(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 84


(a) Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai learns that "Ayin Tachas Ayin" must mean Mamon, from the case of a blind man who blinded his friend or a lame one who made him lame?

(b) On what grounds do we reject Rebbi Shimon's proof?

(c) How do we support our argument from a T'reifah who murdered somebody?

(d) Why can a T'reifah not be sentenced to death?

(a) How does de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learn 'Mamon' from the Pasuk in Emor "Kein *Yinasen* Bo"?

(b) How do we reconcile this with the fact that (in the previous phrase, ("Ka'asher *Yiten* Mum ba'Adam") "Yiten" certainly does not mean Mamon?

(c) Then why does the Torah use the word "Yiten" there?

(a) What does de'Bei Rebbi Chiya learn from the Pasuk there (in connection with Eid Zomem) "Yad be'Yad"?

(b) Seeing as "Regel be'Ragel" cannot be explained in the same way, on what grounds do we Darshen "Yad be'Yad" like that?

(c) Then why does the Torah write "Regel be'Ragel"?

(a) Abaye learns 'Mamon' from Tana de'Bei Chizkiyah.
What does Tana de'Bei Chizkiyah extrapolate from "Ayin Tachas Ayin, Nefesh Tachas Nefesh"?

(b) We reject Abaye's proof too, supporting our point from the Mishnah in Makos.
What does the Mishnah there say with regard to assessing someone for Malkos?

(c) What does this prove?

(a) Rav Z'vid in the name of Rava learns 'Mamon' from the D'rashah of "Petza Tachas Patza", and Rav Papa in the name of Rava learns it from the D'rashah of "ve'Rapo Yerapei".
What two D'rashos do we learn from these two Pesukim, respectfully?

(b) How do Rav Z'vid and Rav Papa learn 'Mamon' from there?

(c) And how do we reject their respective proofs?

(a) The last proof for 'Mamon' is that of Rav Ashi. who initially learns from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Ayin Tachas Ayin", "Shalem Yeshalem Shor Tachas ha'Shor" (that just as the latter Pasuk refers to Mamon, so too, the former). We query this however, on the grounds that it would more likely to derive the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from Adam.
To which Pasuk does this refer?

(b) Why might we nevertheless prefer to learn the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from the Pasuk by Shor?

(c) Due to the doubt from which "Tachas" to learn it, Rav Ashi switches to a third "Tachas", which refers to both Adam and Mamon.
Which Pasuk is that?

(a) Rebbi Eliezer states in a Beraisa "Ayin Tachas Ayin" Mamash.
What is obviously wrong with this statement?

(b) Rabah explains Rebbi Eliezer to mean that the Mazik is not assessed like an Eved.
What does Abaye ask on this?

(c) So how does Rav Ashi explain Rebbi Eliezer?

(a) What did Rav Papa bar Shmuel rule when the case of a child whose hand had been bitten off by a donkey was brought before him?

(b) He explained to Rava that he meant four besides Nezek.
What did he tell Abaye when he pointed out that the damage had been done by a donkey (and not by a human)?

(c) And what did he rule when the father refused to assess him like an Eved because he considered it undignified?

(d) And what did the father have to say to that?

(a) When the case of the child whose hand had been chewed by an ox came before Rava, he ruled that they should assess the child like an Eved. They queried him however, on the basis of another statement of his.
What did he say with regard to anyone who needs to be assessed like an Eved?

(b) How does Rava reconcile his current ruling with his other statement?

(c) Rava's latter statement tallies with another statement of his.
What did he say with regard to the damage done to ...

  1. ... an ox by an ox or to an ox by a human?
  2. ... a human by a human or ro a human by an ox?
(d) Why can the reason of the latter ruling not be ascribed to the fact that the Torah uses the word "Elohim" ("Ad ha'Elohim Yavo D'var Sheneihem" [which in this context, means 'expert judges'])?
Answers to questions



(a) Why do we assume that there are no expert judges in Bavel? What is the definition of an expert judge?

(b) We suggest that 'the damage to an ox by an ox and to an ox by a human' is Chayav because of 'Shelichusaihu ka'Avdinan' like by Hoda'os and Halva'os'.
What does this mean? What are 'Hoda'os and Halva'os'?

(c) We think at this stage that the reason that 'the damage of a human by a human and to a human by an ox' is Patur in Bavel is because the amount needs to be assessed. We reject this explanation on two scores, one of them because in the former case, as well as in the latter, it is easy to go and find out the market value of the Nizak in the market (so that *the initial lack of knowledge of his value is not really a criterion*).
On what grounds do we reject it *even if it were*?

(d) Neither is the criterion solely the fact that we do not judge K'nasos in Bavel, because 'the damage of a human by a human and to a human by an ox' is not a K'nas. Perhaps we suggest, whatever is uncommon, is not judged in Bavel, but we refute that too, on the basis of Rav Papa.
What did Rav Papa rule when a case involving Bo'shes came before him?

(a) Rav Papa is proved wrong however, from a statement of Rav Nachman (who was famed for his expertise in money-matters).
What did Rav Nachman send to Rav Chisda, when he consulted him about how much Bo'shes to pay in a certain case that came before him (in Perek ha'Meni'ach)?

(b) We finally conclude that we only claim in Bavel cases (of Mamon, but not of K'nas) with two specifications.
Which two?

(c) How does that explain why, in Bavel, we do not claim ...

  1. ... 'the damage of a human by a human and to a human by an ox'?
  2. ... Bo'shes?
(d) When Rava said that a Shor that damaged is not subject to claim in Bavel, how do we know that he meant 'Shor de'Azik Shor'?
(a) How do we reconcile this statement of Rava with his previous statement (that Shor de'Azik Shor does pay in Bavel)?

(b) Rava also said that there is no such thing as a Mu'ad in Bavel.
Why not?

(c) To explain the discrepancy that on the one hand, there is no such thing as a Shor Mu'ad in Bavel, and on the other, Rava speaks about claiming from a Mu'ad in Bavel, we try to establish the case of a Mu'ad in Bavel when either the Mu'ad ox or the Beis-Din of Semuchin was brought from Eretz Yisrael to Bavel.
On what basis do we reject both suggestions?

(d) So what is the case of an ox that is a Mu'ad in Bavel to which Rava refers?

(a) Rebbi argues with ben Azai in a Beraisa. Assuming that Rebbi interprets "Kevi'ah" to mean a burn without a real wound, what does ...
  1. ... he mean when he says 'Kevi'ah Ne'emrah Techilah'?
  2. ... ben Azai (who interprets ''Kevi'ah'' to mean a burn with a wound) then mean when he says 'Chaburah Ne'emrah Techilah'?
(b) This is the opinion of Rava.
According to Rava, who is therefore the author of our Mishnah?

(c) Rav Papa refutes Rava's explanation with the words 'Ipcha Mistavra'. What does he mean by that?

(d) Based on the fact that Rebbi interprets "Kevi'ah" to mean a burn with a wound, what does ...

  1. ... he now mean when he says 'Kevi'ah Ne'emrah Techilah'?
  2. ... ben Azai mean when he says 'Chaburah Ne'emrah Techilah'?
    Who is therefore the author of our Mishnah, according to Rav Papa?
(a) Alternatively, according to both opinions, Kevi'ah could mean either a burn with a wound or a burn without one, and they argue over a 'K'lal u'P'rat' which are not together.
What is the K'lal in this case, and what is the P'rat?

(b) What would we Darshen if they were together?

(c) ben Azai considers them as if they were together, and the burn must incorporate a real wound.
What do the Rabbanan say?

(d) According to Rebbi, why does the Torah need to write "Chaburah?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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