(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 33


(a) Rav Z'vid in the name of Rava cites Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina's statement with regard to a different Beraisa.
What does Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov there Darshen from the Pasuk in Shoftim "*u'Matza* es Re'ehu ba'Ya'ar"?

(b) And what does Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina comment on this?

(c) What will those who linked Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina with our Mishnah say in this case?

(a) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, if workers come to claim their wages from their employer, and they are gored to death by his ox or mauled by his dog, he is Patur.
What does Acherim say?

(b) Why can the Beraisa not be speaking in a case when the employer ...

  1. ... is often available in town?
  2. ... is mostly found at home?
(c) So how do we establish the Beraisa? What exactly took place?

(d) What is then the basis of their Machlokes?

(a) What does another Beraisa say about an employee who is gored or mauled by his employer's ox or dog when he comes to claim his wages?

(b) What do we extrapolate from there?

(a) What does the Tana of our Mishnah rule in a case where two oxen gored each other, assuming one of them is a ...
  1. ... Tam and so is the other?
  2. ... Mu'ad and so is the other?
  3. ... Tam and the other one, a Mu'ad?
(b) Bearing the above in mind, what will be the Din if ...
  1. ... two people injure each other?
  2. ... a person and an ox injure each other?
(c) According to the Tana Kama, if a person and a Tam injure each other, the Din is no different than that of a Mu'ad and a Tam.
What does Rebbi Akiva say?
(a) What do the Rabbanan learn from the Pasuk in Mishpatim (in connection with a Shor Tams that gored a person) "ka'Mishpat ha'Zeh Ye'aseh Lo"?

(b) And what does Rebbi Akiva learn from ...

  1. ... "ha'Zeh"?
  2. ... the Pasuk (there) "Yeshalem Lo"? Why might we otherwise have said differently?
(c) What do the Rabbanan learn from "ha'Zeh" and Rebbi Akiva from the Pasuk "*ve'Ish* Ki Yiten Mum *ba'Amiso*"?

(d) The Rabbanan require "ha'Zeh" to exclude Ripuy and Sheves, and not only Tzar.
Why do we need a special Pasuk to preclude Ripuy and Sheves from the damages of one's ox, even though we already know that Tza'ar is precluded?

(a) How does the Tana of our Mishnah describe the case of Shor Tam mentioned in the Torah?

(b) Rebbi Yishmael in a Beraisa holds 'Yusham ha'Shor be'Veis-Din'.
What does he mean? What is his reasoning?

(c) What does Rebbi Akiva say?

(d) The basis of their Machlokes lies in the Pasuk "u'Machru es ha'Shor ha'Chai ve'Chatzu es Kaspo".
What is the basis of their Machlokes?

(a) Apart from the basic difference whether the Mazik can force the Nizak to take money instead of the live ox (see Tosfos DH 'Hikdisho'), what are the ramifications of the Machlokes?

(b) Why must the author of our Mishnah be Rebbi Akiva?

(c) Rava asked Rav Nachman whether, if the Mazik sold the ox, the sale would be valid. Seeing as the Nizak only has the Din of a creditor, why might it not?

(d) What did Rav Nachman reply?

Answers to questions



(a) In light of Rav Nachman's ruling ('Eino Machur') we explain the Beraisa which says 'Mecharo, Machur' to mean that although it is sold, the Nizak may claim it back.
Then what is the significance of the Beraisa's ruling?

(b) What distinction does Rava make between a debtor who sells his Eved who is an Apotiki and one who sells his ox?

(c) In that case, on what grounds do we permit the Nizak to claim the Mazik which its owner sold, here?

(a) Rav Tachlifa from Eretz Yisrael quoted a Beraisa before Rebbi Avahu 'Mecharo Eino Machur, Hikdisho Mukdash'.
What are the two possible ways of learning this Beraisa?

(b) What problem do we have with it?

(c) We finally establish the Beraisa by the Mazik.
Who will then be the author?

(d) Why will even ...

  1. ... Rebbi Yishmael agree that his sale is invalid?
  2. ... Rebbi Akiva agree that his Hekdesh is valid?
(a) What does the Tana of another Beraisa rule with regard to a Shor Tam which damaged, that one sold, Shechted or gave as a gift ...
  1. ... before the court hearing?
  2. ... after the court hearing?
(b) What does the Tana say in a case where the Mazik's creditors came and took the ox? Will it make any difference which came first, the debt or the damage?

(c) What will be the Din concerning the above, with regard to a Mu'ad?

(d) What are the ramifications of the ruling in the Reisha ...

  1. ... 'Mecharo, Machur'?
  2. ... 'Hikdisho Mukdash'?
  3. ... 'Nesano be'Matanah'?
(a) When the Tana includes 'Shechato' in this list, is he coming to teach us that the Nizak can no longer claim it? How does Rav Shizbi explain it?

(b) It seems obvious that we can learn from this Halachah the principle 'ha'Mazik Shibudo shel Chaveiro, Patur'.
Why did Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua find it necessary to as much?

(c) Why is it still not obvious from Rabah, who exempts Reuven from having to pay for burning Shimon's documents?

(d) How can we ask a Kashya on Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua from Rabah, who was also an Amora?

(a) What is the problem with the Tana who permits the Nizak to take the ox from the creditors who claimed it first, in the case of ...
  1. ... 'Chav ad she'Lo Hizik'?
  2. ... 'Hizik ad she'Lo Chav'?
(b) How do we answer both of these Kashyos with one stroke?
Answers to questions

Next daf


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