Previous Daf

BAVA KAMA 117

Ask A Question

click for question
1)
(a) Initially, we try to learn from the Beraisa 'ba'Rishonah Hayu Omrim ha'Metamei ve'ha'Menasech. Chazru Lomar Af he'Medamei' - the principle 'mi'Kenasa Lo Gamrinan' (when Chazal decreed a K'nas on Metamei and Menasech, this precluded any other similar cases which the Torah did not obligate to pay - see Tosfos DH 'La'av Mishum').
(b) Another reason for Medamei not to have been included together with Metamei and Menasech is - because as opposed to the other two, which entail a complete loss to the owner, it only entails a minimal loss (since Terumah which is mixed together with Chulin, can be sold to Kohanim at a cheaper price).
(c) So we try to prove the same principle from Avuhah de'Rebbi Avin's version, according to which - the Tana omits Menasech from the original list.
(d) We refute this proof too however, on the basis of a Machlokes between Rebbi Avin and Rebbi Yirmiyah. According to ...
1. ... Rebbi Avin, a Menasech would be Patur from paying - because the Chiyuv Misah takes effect when he actually performs the Nisuch which coincides with the damage (and the obligation to pay), in which case he is Patur because of 'Kam Leih bi'de'Rabah Mineih'.
2. ... Rebbi Yirmiyah, he would be Chayav - because whereas his Chiyuv Misah takes effect as soon as he picks up the wine (since picking up is part of the process of making Yayin Nesech), the damage (and the obligation to pay) only occurs when he actually performs the Nisuch.

click for question
2)
(a) In a case where a Yisrael whom Nochrim had forced, pointed out to them where they could find money belonging to a Jew, which they promptly took, Rav Huna bar Yehudah - obligated hime to pay.
(b) When he arrived in bei Evyoni, and he informed Rava what he had done, the latter objected to his ruling. Based on a Beraisa - he ordered him to rescind his ruling. Note, that is not comparable to the case on the previous Amud, where according to the second Lashon, the Tana obligated him to pay, because that speaks when he pointed out the other man's field when they had asked him for his own, whereas here, they specifically asked him about the other person's money (see Shitah Mekubetzes).
(c) The Tana concedes that he would have been Chayav - had he handed him the money.
(d) Rabah considers - volunteering the information to be in the same category as handing it to the Nochri.

click for question
3)
(a) In another case, after the king's men had forced someone to show them wine belonging to Rav Mari b'rei de'Rav Pinchas b'rei de'Rav Chisda, they then forced him to carry it to the palace with them. In spite of the ruling that we just learned ('ve'Im Nasa ve'Nasan be'Yad, Chayav'), Rav Ashi justifies his ruling exempting the man from paying - by establishing it where they actually specified what they wanted him to hand over, whereas the Beraisa speaks where the Yisrael first informed the Anas where his fellow-Jew's article was before handing it over to the Anas.
(b) In a case where someone follows the instructions of an Anas, and hands him a ball of wool or a bunch of grapes - the Tana obligates him to pay (despite the fact that it was the Anas who designated what he wanted the Yisrael to hand over).
(c) Rav Ashi reconciles his lenient ruling with this Beraisa - by establishing the latter where the Anas is on the other side of the river, and would not be able to procure what he wanted without the Yisrael's help.
(d) The proof of this - lies in the Lashon 'Hoshet li', rather than 'Ten li'.

click for question
4)
(a) When one of the men contesting ownership of a fishing-net (or a net to trap wild animals) handed it over to the king's official, Abaye justified it on the grounds that he had handed over what he believed to be his. Rava objected - on the grounds that nobody gave him the authority to do so (seeing as his contestant claimed that it was his).
(b) So Rava - placed the culprit in Cherem until he would retrieve the fishing-net and appear in Beis-Din with it for a Din-Torah.
(c) In another case, a man planned to show the king's men where his friend's straw was stored was brought before Rava. When Rava forbade him to do so - he responded by insisting that he would.
(d) Rav Kahana, Rav's Talmid, reacted to the man's impudence - by breaking his neck.

click for question
5)
(a) Rav justified Rav Kahana's action - on the grounds that once money belonging to a Yisrael, falls into the hands of a Nochri, like a wild bull that falls into a net, to which one shows no mercy, it is irretrievable (even though that not did seem to have been Rav Kahana's motive).
(b) Rava advised Rav Kahana - to flee to Eretz Yisrael, because the Greeks, who were strict concerning murder, were currently in control. He might not have done so had the same incident occurred earlier - when the Persians, who were not so fussy, were in control.
(c) After arriving in Eretz Yisrael, Rav Kahana came to Resh Lakish's notice - when attending the revision session which the latter, Rebbi Yochanan's star Talmid, supervised, he bombarded the Talmidim with questions and answers regarding all that he had heard Resh Lakish discussing with them. And they informed Resh Lakish.

