ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 99
(a) From the next Mishnah 'ha'Nosen Tzemer le'Tzove'a ve'Hikdicho Yoreh,
Nosen Lo D'mei Tzimro' - we extrapolate that the dyer pays the owner for his
wool, but not for the Sh'vach, a proof for Rav Asi, who holds 'Uman Koneh
(b) Shmuel refutes this proof - by establishing the Beraisa when the wool
got burned as soon as it fell into the cauldron, in which case there is no
(c) Shmuel appears to argue with Rav Asi (and to hold 'Ein Uman Koneh
bi'Shevach K'li'). It is important to know his opinion in this matter -
because when he argues with Rav Asi, we rule like him.
(a) We initially reject the suggestion that Shmuel argues with Rav Asi, by
establishing the Mishnah when the wool and the dye both belong to the
owner - in which case, 'Uman Koneh bi'Shevach K'li' is not applicable,
because the dyer only has the status of a paid worker.
(b) We reject this answer however, on the grounds that, if that was the
case - then the Tana should have said 'Nosen Lo D'mei Tzimro ve'Samemanim'.
(c) We nevertheless reconcile Shmuel with Rav Asi - inasmuch as he may only
be suggesting that is might be what the Tana says (meaning that there is no
proof for Rav Asi for here), but not that this is what he actually says (in
which case there would be is a proof against Rav Asi).
(a) The La'av of "Lo Salin" is - the transgression of not paying night
workers by the end of the following day, and day workers by the end of the
(b) The owner does not transgress this La'av even if the laundryman to whom
he handed his cloak for cleaning informs him that it is ready for
collection, and he fails to pay until ten days later - because "Lo Salin" in
such a case will only take effect once he receives his finished article.
(c) According to the Tana of the Beraisa (who is clearly speaking about a
night-worker), if the owner collects his cloak at midday - he will
transgress "Lo Salin" already at sunset.
(d) This Beraisa appears to pose a Kashya on Rav Asi - according to whom, he
ought not to transgress "Lo Salin" at all, because the laudry-man will
acquire the cloak as soon as he finishes laundering it.
(a) We try to answer that he handed the laudry-man the cloak, not to wash,
but to comb, in which case there is no Sh'vach. This suggestion is
unacceptable however - because there is no reason for a combed garment not
to be considered a Sh'vach any less than a washed one.
(b) Rav Mari B'rei de'Rav Kahana finally establishes the Beraisa 'de'Agra
li'Bitushi ... ' which means - that he hired the laundryman to beat the
(c) ... 'Bitcha Bitcha be'Masa' - at one Ma'ah per stroke, which places him
in the category of a 'Schir Yom', who (even Rav Asi will agree) does not
acquire the article that he completes.
(a) Originally, we thought that the laundryman is a Kablan - who gets paid
for the job (rather than for the time).
(b) This interpretation of the Beraisa supports Rav Sheishes who rules -
that a Kablan, like a S'chir Yom, is subject to the La'av of "Lo Salin".
(c) Rav Sheishes appears to argue with Rav Asi, according to whom, the
laundryman in the Beraisa ought to acquire the cloak (and be Patur from the
damage). Rav Shmuel bar Acha however, reconciles Rav Sheishes with Rav Asi -
by establishing "Lo Salin" according to him, by a postman who gets paid for
delivering a letter by hand, in which case there is no Sh'vach.
(a) If a woman asks a man to betroth her with the bracelets, nose-rings and
finger-rings that he makes her, Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa validates the
Kidushin as soon as they are completed. The Chachamim - invalidate the
Kidushin until he gives her 'money'.
(b) When the Chachamim say 'Ad she'Yagi'a Mamon le'Yadah', they cannot be
referring to the finished product - because if Rebbi Meir, who argues, does
not even require that, with what would she be Mekudeshes?
(c) We assume therefore, that they mean other money, and the basis of their
Machlokes is - whether 'Uman Koneh bi'Shevach K'li' (Rebbi Meir), or 'Ein
Uman Koneh ... ' (the Rabbanan). We are trying to prove that Rav Asi holds
like Rebbi Meir.
(d) According to this interpretation of the Beraisa, both Tana'im hold ...
1. ... 'Yeshnah li'Sechirus mi'Techilah ve'Ad Sof'.
2. ... 'ha'Mekadesh be'Milvah Einah Mekudeshes'.
