(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 78


(a) We just explained that the word "O" in the Pasuk by Kodshim "Shor O Kesev" comes to exclude Kil'ayim.
What do we learn regarding ...
  1. ... Ma'aser Beheimah, from the Gezeirah-Shavah "*Tachas* ha'Shevet" "*Tachas* Imo" (written by Kodshim)?
  2. ... Bechor, from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "*ve'Ha'avarta* Kol Petter Rechem la'Hashem" "Kol Asher *Ya'avor* Tachas ha'Shavet"?
(b) An alternative D'rashah to the latter is a direct Limud from the Pasuk in Korach "Ach Bechor Shor".
What do we learn from there?
(a) Having found independent D'rashos for all of the above Halachos, to which case does Rava's Binyan Av of "Seh" (invalidating Kil'ayim) pertain?

(b) This is the source of the Mishnah in Bechoros, which invalidates a lamb of Kil'ayim with regard to Petter Chamor. The Tana there, also invalidates a calf, a wild animal, a Shechted lamb and a Coy.
What is ...

  1. ... a Coy?
  2. ... the reason for the P'sul of a lamb that has been Shechted?
(a) What does Rebbi Elazar say about redeeming a Petter Chamor with a lamb of Kil'ayim?

(b) According to Rebbi Elazar therefore, we suggest that Rava's Binyan Av pertains to a non-Kasher animal whose father is not Kasher either, but whose mother is (e.g. a horse born from a cow, whose father is a horse [though we are dealing specifically with a lamb]).
What problem do we have with this explanation?

(c) How do we solve the problem? What is a Kalut?

(a) Why can this explanation not go according to Rebbi Yehoshua?

(b) In which point does Rebbi Yehoshua argue with Rebbi Shimon?

Answers to questions



(a) The Tana Kama in the Mishnah in Temurah requires someone who declares a Neder to bring an Olah, to bring at least a lamb.
What does Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah say?

(b) In light of this Machlokes, what She'eilah does Rava ask in the case of Reuven who stole the ox that Shimon had designated for his Olah?

(c) Perhaps he may, because at the end of the day, the Ganav is paying back an Olah, with which the owner fulfils his obligation.
Why might he nevertheless be obligated to return an ox?

(d) Rava concludes that he may indeed return a lamb or even a bird.
What is Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ika's version of Rava's statement?

(a) If the Ganav sells the stolen article 'except for a hundredth part of it', or if he is a part owner to begin with, he is Patur from Daled ve'Hey.
Why is that?

(b) What will be the Din if, instead of Shechting it, he simply kills it?

(c) The same applies if he made Nechirah or Akirah.
What is ...

  1. ... Nechirah?
  2. ... Akirah?
(a) Rav interprets 'except for a hundredth part of it' to mean except for any part of the animal which is permitted through Shechitah.
What does this preclude?

(b) What does Levi say?

(c) Levi's opinion tallies with that of the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, who says 'Machrah Chutz mi'Yadah ... Raglah ... Karnah ... Gizosehah, Einah Meshalem Arba'ah va'Chamishah'. The Beraisa continues 'Rebbi Omer, Davar ha'Me'akev bi'Shechitah, Eino Meshalem'. How does ...

  1. ... the Tana Kama interpret a. "u'Tevacho; b. ' O Mecharo"?
  2. ... Rebbi interpret a. "u'Tevacho; b. ' O Mecharo"
(d) The final opinion in the Beraisa is that of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar. According to him, 'Chutz mi'Karnah', pays Daled ve'Hey; 'Chutz mi'Gizosehah', does not.
What is his reason?
(a) How do we reconcile Rav (who differentiates between 'Chutz mi'Yadah ve'Raglah' and Chutz mi'Karnah ve'Gizosehah') with the fact that none of the opinions of the Beraisa hold like him?

(b) What is the reason of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar in the second Beraisa (and Rav), where he differentiates between the feet of the animal on the one hand, and its horns and fleece on the other?

(c) How can Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar state two conflicting opinions in two Beraisos?

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa states that if someone steals an animal with a foot missing or which is lame or blind and Shechts it, he is Chayav Daled ve'Hey.
Considering that the animal is incomplete, why is this not a question of "u'Tevacho" 'Kulo'?

(b) The Beraisa also obligates someone who steals an animal belonging to partners.
What does the Tana hold with regard to partners who steal?

(c) Rav Nachman tries to reconcile this Beraisa with another Beraisa 'Shutfin she'Ganvu, Chayavin', by establishing the latter, by a partner who stole from a third party, and the former, by one who stole from his partner. What is the reason for this distinction?

(d) Rava refutes Rav Nachman's explanation on the basis of another Beraisa which exempts a partner even when he steals from a third party, because it does not conform with "u'Tevacho" 'Kulo be'Isura'.
In which case does the Tana then obligate him?

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah asked whether a Ganav is Chayav Daled ve'Hey if he stole an ox and sold it barring thirty days (during which time he retained the right to work with it, or 'bar mi'Melachtah'.
What is the difference between the two cases?

(b) He also asked whether he would be Chayav if he sold a pregnant cow but retained the Ubar.
According to which opinion is this not even a She'eilah?

(c) According to those who hold Ubar La'av Yerech Imo Hu, the Ganav might be Chayav Daled ve'Hey because the Ubar is intrinsically attached to the animal.
Why might he nevertheless be Patur?

(d) What other reason might there be to obligate the Ganav to pay Daled ve'Hey?

(a) Rav Papa asked whether the Ganav will have to pay Daled ve'Hey if he subsequently cut off a limb and sold it. On the one hand, he did not sell the entire animal that he stole.
What is the other side of the She'eilah, that might nevertheless obligate him to pay?

(b) What is the outcome of the She'eilah?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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