ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 109
(a) Rav Yosef states that if there are no heirs, the son who stole from his
father - should give the money to Tzedakah.
(b) According to Rav Papa, when handing the money to the Gabai of Tzedakah,
he should say - 'Zeh Gezel Avi'.
(c) When the Torah writes "ve'Im Ein la'Ish Go'el" it is talking about - a
Ganav who stole from a Ger (who has no relatives), ordering him to give the
money to the Kohanim.
(a) The Beraisa speaks about a Ganav, who, after stealing and swearing to a
Ger, hears that he has died and is taking the money to Yerushalayim, when he
actually meets the Ger - who promptly transforms the theft into a loan and
(b) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili rules that the Ganav is permitted to keep the
money - whereas according to Rebbi Akiva - he has to give it away (in order
to fulfill the Mitzvah of Hashavah).
(c) Consequently, we will establish ...
1. ... the Seifa of our Mishnah, which does not permit the Ganav to be
Mochel himself - like Rebbi Akiva.
(d) There is currently no difference between the Ganav being Mochel himself
after the Ger or his father dies, and the owner being Mochel the Ganav,
according to ...
2. ... the Mishnah earlier in the Perek "Machal Lo al ha'Keren, ve'Lo Machal
Lo al ha'Chomesh" - like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili.
1. ... Rebbi Yossi Hagelili - since both are permitted.
2. ... Rebbi Akiva - since both are prohibited.
(a) The significance of 'Zakfan Alav be'Milveh' - is that the owner is
Mochel the Ganav (to create the new obligation of a loan).
(b) Despite the assumption that Rebbi Yossi Hagelili makes no distinction
between whether 'Zakfan Alav be'Milveh' or not, the Tana inserts 'Zakfan
Alav be'Milveh' - to teach us that, in spite of it, Rebbi Akiva obligates
him to pay.
(c) The problem this poses on the Mishnos involved is - that the Tana should
then have switched the opinions recorded there. In order to teach us the
bigger Chidush, he should have taught in connection with ...
1. ... 'Machal Lo al ha'Keren ... ' - 'Einah Mechilah', according to Rebbi
Akiva (and 'Kal va'Chomer' our Mishnah, where he is Mochel himself).
2. ... the thief who inherits his father (our Mishnah) - that he can be
Mochel, according to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili (and 'Kal va'Chomer', 'Machal Lo
al ha'Keren ... , which is a case of Mechilas Acheirim).
(a) Rav Sheishes therefore establishes the Seifa of our Mishnah, as well as
the Mishnah of 'Machal Lo al ha'Keren', like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili - by
changing the premise that Rebbi Yossi Hagelili does not differentiate
between whether it was 'Zakfan Alav be'Milveh' or not. In fact, he
specifically requires 'Zakfan Alav be'Milveh', because he only permits
Mechilas Acheirim, but not Mechilas Atzmo.
(b) Rebbi Akiva still makes no distinction between 'Zakfan ... ' and 'Lo
Zakfan' (both are forbidden, as we learned originally).
(a) According to Rava, the author of both Mishnos is Rabbi Akiva (who learns
like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili learned according to Rav Sheishes) . Rebbi Yossi
Hagelili will then hold - that either way, he can be Mochel.
(b) According to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, the case of 'Gezel ha'Ger', which the
Torah obligates the Ganav to pay to the Kohen - speaks when the Ganav
admitted after the Ger's death, in which case, Hashem acquired the object
and ordered it to be given to the Kohen.
(c) Whereas the case of Rebbi Yossi Hagelili (where the Ganav can be Mochel
himself) speaks - when the admission took place during the lifetime of the
(a) Ravina asks whether Gezel ha'Giyores has the same Din as Gezel ha'Ger.
It might not - because the Torah writes "ve'Im Ein *la'Ish* Go'el" (to
preclude a Giyores).
(b) The word "Ish", on the other hand, might not preclude Gezel Giyores -
because it is the way of the Torah to use the masculine form, even when it
incorporates the feminine too.
(c) We learn from the double Lashon " ... Lehashiv ... ha'Mushav" - that
Gezel ha'Ger incorporates Gezel Giyores, too.
(d) The Torah writes "Ish" (not to preclude Gezel Giyores, but) - in order
to preclude a Katan (i.e. from the need to enquire whether he has children
or not, as one needs to do un the case of a Gadol). This teaches us the
important principle - that a Katan cannot father children.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "la'Hashem la'Kohen" - that Hashem acquires the Gezel ha'Ger which
the Ganav, after the Ger's death, confesses to having stolen and sworn
falsely over, and gives it to the Kohen.
