ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 117
(a) Initially, we attempt to learn from the Beraisa 'ba'Rishonah Hayu Omrim
ha'Metamei ve'ha'Menasech. Chazru Lomar Af he'Medamei' - the principle
'mi'Kenasa Lo Gamrinan' (when Chazal decreed a K'nas on Metamei and
Menasech, this precluded any other similar cases which the Torah did not
obligate to pay - see Tosfos DH 'La'av Mishum').
(b) Medamei might not have been included together with Metamei and
Menasech - because as opposed to the other two, which entail a complete loss
to the owner, it only entails a minimal loss (since Terumah which is mixed
together with Chulin, can be sold to Kohanim at a slightly cheaper price).
(c) So we try and prove the same principle from Avuhah de'Rebbi Avin's
version, according to which - the Tana omits Menasech from the original
(d) We refute this proof too however, on the basis of a Machlokes between
Rebbi Avin and Rebbi Yirmiyah. According to ...
1. ... Rebbi Avin, a Menasech would be Patur from paying - because the
Chiyuv Miysah takes effect when he actually performs the Nisuch which
coincides with the damage (and the obligation to pay), in which case he is
Patur because of 'Kam Leih bi'de'Rabah Mineih'.
2. ... Rebbi Yirmiyah, would he be Chayav - because whereas his Chiyuv
Miysah takes effect as soon as he picks up the wine (since picking up is
part of the process of making Yayin Nesech), the damage (and the obligation
to pay) only occurs when he actually does the Nisuch.
(a) In a case where a Yisrael whom Nochrim had forced, pointed out to them
where they could find money belonging to a Jew, which they promptly took,
Rav Huna bar Yehudah - obligated him to pay.
(b) When Rav Huna bar Yehudah told him what he had done - he ordered him to
rescind his ruling, in keeping with the Beraisa that he quoted him. Note,
that is not comparable to the case on the previous Amud, where according to
the second Lashon, the Tana obligated him to pay, because that speaks when
he pointed out the other man's field when they had asked him for his own,
whereas here, he was specifically asked (see Shitah Mekubetzes).
(c) The Tana concedes that he would have been Chayav - had he handed him the
(d) Rabah considers - volunteerig the information to be in the same category
as handing it to the Nochri.
(a) In another case, after the king's men had forced someone to show them
wine belonging to Rav Mari B'rei de'Rav Pinchas B'ri de'Rav Chisda, they
then forced him to carry it to the palace with them. In spite of the ruling
that we just learned 've'Im Nasa ve'Nasan be'Yad, Chayav', Rav Ashi
justifies his ruling exempting the man from payment - by establishing it
when they actually specified what they wanted him to hand over, whereas the
Beraisa speaks when the Jew was the one to divulge where his fellow-Jew's
article was and then handed it over to the Anas.
(b) In a case where someone follows the instructions of an Anas, and hands
him a ball of wool or a bunch of grapes - the Tana obligates him to pay
(despite the fact that it was the Anas who designated what he wanted the Jew
to hand over).
(c) Rav Ashi reconciles his lenient ruling with this Beraisa - which speaks
when the Anas is on the other side of the river, and would not be able to
procure what he wanted without the Jew's help.
(d) The proof of this - lies in the Lashon 'Hosheit Li', rather than 'Ten
(a) When one of the men contesting ownership of a fishing-net (or a net to
trap wild animals) handed it over to the king's official, Abaye justified it
on the grounds that he had handed over what was his. Rava objected - on the
grounds that nobody gave him the authority to do so (seeing as his
contestant claimed that it was his).
(b) So Rava - placed him in Cherem until he would retrieve the fishing-net
and appear in Beis-Din with it for a Din-Torah.
(c) In another case, a man planned to show the king's men where his friend's
straw was stored was brought before Rava. When Rava forbade him to do so -
he responded by insisting that he would.
(d) Rav Kahana, Rav's Talmid, reacted to the man's impudence - by breaking
(a) Rav justified Rav Kahana's action - on the grounds that, once money
belonging to a Jew, falls into the hands of a Nochri, like a wild bull that
falls into a net, to which one shows no mercy, it is irretrievable (even
though that not did seem to have been Rav Kahana's motive).
