(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 63


(a) 'de'Ha Kol Chad ve'Chad K'lal u'P'rat be'Apei Nafsheih Darshinan', which we just cited, is based on the fact that the Torah should only need to write one P'rat, and that all the others are therefore superfluous. Had the Torah written ...
  1. ... "Shor", why did it need to write "Chamor?
  2. ... "Chamor", why did it need to write "Shor"?
(b) How can we learn this from "Shor", which are subject to the Din of Bechor?

(c) So why does the Torah need to write "Seh"?

(d) But that will only suffice to include Tahor birds which are similar to sheep (with regard to the Dinim of Tum'ah).
In what way are do Tahor birds exclusively similar to sheep?

(a) In that case, from where will we include Tamei birds?

(b) We have already discussed (in 'Shor she'Nagach es ha'Parah'), the 'K'lal u'P'rat u'Ch'lal' (in connection with Ma'aser Sheini) "ve'Nasata ha'Kesef be'Chol Asher Te'aveh Nafshecha; ba'Bakar u'va'Tzon ... ; u've'Chol Asher Te'aveh Nafshecha".
What do we learn from there?

(c) Why is "u've'Chol" there not considered a 'Ribuy' too?

(a) Alternatively, "Kol" is generally a 'K'lal', and not a 'Ribuy'.
Then why is "Al Kol D'var Pesha considered a 'Ribuy'?

(b) In fact, both the 'K'lal u'P'rat u'Ch'lal' of "Al Kol D'var Pesha ... " and that of "Ki Yiten Ish el Re'eihu; Kesef O Keilim; Li'shmor" teach us to confine the Pasuk to 'Davar ha'Metaltel ve'Gufo Mamon'.
In what connection does the "K'lal u'P'rat u'Ch'lal" of ...

  1. ... "Ki Yiten Ish el Re'eihu; Kesef O Keilim; Li'sh'mor" speak?
  2. ... "Al Kol D'var Pesha; Al Shor al Chamor al Seh ve'Al Salmah; al Kol Aveidah" speak?
(c) Then what makes the 'Kol' in the second Pasuk a 'Ribuy' rather than a 'K'lal'?
(a) So now, with regard to paying Kefel, we have to contend with four Miy'utim ("Shor", "Chamor", "Seh" and "Salmah").
If "Shor" excludes Karka, and "Chamor", Avadim, what do we preclude from ...
  1. ... "Seh"?
  2. ... "Salmah"?
(b) "Al Kol Aveidah" comes to include the statement of Rebbi Chiya bar Aba. What did Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan say about 'ha'To'en Ta'anas Ganav ba'Aveidah'?

(c) What is his source?

Answers to questions



(a) We have learned in a Mishnah in Shevu'os 'Heichen Pikdoni, Amar Leih Avad, Mashbi'acha Ani ... ve'ha'Eidim Me'idim Oso she'Achlo, Meshalem es ha'Keren'.
What does the Tana say in a case where the Shomer confesses that he ate it?

(b) Why does he not also pay the extra fifth and bring an Asham in the previous case (where witnesses testified)?

(c) We learn that To'en Ta'anas Ganav or Avad and he is proved false through witnesses, is Patur from Chomesh when there is no Asham, from a Pasuk by the Asham of Gezel ha'Ger (where the Torah writes ''ve'Hisvadu es Chatosam"). How do we learn from there that he is also Patur from Chomesh?

(d) With regard to the case where there are witnesses, the same applies to a To'en Ta'anas Ganav.
What does the Tana say about a To'en Ta'anas Ganav ...

  1. ... who confesses that he ate it?
  2. ... who is proved to have lied through the testimony of two witnesses, but whose claim was not backed with a Shevu'ah?
(a) From where does the Tana of the first Beraisa learn that the Pasuk "Im Yimatzei ha'Ganav Yeshalem Shenayim" is referring to a Shomer who is To'en Ta'anas Ganav and not to the Ganav himself?

(b) What does the second Beraisa say?

(c) Both Tana'im agree however, that the second Pasuk ("ve'Gunav mi'Beis ha'Ish ... Im Lo Yimatzei ha'Ganav ... ") is speaking about a To'en Ta'anas Ganav.
How do they interpret ...

  1. ... "Im Lo Yimatzei ha'Ganav, Yeshalem Shenayim le'Re'eihu"?
  2. ... ve'Nikrav Ba'al ha'Bayis el ha'Elohim ... "?
(d) And what do they learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' 'Shelichus Yad' 'Shelichus Yad' (" ... Im Lo Shalach Yado bi'Meleches Re'eihu") from (the O'nes of) Shomer Sachar?
(a) How does the Tana who learns both Pesukim by To'en Ta'anas Ganav explain the Torah's need for two Pesukim?

(b) The other Tana precludes To'en Ta'anas Avad from the extra 'Hey' in Im Lo Yimatzei ha'Ganav", whereas the first Tana learns from that 'Hey' the Din of Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan.
What does Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan say about 'Tavach u'Machar' by a To'en Ta'anas Ganav?

(c) The second Tana, we explain, learns Rebbi Yochanan's Din from a Hekesh, 've'Ein Mashivin al ha'Hekesh'.
Which Hekesh?

(a) According to the Tana who establishes both Pesukim by To'en Ta'anas Ganav, we need to find a source for a Ganav having to pay double.
Why can we not learn it from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from To'en Ta'anas Ganav?

(b) So we cite Tana de'Bei Chizkiyah.
From which basic principle does he learn it?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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