(b) According to the Tana Kama, we might have thought that if a Kohen
acquires the Gezel ha'Ger that is brought by a Yisrael, he certainly ought
to acquire his own.
2. ... "Mil'vad Eil ha'Kipurim Asher Yechaper Bo Alav" - that just as the
ram of the Asham must be given to a Kohen of the current Mishmar, so too,
must the money be given to him.
3. ... "L'vad Mimkarav al ha'Avos" - that Korbanos may only be brought by a
Kohen of the current Mishmar.
(a) Rebbi Nasan reasons differently. His S'vara is based on the Din of a
Kohen who brings a Korban, about whom Chazal say - that he may sacrifice it
at any time (even when it is not his Mishmar), and the skin and flesh belong
to him alone.
(b) Consequently, when he says ...
1. ... 'Davar she'Ein Lo Cheilek Bo ad she'Yika'nes bi'Reshuso,
ke'she'Yika'nes li'Reshuso Eino Yachol Lehotzi'o mi'Yado' he means - that if
the Kohanim of the current Mishmar have no portion in another Kohen's Korban
before the owner gives it to one of them, yet once he does, he cannot take
it away from the recipient ...
(c) 'Davar she'Ein Lo Cheilek Bo' might also refer to - T'rumos u'Ma'asros.
2. ... 'Davar she'Yesh Lo Cheilek Bo ad she'Lo Yika'nes bi'Reshuso, Eino Din
she'Ein Yachol Lehotzi'o mi'Yado' he means - that Gezel ha'Ger, in which the
recipient has a portion even before the owner gives it to him, should
certainly be his exclusively, once the owner has given it to him.
(d) We repudiate Rebbi Nasan's S'vara - on the grounds that certainly the
recipient of the Gezel ha'Ger had a portion in it before he received it, but
then, so did all the other Kohanim of that Mishmar (which is not the case by
the other Kohen's Korban).
(a) In fact, Gezel ha'Ger that is brought by a Kohen - is distributed among
all the other members of the group serving that week.
(b) We currently learn from the Pasuk "ve'Ish es Kodoshav Lo Yiheyeh" - that
a Kohen may sacrifice his own Korban at any time (even when it is not his
Mishmar, as we explained above).
(c) We attempt to query the current Beraisa, which forbids a Kohen to keep
his own Gezel ha'Ger, from here - on the basis of the fact that, due to the
Hekesh of the *Asham* of Gezel ha'Ger to the *money*, since the Kohen is
permitted to bring his own Korban and to take the skin and the flesh, he
should also be able to keep the money.
(d) So in order to reconcile the Beraisa with this D'rashah - we establish
it by a Kohen Tamei, who cannot eat the flesh of his Asham (therefore, he is
not entitled to the money either.
(a) We reject the previous answer. The Tana cannot possibly be talking about
a Tamei Kohen - because then, how could he state 'she'Yesh Lo Cheilek Bah'
(with reference to Gezel ha'Ger), when we have learned that a Tamei Kohen is
not entitled to a portion of any of the Matanos (that are distributed in the
(b) We finally derive the Din of Gezel ha'Ger with a 'Gezeirah-Shavah'
"Kohen" "Kohen" - from a Sadeh Achuzah.
(c) The Tana suggests that a Kohen's Sadeh Achuzah might revert back to him
in the Yovel (with a 'Kal va'Chomer similar to that of Gezel ha'Ger that the
Tana Kama Darshened earlier). He counters this suggestion however with the
Pasuk in Bechukosai "ki'S'dei ha'Cherem la'Kohen Tih'yeh *Achuzaso*", (which
is superfluous and) - from which we extrapolate that it is only from the
Sadeh Achuzah of a Yisrael that he receives a portion, but not from his own
(and the same applies to Gezel ha'Ger).
(d) We did indeed just learn from "ve'Ish es Kodoshav Lo Yih'yu" that a
Kohen can bring his own Korbanos and takes the skin and the flesh
(incorporating Gezel ha'Ger). However - we partially retract from this
D'rashah (as we shall now see).
(a) The Tana of a Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "u'Va be'Chol Avas Nafsho ve'Sheireis" - that a Kohen may sacrifice
his own Korban at any time (even when it is not his Mishmar, as we explained
(b) The Beraisa goes on to say that if the Kohen is old or sick (and unable
to eat the flesh) - then he appoints another Kohen to take his place, but
the skin and the flesh go to all the Kohanim in that Mishmar.
2. ... "ve'Ish es Kodoshav Lo Yih'yu" - that even if he is a Ba'al-Mum
(blemished), he appoints another Kohen to sacrifice his Korban in his place,
but he still receives the skin and the flesh.