(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 53

BAVA KAMA 53 (Rosh Hashanah) - sponsored by Hillel Yakov and Elisheva Tzipora Kagan. May they be blessed with a year of Berachah and joy, and may Hashem answer all of their prayers!


(a) According to Rav, when our Mishnah says 'Nafal *Lefanav* mi'Kol ha'K'riyah Chayav, *le'Acharav*, Patur', it must be taken literally.
What does he mean by that? Where did the animal fall?

(b) What would Shmuel say if 'Lefanav or Le'acharav referred to the animal?

(c) Then how does he interpret 'Lefanav' and 'Le'acharav'?

(a) We ask on Rav from a Beraisa 'be'Bor, Bein Lefanav Bein Le'acharav Chayav'. To reconcile Rav with this Beraisa, Rav Chisda establishes it by a Bor bi'Reshuso. Why will Rav agree with Shmuel in the case of a Bor bi'Reshuso?

(b) Rabah establishes the Beraisa even by a Bor bi'Reshus ha'Rabim.
How does he establish the case to reconcile Rav with the Beraisa?

(c) Rav Yosef has a third interpretation of the Beraisa. According to him, it makes no difference where the Bor is, nor how the ox fell. How does he establish the case? Who damaged whom?

(a) Rav Chananyah cites a Beraisa in support of Rav.
What does the Beraisa learn from the word "ve'Nafal"?

(b) We ask why, in the case of 'Koreh', the owner of the pit is liable, seeing as it is the digger who caused the animal to fall.
Would this Kashya still apply if the digger was the owner of the pit himself?

(c) And what would the Din be if the digger was actually in the process of digging the pit (and not just widening it) when his hammering caused the animal to fall headlong into it (even assuming that he was digging it on behalf of someone else)?

(d) We have already cited (the opinion of) Rav Shimi bat Ashi, who establishes the author of our Mishnah as Rebbi Nasan (and he is also the author of the Beraisa currently under discussion).
What does Rebbi Nasan say in principle, regarding one ox that pushed another ox into a pit? What makes the owner of the pit liable?

(a) How do we resolve the apparent discrepancy between the Beraisa which obligates the owner of the pit to pay half, with the Beraisa which obligates him to pay three quarters (both citing the opinion of Rebbi Nasan)?

(b) We have a problem with the second Beraisa.
What ought Rebbi Nasan have said if he held that each of the two Mazikin (the ox and the pit) performs ...

  1. ... the whole damage?
  2. ... half the damage?
(c) On what grounds does Rava warn us to be wary of taking Rebbi Nasan (specifically) to task?

(d) How does Rava therefore explain the second Beraisa? Why must the owner of the pit pay three quarters assuming that each one performed ...

  1. ... the whole damage? Why don't they pay half each?
  2. ... half the damage?
(a) Rava connects the Din of an ox that tripped over Reuven's stone into Shimon's pit with the Machlokes between Rebbi Nasan and the Rabbanan.
What is Rava's Chidush? Why is that not obvious?

(b) Why is the owner of the stone not Patur because of G'rama, like the digger who caused the ox to fall into the pit?

Answers to questions



(a) According to Abaye, if an ox belonging to a Hedyot together with one of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin gores a person or an ox, the former pays half.
What does Ravina say?

(b) What sort of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin are we talking about here?

(c) Why can this not apply to Pesulei ha'Mukdashin of other Kodshim which were redeemed (despite the fact that the latter too, may be eaten, but not shorn or worked with)?

(d) Abaye might be referring to a Mu'ad, and Ravina, to a Tam, both according to the Rabbanan.
How else might we reconcile their respective opinions?

(a) Others cite the Machlokes differently. According to them, Ravina obligates the owner of the Hedyor ox to pay full damages.
What does Abaye say?

(b) Ravina might be referring to a Mu'ad and Abaye, to a Tam, both according to Rebbi Nasan.
How else might we reconcile their opinions?

(a) What does Rava rule in a case where a person and an ox together pushed another ox into a pit? Who is liable to pay for the damages?

(b) And who will be liable, should the damages involve ...

  1. ... the four things (Tza'ar, Ripuy, Sheves and Boshes) or the killing of a woman's unborn babies?
  2. ... the killing of a Jew (Kofer) or of an Eved?
  3. ... the breakage of vessels or an ox of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin?
(c) From where does Rava learn that the owner of a pit into which an ox of Pesulei ha'Mukdashin fell is Patur?
(a) We are faced with an apparent discrepancy between this statement of Rava, and Rava elsewhere, who is uncertain whether or not, to learn something else from this Pasuk.
To what does this refer? What is 'something else'?

(b) How do we resolve this problem? From where does Rava ultimately learn that 'Ba'alim Metaplim bi'Neveilah'?

(c) Why does he prefer to learn the exemption from paying for Pesulei ha'Mukdashin by Bor (and 'Ba'alim Metaplim bi'Neveilah' from the Pasuk by Shor and, and not vice-versa)?

(d) Why do we not contend with the leniency of Chatzi Nezek of Tam, that applies to Shor but not to Bor (and switch the D'rashos on account of it)?

(a) Our Mishnah, which exempts a pit from the Nizakin of vessels, does not go like Rebbi Yehudah.
What do the Rabbanan learn from the Pasuk "ve'Nafal Shamah ...
  1. ... Shor?
  2. ... O Chamor"?
(b) On what grounds does Rebbi Yehudah then include vessels? Why does he not also exempt them from "Chamor"?

(c) And what do the Rabanan learn from "O"?

(d) Rebbi Yehudah learns 'Lechalek from the singular form of "ve'Nafal". How do the Rabbanan counter this? Why do they nevertheless require "O" Lechalek?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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