(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 93



(a) Rav Chanan states that if Reuven requests from Hashem to punish Shimon, he is punished first, and he learns it from Sarah -who compained to Avraham for not Davening on her behalf, adding that Hashem should intervene, and in the end, it was Avraham who came to eulogize her, and not the other way round.

(b) This will not apply however - when there is no Beis-Din to which to turn (such as that of Shem, who was alive at that time).

(c) Rebbi Yitzchak says - 'Woe to the Tzo'ek (the one who lodges the complaint) even more than to the Nitz'ak (the one about whom the complaint is being lodged), as we just learned from Sarah and Avraham.

(d) The Tana in a Beraisa extrapolates this from the Pasuk (in connection with an Almanah and Yasom who complain to Hashem about someone who is oppressing them) "ve'Charah Api ve'Haragti Eschem" - where the complainer complained about one person, yet the Pasuk writes "ve'Haragti Eschem" (in the plural), to include the Tzo'ek.

(a) Rebbi Yitzchak also says - that one should not take the curse of an ordinary person lightly.

(b) He learns this from Avimelech, who said to Sarah (when he gave Avraham his parting gift) "Hinei Hu Lach K'sus Einayim" - meaning that for hiding from him the fact that she was married to Avraham, G-d should punish her with blind children.

(c) His curse come true in Yitzchak - who became very short of sight in his old age.

(d) Rebbi Avahu learns that it is better to be the pursued than the pursuer - from the pigeon and the young dove, who are pursued more than any other birds, and who are therefore the only birds who have the merit to be brought on the Mizbe'ach.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if Reuven asks Shimon to blind his eye or to cut off his arm 'al-M'nas Li'ftor', and Shimon complies, he remains liable to pay, whereas if he asks him to break his jar 'al-M'nas Li'ftor' and he complies, he is Patur. Rabah explains - that whereas a person will forego payment for a monetary loss that is owed to him, he will not forego payment for a missing limb.

(b) When, based on the premise that a person is not willing to forego pain any more than he is a missing limb, Rav Asi bar Chama asked him from the Beraisa 'Hikani P'tzani al-M'nas Li'ftor, Patur' - he had nothing to say (so he remained silent).

(c) Rav Asi bar Chama himself quoted Rav Sheishes as saying 'Mishum P'gam Mishpachah', and Rebbi Oshaya learned that way, too. What they meant was - that when Reuven severs Shimon's limb or wounds him seriously, then he must pay for the family honor that has been injured (and that is something that even Shimon cannot forego).

(d) Rava paraphrases Rabah. He ignores Rav Asi bar Chama's Kashya - because in his opinion, a person will forego the payment for pain (which, unlike the missing limb, he no longer feels).

(a) Rebbi Yochanan interprets the Mishnah differently. According to him, it is ...
1. ... the Nizak who asked the Mazik 'al-M'nas Li'ftor?' ...
2. ... and the Mazik who answered 'Hein'.
(b) In a case where the Nizak made the entire statement - Rebbi Yochanan would have ruled Patur (even in the case of the missing limb).

(c) We might rule like Rebbi Yochanan - because he has the support of a Beraisa.

(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Ki Yiten Ish el Re'eihu Kesef O Keilim Li'shmor" - "Li'shmor', 've'Lo le'Abed ... 've'Lo li'Kero'a ... ve'Lo le'Chalek la'Aniyim' (in other words, if Reuven asks Shimon to destroy his article or to distribute it to the poor, he does not have the Din of a Shomer [because there is no claimant).

(b) Rav Huna reconciles this Beraisa with our Mishnah, where we learned 'Shaber es Kadi ... , Chayav' - by establishing the Beraisa when Shimon's carelessness occurred before he had received the article, whereas our Mishnah speaks when it happened whilst he was looking after it.

(c) Rabah disagrees because, he maintains, "Li'shmor" implies that the 'Shomer' is Patur even if already has the article in his hand. Consequently, he establishes the Beraisa - when Shimon already had the article, but when he received it initially in order to tear it or ... .

(a) When a purse of Tzedakah arrived in Pumbedisa - Rav Yosef appointed a trustee to look after it. However, the trustee was negligent and the purse got lost.

(b) When Rav obligated him to pay, the trustee objected - on the basis of the Beraisa that we just cited "Li'shmor", 've'Lo le'Chalek la'Aniyim' (since there are no claimants, as we explained).

(c) Rav Yosef however, drew a distinction between this case and the Beraisa - inasmuch as the Tzedakah-funds of Pumbedisa were distributed in the form of fixed stipends, in which case there were claimants, unlike most other cases of Tzedakah, where the money tended to be distributed spontaneously.

***** Hadran Alach ha'Chovel *****



***** Perek ha'Gozel Eitzim *****


(a) We learn in our Mishnah that if someone steals wood or wool and manufactures vessels or clothes, he only pays for the materials that he stole - because of the principle 'Shinuy Koneh'.

(b) In a case where he stole ...