(b) Rav advised Rav Kahana - to flee to Eretz Yisrael, because the Greeks,
who were strict concerning murder, were currently in control. He might not
have done so had the same incident occurred earlier - when the Persians, who
were not so fussy, were in control.
(c) After arriving in Eretz Yisrael, Rav Kahana came to Resh Lakish's
notice - when attending the revision session which the latter, Rebbi
Yochanan's star Talmid, supervised, he bombarded the Talmidim with questions
and answers regarding all that he had heard Resh Lakish discussing with
them. And they informed Resh Lakish.
(a) When Resh Lakish informed Rebbi Yochanan that 'a lion had arrived from
Bavel', the latter placed Rav Kahana in the front row. He arrived in the
back (seventh) row - following Rav's instructions to remain silent (not to
ask the Rebbe any Kashyos) for seven years.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan was not impressed with Rav Kahana, In fact, he commented
to Resh Lakish - that the lion had turned out to be a fox.
(c) Rav Kahana did not abide by Rav's instructions to remain silent for
seven years - because he said, may it Hashem's will that the seven rows
should pass as seven years.
(d) For each Kashya that Rav Kahana posed and which Rebbi Yochanan was
unable to answer, they removed one of the seven cushions on which he was
sitting. When he found himself sitting on the floor, he had a longing to see
Rav Kahana, and asked his Talmidim to raise his eye-lashes.
(a) It was necessary to assist Rebbi Yochanan to see Rav Kahana - because,
due to old age (some say that he lived for four hundred years) - his
eye-lids drooped over his eyes (and had to be lifted with tweezers in order
(b) When Rebbi saw Rav Kahana, he perceived a grin on his face which he took
to be a vain smirk. This made him feel faint, and that is when when Rav
(c) When Rebbi Yochanan's Talmidim explained to him that Rav Kahana's grin
was due to a split lip, he went to the cave where Rav Kahana's body was
lying. When Rebbi Yochanan asked the snake that encircled the cave to open
its mouth and let ...
1. ... the Rebbi enter to see his Talmid - it failed to respond.
(d) The snake opened its mouth and allow him to enter - only whe he asked it
to do so to allow the Talmid t enter and see his Rebbe.
2. ... the Chaver to see his Chaver - it still failed to respond.
(a) Rav Kahana was reluctant to be revived - because of the possibility that
'history would repeat itself' (unless Rebbi Yochanan could guarantee that it
would not). Or because he did not wish to taste the bitter taste of death
(b) In any event, there and then he settled all Rebbi Yochanan's learning
problems. Rebbi Yochanan subsequently told his Talmidim - that Torah, which
he orginally thought, belonged to the B'nei Eretz Yisrael, he now realized
belonged to the B'nei Bavel.
(c) We know that he did accept Rebbi Yochanan's offer to return with him -
because in Makos, Rav Kahana speaks of his exile, and in a Yerushalmi which
relates how people mocked him by referring to his death, and how he
responded, both clear indications that he survived.
(a) In the case where a man pointed out Rebbi Aba's ornament of silk to the
king's men, the Beis-Din quoted the Mishnah in Bechoros. The Tana rules
there by 'Dan es ha'Din, Zikah es ha'Chayav, ve'Chiyev es ha'Zakai, Timei es
ha'Tahor ve'Tihar es ha'Tamei' - that the Dayan's ruling is valid, but that
he is obligated to reimburse the owner.
(b) Rebbi Ila'a however, queries the Beis-Din from Rav - who establishes
the Mishnah when the Dayan actually accompanied his ruling with an action
(as we discussed in ha'Gozel Kama).
(c) The Dayanim, convinced that the defendant was liable, instructed Rebbi
Aba to take his case to Rebbi Shimon ben Elyakim and Rebbi Elazar ben
P'das - because they applied 'Diyna de'Garmi'.
(d) They obligated the defendant - basing their ruling on our Mishnah 'Im
Machmas ha'Gazlan, Chayav Le'ha'amid Chamor Acher', which we established
when he merely showed the article to the king's men.
