"), as we just saw. The Tana did that, because of the alternative of learning - from "Makeh Adam Yamus", that "ve'Ish Ki Yiten Mum ba'Amiso ... " is speaking about Miysah, and not Mamon.

(d) We would learn Nizakin from Miysah, despite the fact that it would seem more logical to learn Nizakin (of Adam) from Nizakin (of Beheimah) - because on the other hand, it is more logical to learn Adam from Adam.

(a) We Darshen the Pasuk "ve'Lo Sikchu Kofer le'Nefesh Rotze'ach *Asher Hu Rasha La'mus*" to preclude 'Rashei Evarim she'Einan Chozrin', because the fact ...
1. ... that a murderer is not liable to pay for the damages in addition to receiving the death sentence- we learn from the Pasuk in Shoftim "K'dei Rish'aso" ('Rish'ah Achas Atah Mechayvo, ve'Lo Sh'tei Rish'ayos').
2. ... that he cannot get off the hook by paying instead of receiving the death-sentence - we know from the words "ve'Lo Sikchu Kofer le'Nefesh Rotze'ach".
(b) Now that we have the Pasuk "ve'Lo Sikchu Kofer ... ", we nevertheless need "Makeh" Makeh" - to teach us that he specifically pays, and that he does not even have the option of losing his eye instead.
(a) Rebbi Dustai ben Yehudah learns from ...
1. ... the fact that not all eyes are equal, that sometimes the Mazik's eye is bigger than that of the Nizak - that "Ayin Tachas Ayin" must mean Mamon, and not be taken literally.
2. ... the Pasuk "Mishpat Echad Yih'yeh Lachem" - that we cannot have two Dinim, to remove the eye of a Mazik whose eye is the same size as that of the Nizak, and make him pay in the event that his eye is bigger or smaller.
(b) We reject Rebbi Dustai ben Yehudah's Limud by comparing it to murder, because according to Rebbi Dustai's way of thinking - we would have to exempt the murderer who happened to be bigger or smaller than the victim.

(c) The mistake behind Rebbi Dustai ben Yehudah's logic is - that the Torah is not charging him for the eye that he poked out or the body that he deprived of life, but for the sight or the Neshamah that he destroyed.

Next daf


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