1. ... a pregnant cow or a sheep covered with wool, and the cow gave birth or he sheared the wool of the sheep - he will have to pay for a pregnant cow and for a sheep laden with wool (as he stole them); The excess value of a cow and a born calf and of a sheep and the wool already shorn belong to him, because he acquired it with Shinuy.
2. ... a cow that became pregnant after he stole it, or a sheep whose wool grew after he stole it - he will pay for the cow and the sheep, but not for the fetus and the wool, as we just explained.
(c) The source for 'Shinuy Koneh' is the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'Heishiv es ha'Gezeilah *Asher Gazal*" ('ke'Ein she'Gazal', as we learned in Perek Merubeh.
(a) We infer from the Lashon ' ... Eitzim ve'As'an Keilim', and 'Tzemer ve'As'an Begadim' - that it is only when he changes the article that he stole completely that he acquires it, but not if stole wood and planed it, or wool and bleached it (and besides, someone who manufactures vessels or clothes, normally planes or bleaches them first).

(b) The Beraisa states that someone who stole wood and planed it, stones and smoothened them, wool and bleached it or flax and washed it - pays for what he stole, because he acquires the changed object with Shinuy.

(c) Abaye resolves the apparent contradiction by establishing our Mishnah when he stole planed wood and wool that was already spun, from which he manufactured vessels and clothes - in which case, the Shinuy is reversible, and is therefore only Koneh mi'de'Rabbanan. 'Kal va'Chomer' he will acquire it in a case where he stole wood and planed it, or wool and bleached it, where the Shinuy is irreversible, and therefore Koneh mid'Oraysa.

(d) According to Abaye - our Mishnah and the Beraisa do not argue; only the Mishnah incorporates Shinuy de'Rabbanan, whereas the Beraisa deals with Shinuy d'Oraysa exclusively.

(a) Rav Ashi however, holds that the Tana of our Mishnah also deals exclusively with Shinuy d'Oraysa. He interprets ...
1. ... 'Eitzim ve'As'an Keilim' to mean - that from the wood, he made a pestle, which does not need to be planed, and is therefore irreversible.
2. ... 'Tzemer ve'As'an Begadim' to mean - that from the wool he made a felt, which does need to be bleached, and is therefore irreversible, too.
(b) According to Rav Ashi - the Mishnah and Beraisa do not argue either, only they are dealing with two different cases of Shinuy d'Oraysa.

(c) The Beraisa rules that if the owner dyes the wool before having given Reishis ha'Gez, he is Patur (because he acquires it with Shinuy). He is not even Chayav to pay for the wool that he stole - because, not having actually taken it from anybody, he is not really a thief (added to the fact that there is no specific owner).

(d) The Tana says that if he bleached the wool without dyeing it - he is Chayav (because bleaching is not Koneh, a contradiction to the earlier Beraisa, which holds that it is).

(a) Bearing in mind that five fleeces are needed to combine to be Chayav Reishis ha'Gez, when the Tana of the Beraisa says 'Gaz'zo, ve'Tav'o ve'Argo, Ein Mitztaref' - he means that if after shearing the wool of any of the five sheep, he then spun or wove it before having shorn all five fleeces, he is Patur from Reishis ha'Gez, because he has acquired it.

(b) Rebbi Shimon continues 'Libno, Ein Mitztaref'. The Rabbanan say - 'Mitztaref' ...

(c) ... because Rebbi Shimon holds that bleaching is Kohen, whereas the Rabbanan hold that it is not.

(d) Abaye therefore reconciles the contradiction between the two earlier Beraisos with regard to whether bleaching as considered a Shinuy or not - by establishing the earlier Beraisa (which holds that it is) like Rebbi Shimon, and the later one, like the Rabbanan.

(a) According to Rava, the Beraisa which does not consider bleaching to be Koneh might even go like Rebbi Shimon who makes a distinction between wool that ...
1. ... has been unraveled by hand, which does not bleach well (and which is therefore not Koneh), and wool that has been combed with a comb, which does (and which therefore is Koneh [according to Rava]).
2. ... is washed in plain water - which is *not properly bleached*, and wool that is bleached with chemicals, which *is* (according to Rebbi Chiya bar Avin) The Rabbanan maintain that bleaching is not Koneh, in any case.
(b) We have learned in another Beraisa 'Gazaz Rishon Rishon, ve'Tzav'o Rishon Rishon, ve'Tav'o Rishon Rishon ve'Argo Rishon Rishon, Ein Mitztaref'. Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah quoting Rebbi Shimon says - 'Mitztaref'.

(c) Abaye answers the Kashya that if dyeing wool is not Koneh, how can bleaching it be - by restricting the opinion that dyeing wool is not Koneh, to Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah in Rebbi Shimon (who actually holds that bleaching it is not Koneh either); whereas according to the Rabbanan, Rebbi Shimon holds that both are Koneh.

(a) Rava disagrees. In his opinion, the Rabbanan do not argue with Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah (that dyeing is not Koneh according to Rebbi Shimon). He maintains that dyeing is worse than bleaching (with regard to Kinyanim) - because dyes can be washed out with Tzafun (a certain type of soap), whereas bleaching is a permanent process.

(b) And Rava explains the Beraisa, which exempts the owner from Reishis ha'Gez once he has dyed the wool - by establishing it by 'Kala Ilan' (a specific type of dark blue dye that cannot be removed with Tzafun.

(c) According to Abaye, Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah, Beis Shamai, Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar and Rebbi Yishmael all hold - that Shinuy is not Koneh.

Next daf


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