(a) We counter this by establishing the Machlokes by 'S'chirus' (Rebbi Meir
holds 'Ein li'Sechirus Ela be'Sof', and the Rabbanan, 'Yeshnah li'Sechirus
mi'Techilah ve'Ad Sof') - and both will agree that 'Ein Uman Koneh
bi'Shevach K'li '.
(b) Alternatively, both Tana'im hold 'Yeshanah li'Sechirus mi'Techilah
ve'Ad Sof', and they argue over 'Mekadesh be'Milveh' - Rebbi Meir holds
Mekudeshes, the Rabbanan, 'Einah Mekudeshes'.
(c) According to Rava, both Tana'im hold 'Yeshanah li'Sechirus mi'Techilah
ve'Ad Sof', ha'Mekadesh be'Milveh Einah Mekudeshes' andd Ein Uman Koneh
bi'Shevach K'li'. The source of their Machlokes is - whether 'ha'Mekadesh
be'Milveh u'P'rutah, Da'ato a'Milveh' or 'Da'ato a'P'rutah' (as we shall now
(a) According to Rava, Rebbi Meir holds 'ha'Mekadesh be'Milveh u'Perutah,
Da'atah a'P'rutah'. The Rabbanan say - 'Da'atah a'Milveh'.
(b) In another Beraisa, the Tana Kama differentiates between 'bi'S'char
she'Asisi Imach' and 'bi'S'char she'E'eseh Imach'. They say ...
1. ... 'Einah Mekudeshes', in the former case - because of the principle
'ha'Mekadesh be'Milveh, Einah Mekudeshes'.
(c) Rebbi Nasan says that in the case of 'bi'S'char she'E'eseh Imach', she
is not Mekudeshes (even though we might have said 'Einah li'Sechirus Ela
li'be'Sof'), how much more so, in the case of 'bi'S'char she'Asisi Imach'
(where it is not applicable).
2. ... 'Mekudeshes', in the latter case - because they hold 'Einah
li'Sechirus Ela li'be'Sof', and as soon as he gives her the article, she is
(d) He argues ...
1. ... with the Tana Kama - inasmuch as he holds 'Yeshnah li'Sechirus
mi'Techilah ve'Ad Sof'.
2. ... with Rebbi Yehudah ha'Nasi, who concedes that she is not Mekudeshes
in either of the two case - but adds that if he gives her something in
addition, she is Mekudeshes (because 'ha'Mekadesh be'Milveh u'Perutah,
Da'atah a'Perutah'), whereas Rebbi Nasan holds that even then, she will not
be Mekudeshes, because he holds ' ... Da'atah a'Milveh'.
(a) Shmuel says that if a skilled Shochet rendered an animal Neveilah with
his Shechitah - he is obligated to pay, because 'Mazik Hu, Poshe'a Hu,
Na'aseh ke'Omer Lo, Sh'chot Li mi'Ka'an, ve'Shachat Lo mi'Ka'an'.
(b) Having said 'Mazik Hu', he nevertheless needs to add 'Poshe'a Hu' - to
teach us that he is even Chayav to pay if he Shechted for free (i.e. because
he is a Poshe'a, and not just an O'nes).
(c) In a case where the Shochet was not skilled - he would most certainly be
liable to pay.
(d) A Beraisa quoted by Rav Chama bar Guri'a discussing the above case -
exempts a skilled Shochet from paying, but obligates an unskilled one.
(a) When ...
1. ... Rav Chama bar Guri'ah asked on him from this Beraisa - he was
(b) He was annoyed with them - because, he pointed out, had they studied his
words more carefully ('Mazik Hu Poshei'a Hu, Na'aseh ke'Omer Lo ... ') they
would have noticed that he was speaking according to the opinion of Rebbi
Meir (as we will now clarify), whereas the Beraisa they quoted, follows the
opinion of the Rabbanan (Rebbi Yehudah).
2. ... another Talmid-Chacham asked him the same question - he informed that
he too, would feel the brunt of his wrath, just like his colleague.
(c) Shmuel could not have been referring to Rebbi Meir in the Mishnah ...
1. ... in 'Shor she'Nagach Daled ve'Hey' 'Kashro Bes'alav be'Moseiro
ve'Na'al be'Fanav Kara'uy ve'Yatza ve'Hizik, Bein Tam Bein Mu'ad Chayav' -
because his reason there is based on a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv, and has nothing to
do with our case.
