(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 56

BAVA KAMA 56 (Rosh Hashanah) - sponsored by Mr. and Mrs. D. Kornfeld in prayer that Hashem may accept our prayers, in these days of Rachamim, and speedily grant Klal Yisrael a true and complete redemption from all of their enemies, returning His Shechinah to Tziyon and His people to His service!


(a) We learned in the Beraisa that if Reuven bends Shimon's corn into the path of a fire, he is only liable be'Diynei Shamayim'.
What sort of wind subsequently carried the fire to the corn, a regular wind or an irregular one?

(b) According to Rav ashi, the Tana might even be speaking in the case of a regular wind.
Then why is he not fully liable to pay? What is the case, according to Rav Ashi?

(c) When the Tana includes Reuven ...

  1. ... hiring false witnesses in his list, on whose behalf did he hire them?
  2. ... declining to testify on behalf of Shimon, was there another witness involved or was he the only one?
(d) When the Torah writes "ve'Hu Eid ... Im Lo Yagid ve'Nasa Avono", how do we know that it is referring to two witnesses, and not just to one?
(a) What do the following cases have in common 'ha'Oseh Melachah be'Mei Chatas u've'Paras Chatas', 'ha'Nosen Sam ha'Maves Bisfnei Beheimas Chaveiro', 'ha'Sholei'ach es ha'Be'eiroh be'Yad Chashu', and 'ha'Mav'is es Chaveiro'?

(b) In 'ha'Oseh Melachah be'Mei Chatas' ...

  1. ... what sort of Melachah is involved?
  2. ... why is he Patur mi'Diynei Adam?
(c) The Tana of the Beraisa also includes in his list, the case of and 'Nishberah Kado bi'Reshus-ha'Rabim, ve'Lo Silkah ... ', according to the Rabbanan.
What does Rebbi Meir say?

(d) Considering that these five cases are also Chayav be'Diynei Shamayim ... , why does Rebbi Yehoshua list only the above four?

(a) Why did Rebbi Yehoshua need to list ...
  1. ... ha'Poretz Geder Bifnei Behemas Chaveiro'? What might we otherwise have thought?
  2. ... 'ha'Kofef Komaso shel Chaveiro Bifnei ha'Deleikah (regarding a Ru'ach she'Eino Metzuyah)'?
  3. ... regarding a 'Ru'ach Metzuyah, according to Rav Ashi?
(b) And what might we have thought had he not specifically listed ...
  1. ... 'ha'Socher Eidei Sheker'?
  2. ... 'ha'Yodei'a Eidus la'Chaveiro, ve'Eino Me'id Lo'?
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if the sheep broke out in the night, the owner is Patur.
How does Rabah establish the case?

(b) We extrapolate from Rabah that if the sheep had not dug under the wall, he would be liable.
Why can this not be speaking about a strong wall?

(c) What is the problem if we then establish it by a rickety one?

(a) What conclusion are we therefore forced to draw with regard to Rabah? On which part of the Mishnah did he make his statement?

(b) Now that Rabah refers to the Seifa 'Hinichah be'Chamah ... ', what is Rabah coming to teach us? What is the Chidush of Chasrah?

(c) How will we explain this according to those who hold 'Techilaso bi'Peshi'ah ve'Sofo be'O'nes' is Patur'?

Answers to questions



(a) We ask why the Tana of our Mishnah needs to tell us that if the robbers took the animal from the pen (and from the owner's Reshus), they are liable?
On what basis ought this to be obvious?

(b) We answer this in two ways, one of them, based on a statement by Rabah Amar Rav Masna Amar Rav.
What did Rav mean when he said 'ha'Ma'amid Behemas Chaveiro al Kamas Chaveiro, Chayav'?

(c) Abaye reminded Rav Yosef that he had established Rav (and therefore our Mishnah) differently.
What did Rav Yosef say?

(a) Our Mishnah also states that if he handed the sheep to a shepherd, the shepherd takes his place.
Why can the Tana not be teaching us that it is the *owner's* place that the shepherd takes?

(b) Then whose place does he take?

(c) This seems to clash with a statement of Rava however.
What did Rava say about a Shomer who hands over an animal to another Shomer?

(d) Is it correct to say that the first Shomer is only Chayav for theft and loss, but for O'nes, the second Shomer swears, absolving himself and the first Shomer from liability?

(a) How does Rava then establish our Mishnah, to reconcile his opinion with it?

(b) What do others infer from the fact that the Tana says specifically 'Masrah *le'Ro'eh'*?

(c) Is this a clear proof for Rava?

(a) Rabah considers a Shomer Aveidah a Shomer Chinam.
What does Rav Yosef say?

(b) If Rabah's reason is because the finder gains nothing by looking after the article, what is Rav Yosef's?

(c) What reason do others attribute to Rav Yosef?

(d) What are the ramifications of the Machlokes?

10) What do we learn from the Pasuk in the Sh'ma "u've'Lechtecha ba'Derech"?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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