(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 76


(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Ganav ve'Hikdish ve'Achar-Kach Tavach u'Machar ... Eino Meshalem Tashlumei Daled ve'Hey'.
What problem do we have with this statement?

(b) Initially, we answer this Kashya by establishing the Mishnah like Rebbi Shimon, who holds that Kodshim for which one is responsible, remain one's own (even though he is Shechting Hekdesh).
Is the Tana speaking before Yi'ush or after Yi'ush? How did Hekdesh acquire the animal?

(c) What procedure did the Ganav follow in making the stolen animal Hekdesh, according to Rebbi Shimon?

(a) According to the current suggestion, seeing as the animal is still considered the owner's, why is the Ganav not Chayav Daled ve'Hey when he Shechts it?

(b) How does the Seifa force us to retract from the suggestion that the author must be Rebbi Shimon?

(c) So we establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili.
What does Rebbi Yossi Hagelilli say?

(a) Seeing as the animal still remains the owner's (according to Rebbi Yossi Hegelili), why is the Ganav not Chayav for Shechting it?

(b) Why can the reason not be because Rebbi Yossi Hagelili concedes that, after the Shechitah, the animal becomes the property of Hekdesh, as we learned in the first Perek (regarding 'ha'Mekadesh be'Chelko')?

(c) We refute this suggestion too, due to the Seifa, which states 'Ganav ve'Tavach, ve'Achar'Kach Hikdish, Meshalem Tashlumei Daled ve'Hey'.
How does that negate the current explanation?

(d) So how do we finally establish our Mishnah? Why is the Ganav not Chayav Daled ve'Hey for 'selling' the animal to Hekdesh?

(a) We initially think that when Rebbi Shimon differentiated between Kodshim sh'Chayav be'Achariyusan and Kodshim she'Eino Chayav be'Achariyusan, he was referring to the Ganav selling the stolen animal.
What will he then hold with regard to the Shechitah? Will it obligate the Ganav or not?

(b) In which point does Rebbi Shimon then argue with the Tana Kama?

(c) What is the problem with this explanation?

(a) We conclude that Rebbi Shimon refers to a statement of the Tana Kama that is not specifically mentioned in our Mishnah. In the first Mishnah in the Perek, what did we extrapolate from the Pasuk "ve'Gunav me'Beis ha'Ish"?

(b) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah now extends this D'rashah to someone who steals an animal from a Ganav and Shechts or sells it.
What does he say about someone who steals a Hekdesh animal from the owner?

(c) How do we now explain Rebbi Shimon in light of this D'rashah? What is his resaon?

(d) What will Rebbi Shimon then rule in a case where the Ganav declares the animal that he stole, Hekdesh?

(a) What does Rebbi Shimon hold with regard to Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah?

(b) How does this create a probem with our curent interpretation of Rebbi Shimon?

(a) When Rav Dimi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted Rebbi Yochanan, who answered this Kashya by establishing Rebbi Shimon when the Ganav Shechted the stolen Kodshim inside the Azarah in the name of the owner.
What problem do we initially have with it?

(b) How does Rebbi Yitzchak bar Avin resolve this problem?

(c) When Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted Rebbi Yochanan differently.
What did he gain by establishing the case when the Ganav Shechted the animal in the Azarah but not in the owner's name?

(d) Why is the Shechitah then Kasher?

Answers to questions


8) The third and final explanation is given by Resh Lakish. According to him, Rebbi Shimon is speaking about a Kodshim animal with a blemish.
Where did the Ganav then Shecht it?


(a) Rebbi Elazar queries both Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish.
What does 'Tehi Bah Rebbi Elazar' mean?

(b) The gist of his query is that it is not the Shechitah that validates either a Kasher Korban or a blemished one (in which case, how will they justify referring to the Shechitah as a Shechitah Re'uyah?).
What then, does validate ...

  1. ... a Kasher Korban?
  2. ... a blemished one?
(c) We answer that Rebbi Elazar seems to have forgotten Rebbi Shimon's own principle.
What does Rebbi Shimon say about 'Kol ha'Omed ... ' in both of the above cases?

(d) Which category of blemished Korban are we referring to? Which kind of blemished Korban is not subject to redemption, according to Rebbi Shimon?

(a) According to Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa, Nosar is Metamei Tum'as Ochlin, provided it was left overnight after the Zerikas ha'Dam, but not otherwise.
What category of Korban is affected by Rebbi Shimon's ruling?

(b) How do we traditionally interpret 'after the Zerikas ha'Dam'?

(c) What does this prove?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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