(d) In fact, he was referring to the Mishnah in ha'Meni'ach, where Rebbi
Meir said - 'Nishberah Kado ve'Lo Silko, Nafal Gamlo ve'Lo He'emido Chayav',
because he holds 'Niskal Poshe'a' (someone who walks without due care and
slips and falls, is considered negligent, and we now see that the same
applies to someone who Shechts without due care and renders the animal a
2. ... later in this Perek 'Litz'bo'a Lo Adom, ve'Tzav'o Shachor ... Rebbi
Meir Omer Nosen Li D'mei Tzimro' - because there he us Chayav to pay because
he performed the damage deliberately (whereas in our case, he certainly did
not intend to render the animal a Neveilah).
(a) Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan says - that 'Tabach Uman
she'Kilkel Chayav, va'Afilu Hu Uman ke'Tavchei Tzipori'.
(b) We reconcile this ruling with the episode in the Beis ha'Kenesses of
Ma'on, where Rebbi Yochanan told a Shochet who rendered an animal a
Neveilah, that if he could prove that he was a skilled Shochet, he would be
Patur from paying - by establishing the latter case when he Shechted free of
charge (because unlike Shmuel, he does not consider him to be a Poshei'a),
whereas the former refers to a case where the Shochet gets paid (and he is
Chayav because he is a Mazik).
(c) Rebbi Zeira advises anyone who wants to ensure that the Shochet accepts
responsibility, should he render the animal a Neveilah - to pay him a small
(a) The Beraisa rules - that a grinder who failed to soak the grains in
boiling water, and ended up making inferior-quality bread, and a Shochet who
rendered the animal a Neveilah - is Chayav to pay.
(b) The Beraisa concludes 'Mipnei she'Hu *ke*'Nosei Sachar' - implying that
this is the Halachah even if he did take a fee, a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan.
(c) We amend the Beraisa to read - 'Miknei she'Hu Nosei Sachar' (absolving
him from the obligation to pay should he Shecht free of charge).
(a) A Magrumta came before Rav - meaning that the Shochet had Shechted the
Taba'as (one of the laryngeal cartilage's) on top of the animal's neck, but
the knife slipped and he cut the last bit outside the Taba'os before he
finished cutting it. Rav ruled that the animal was T'reifah but that the
Shochet was Patur from paying.
(b) The Safek was whether to rule like the Chachamim who renders the animal
a Neveilah, or like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who renders it Kasher as
long as he Shechted the majority of the Taba'as before the knife slipped.
(c) Rav Kahana and Rav Asi said to the owner of the animal 'Avid Bach
Tarti', which for a fleeting moment, we take to mean that Rav issued two
incorrect rulings - 1. that he should have declared the animal Kasher, like
Rebbi b'Rebbi Yehudah; 2. that having declared the animal T'reifah, he
should have obligated the Shochet to pay.
(d) They cannot possibly have meant that however - since (based on the Pasuk
in Mishlei "Holech Rachil u'Megaleh Sod"), the Beraisa expressly forbids a
Dayan to inform the losing party that, had it been up to him, he would have
ruled in his favor, but what could he do now that he was in the minority?
(e) So they must have meant that Rav did him two favors - 1. that he stopped
him from eating a Safek Isur (by ruling like the Rabbanan; 2. that he
prevented him from Safek Gezeilah (by absolving the Shochet from paying [in
case the Halachah is like Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah]).
(a) We learned two Beraisos regarding a banker who validates a coin which is
later found to be Pasul. One Beraisa rules that an expert banker is Patur,
whereas one who is not an expert is liable.
The second Beraisa says - that
either way, he is Chayav?
(b) In establishing the first Beraisa, Rav Papa mentions Danku and Isur -
two supreme experts who had nothing more to learn about coins.
(c) In spite of their expertise, they could err in their assessment -
assuming that the coin that they inspected had just been withdrawn and
replaced and they were not yet aware of the change.
(d) The woman whose coin Rebbi Chiya (who was an expert banker) had declared
to be a good coin, informed him the following day that it had been proven to
be Pasul (under circumstances similar to those that we described by Danko
and Isur). Despite the fact that Rebbi Chiya was no less an expert than
Danko and Isur, he instructed Rav to replace the Dinar and to mark in his
ledger that this had been a bad deal - because he went Lif'nim mi'Shuras
ha'Din (beyond the letter of the law).