(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 37

BAVA KAMA 37 - This Daf has been sponsored by Marcia and Lee Weinblatt of Teaneck, NJ, in honor of the marriage of their daughter, Jodi Weinblatt, to Yaakov Mugrabi, on Sept 2, 2001.


(a) Our Mishnah cites three cases where an ox might be Muad for one thing but not for another. The first two are when it is Mu'ad for oxen but not for other species and when it is Mu'ad for people but not for animals.
What is the third case?

(b) What does the Tana rule in this case?

(c) Rebbi Yehudah draws the same distinction between an ox that is Mu'ad for Shabbasos but not for weekdays.
What is the reason for this? Since when does an ox observe Shabbos?

(d) In this latter case, how will the ox revert to its Tamus?

(a) According to Rav Z'vid, the text in our Mishnah reads 'Shor she'Mu'ad le'Miyno, ve'Eino Mu'ad le'she'Eino Miyno".
What are the ramifications of the 'Vav'?

(b) What does Rav Papa say?

(c) Rav Zvid derives his opinion from the third case 'Mu'ad li'Ketanim ve'Eino Mu'ad li'Gedolim', which would be superfluous if not for the inference ('Ha S'tama Lo Havi Mu'ad').
How does Rav Papa counter his proof? Why *does* the Tana find it necessary to insert this case?

(a) How does Rav Papa derive his opinion from the Reisha (which is really the middle case) 'Mu'ad le'Adam Eino Mu'ad li'Beheimah'?

(b) How does Rav Z'vid establish the Reisha to counter Rav Papa's proof?

(c) What does Sumchus say about an animal that is 'Mu'ad le'Adam'?

(d) How does Rav Z'vid establish Sumchus in order to refute the proof that, if Sumchus holds ' ... Eino Mu'ad li'Beheimah', the Rabbanan must hold 'Mu'ad ... '?

(a) What does Rav Ashi prove from the Seifa of our Mishnah, where Rebbi Yehudah's Talmidim asked him 'Harei Zeh Hayah Mu'ad le'Shabbasos ... ' and from his answer?

(b) How does Rav Yanai substantiate this from the Reisha, which concludes 'es she'Mu'ad Lo, Meshalem Nezek Shalem ... '?

(c) In which context do we conclude with the statement 'Nagach Shor, Chamor ve'Gamal, Na'aseh Mu'ad la'Kol'?

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa describes a 'Mu'ad le'Sirugin'.
How does an ox become a Mu'ad le'Sirugin ...
  1. ... for oxen?
  2. ... for all species of animals?
(b) What is the Chidush of this last statement?

(c) What is an Arod?

Answers to questions



(a) We ask what the Din will be if, after goring three oxen in the same sequence, an ox gores a donkey and a camel in the same sequence. Assuming that, in this case, we go after the first sequence, what She'eilah do we ask next?

(b) Similarly, we ask what the Din will be if an ox gores on three consecutive Shabbasos, and on the Sunday and Monday following the third Shabbos.
On what basis do we then ask what the Din will be if it gored on Thursday and on Friday and then on three consecutive Shabbasos?

(c) How do we conclude both She'eilos?

(a) According to Rav, if, for the first time, a woman sees blood on the fifteenth of Iyar, on the sixteenth of Sivan and on the seventeenth of Tamuz, this becomes her new Veses.
When will it become her Veses, according to Shmuel?

(b) How does this Machlokes affect ...

  1. ... our Sugya?
  2. ... the Beraisa (that we cited on the previous Amud) which describes a Mu'ad le'Sirugin as one that gored one ox, ignored the second one that it saw, gored the third one, ignored the fourth, gored the fifth and ignored the sixth)?
(c) What does Rava rule in a case where an ox gored following the three occasions that it heard a Shofar-blast?

(d) What is Rava's Chidush? Why is this not obvious?

(a) If an ox belonging to a Hedyot gores an ox belonging to Hekdesh, the owner is Patur.
How about the other way round?

(b) From where does the Tana learn this?

(c) What distinction does our Mishnah make between the ox of a Yisrael goring one of a Nochri and vice-versa?

(d) What does Rebbi Shimon ben Menasyah in a Beraisa say with regard to a Hedyot goring an ox belonging to Hekdesh and vice-versa?

9) Assuming that Rebbi Shimon ben Menasyah exempts a Hekdesh ox that gored the ox of a Hedyot due to "Re'eihu (like the Rabbanan), why can we not then say that he obligates a Tam ox of a Hedyot that gored one of Hekdesh to pay full from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from the ox belonging to a Hedyot which gored an ox belonging to a Hedyot?


(a) Ultimately, Resh Lakish learns Rebbi Shimon ben Menasyah's Chumra by a Hedyot's Tam which gored a Hekdesh ox, from "Re'eihu".
How does he Darshen "Re'eihu" in this context?

(b) What prompts him to Darshen this way? Why does he not simply exempt the Hedyot from paying for the damage to a Shor shel Hekdesh (like the Rabbanan)?

(c) The P'tur by a Shor Mu'ad of Hekdesh that gored a Shor Hedyot, Rebbi Shimon ben Menasyah learns from the Pasuk "ve'Hu'ad bi'Ve'alav" (which does not apply to a Shor shel Hekdesh).
From which Pasuk does he exempt Hekdesh if its Shor Tam caused damage?

(a) According to an alternative interpretation of Resh Lakish's explanation, he only comes to avoid the 'Kal va'Chomer.
In that case, from where does he learn the P'tur of a Hekdesh ox that gored that of a Hedyot?

(b) Why does he not then Darshen "Re'eihu" in connection with a Hedyot ox that gored one of Hekdesh in the same way as he Darshened it in connection with the reverse case?

(c) Then why does he not Darshen "Re'eihu" by Shor shel Hekdesh ... in the same way as he Darshens it by a Shor shel Hedyot ... ?

(d) And how does he then know that a Shor Mu'ad of Hekdesh is Patur as well (despite the fact that "Re'eihu" is not written there)?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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