(a) When thieves came to rob the guardian of a silver cup - he handed it to
(b) When Rabah exempted him from paying, Abaye objected - on the grounds
that someone who uses money belonging to someone else in order to save
himself is liable.
(c) So Rav Ashi ruled - that if the guardian was a wealthy man, we assume
that the thieves came for his money, and he would be liable (as Abaye just
explained); but if he was not, then they probably came for the silver cup,
and he would be Patur.
(d) In a similar case, where the guardian of a purse of Pidyon Shevuyim
handed the thieves who came to rob him the purse, Rabah justified his
lenient ruling - with the explanation that 'there is no greater Pidyon
Shevuyim than this' (seeing as he had no other money with which to pay the
robbers at the time - see Tosfos DH 'Ein Lecha').
(a) When Reuven pushed Shimon's donkey off the ferry into the river and it
drowned, Abaye thought that he ought to be liable to pay - because he was
'saving himself with someone else's money'.
(b) Rabah however, exempted him because he was a 'Rodef' (threatening to
overturn the boat and drown the people in it), and one is permitted to save
lives in self-defense.
(a) Rabah's previous ruling is based on another ruling of his, where he
exempt both Reuven and Shimon from paying, if Reuven is chasing Shimon with
intent to kill him. He exempts ...
1. ... Reuven if he smashes vessels along the way - because he is Chayav
Miysah, and whenever someone is Chayav Miysah, we apply the principle 'Kam
Leih bi'de'Rabah Mineih' (even if in fact, he is not killed).
(b) And he exempts Levi who, in an attempt to save Shimon, is chasing
Reuven, from paying for vessels that he broke - because otherwise, people
will be reluctant to save others, in the knowledge that they will be held
responsible for any damage that they cause.
2. ... Shimon if he smashes Reuven's vessels in his efforts to escape -
because it is illogical 'for his money to be more precious than his body'
(though this S'vara is limited to the case in hand).
(c) In fact, Levi ought to be liable, because if Reuven is liable for saving
*himself* with Shimon's money, how much more so for saving Levi.
(a) If an overflowing river swept away Reuven's donkey which Shimon stole,
and the donkey was standing beside the river - the Tana of our Mishnah
exempts him from paying ('Omer Lo. Harei she'Lecha Kefanecha').
(b) If the same happened to the field that Shimon stole from Reuven, Rebbi
Elazar in a Beraisa obligates Shimon to give Reuven another field. The
Chachamim exempt him from paying - because they hold that Karka cannot be
(c) Their Machlokes is based on the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'Chichesh ba'Amiso
... O mi'Kol Asher Yishava Alav la'Shaker" (in connection with Shevu'as
ha'Pikadon). The basis of their dispute is - whether we Darshen 'Ribuy,
Miy'ut ve'Ribuy' or 'K'lal u'F'rat, u'Ch'lal'.
(a) Rebbi Elazar, who Darshens 'Ribuy, Miy'ut and Ribuy' ("ve'Chichesh"
ba'Amiso", "be'Pikadon", "O mi'Kol Asher Yishava ... ") - precludes Sh'taros
(which are not intrinsically Mamon) from the Miy'ut.
(b) The Rabbanan Darshen 'K'lal u'P'rat u'Ch'lal'. The two requirements we
learn from "be'Pikadon" for a Shomer to be Chayav payment or a Shevu'ah
are - 'Davar ha'Mitaltel ve'Gufo Mamon' (it must be both movable and have
(c) Karka is not movable, and Sh'taros have no intrinsic value. Avadim are
exempt - because the Torah compares them to Karka.
(d) The Beraisa cites a Machlokes where the Rabbanan argue with Rebbi Elazar
over a cow which someone stole and which the river then swept away. Rebbi
Elazar obligates the Gazlan to pay, the Rabbanan exempt him. Rav Papa -
establishes the Beraisa when the Ganav stole a field with a cow lying in it,
and he explains - that according to Rebbi Elazar, who holds that Karka can
be stolen, when he acquired the field, he acquired the cow together with it,
obligating him to pay for it when it subsequently got swept away; whereas
according to the Rabbanan, since he did not acquire the field, he did not
acquire the cow either.