click for question
6)
(a) When Resh Lakish informed Rebbi Yochanan that 'a lion had arrived from Bavel', the latter placed Rav Kahana in the front row. He very quickly arrived in the back (seventh) row - when, following Rav's instructions to remain silent (not to ask the Rebbe any questions) for seven years.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan was not impressed with Rav Kahana, In fact, he commented to Resh Lakish - that the lion had turned out to be a fox.
(c) Rav Kahana did not abide by Rav's instructions to remain silent for seven years - because he said 'May it Hashem's will that the seven rows should pass as seven years'.
(d) For each Kashya that Rav Kahana posed and which Rebbi Yochanan was unable to answer, they removed one of the seven cushions on which he was sitting. When he found himself sitting on the floor, he had a longing to see Rav Kahana, and asked his Talmidim to raise his eye-lashes.

click for question
7)
(a) It was necessary to assist Rebbi Yochanan to see Rav Kahana - because, due to old age (some say that he lived for four hundred years) - his eye-lids drooped over his eyes (and had to be lifted with tweezers in order to see).
(b) When Rebbi saw Rav Kahana, he perceived a grin on his face which he took to be a vain smirk. This made him feel faint, and that is when Rav Kahana died.
(c) When Rebbi Yochanan's Talmidim explained to him that Rav Kahana's grin was due to a split lip, he went to the cave where Rav Kahana's body was lying. When Rebbi Yochanan asked the snake that encircled the cave to open its mouth and let ...
1. ... the Rebbi enter to see his Talmid - it failed to respond.
2. ... the Chaver to see his Chaver - it still failed to respond.
(d) The snake opened its mouth and allow him in - only when he asked it to do so to allow the Talmid to enter and see his Rebbe.

click for question
8)
(a) Rebbi Yochanan begged Rav Kahana's forgiveness - on the grounds that had he known that Rav Kahana had a split lip, he would not have become weak, causing his death.
(b) Rav Kahana was reluctant to return - because of the possibility that 'history would repeat itself' (unless Rebbi Yochanan could guarantee that it would not).
(c) 've'I Lo, Lo Azilna' might also mean - that having suffered the bitter taste of death, he did not wish to do so a second, so he preferred to remain where he was.
(d) In any event, there and then he settled all Rebbi Yochanan's learning problems. Rebbi Yochanan subsequently told his Talmidim - that Torah, which he originally thought, belonged to the b'nei Eretz Yisrael, he now realized belonged to the b'nei Bavel.
(e) We know that he did accept Rebbi Yochanan's offer to return with him - because in Makos, Rav Kahana speaks of his exile, and in a Yerushalmi which relates how people mocked him by referring to his death, and how he responded, both clear indications that he survived.

click for question
9)
(a) In a case where a man pointed out Rebbi Aba's silk cloth to the king's men, the Beis-Din (Rebbi Avahu and his colleagues) quoted the Mishnah in Bechoros, which rules by 'Dan es ha'Din, Zikah es ha'Chayav, ve'Chiyev es ha'Zakai, Timei es ha'Tahor ve'Tihar es ha'Tamei' - that the Dayan's ruling is valid, but that he is obligated to reimburse the owner.
(b) Based on that Mishnah, they tried to prove - that one is Chayav even for merely causing damage with one's words alone.
(c) Rebbi Ila'a however, queried the Beis-Din from Rav - who established that Mishnah where the Dayan actually accompanied his ruling with an action (as we discussed in the previous Perek).
(d) The Dayanim, convinced that the defendant was liable, instructed Rebbi Aba to take his case to Rebbi Shimon ben Elyakim and Rebbi Elazar ben P'das - because they maintained that 'Dina de'Garmi' Chayav.
(e) The latter did indeed obligate the defendant to pay - basing their ruling on our Mishnah 'Im Machmas ha'Gazlan, Chayav Le'ha'amid Chamor Acher', which we established when he merely showed the article to the king's men.

click for question
10)
(a) When thieves came to rob the guardian of a silver cup - he handed it to them.
(b) When Rabah exempted him from paying, Abaye objected - on the grounds that someone who uses money belonging to someone else in order to save himself is Chayav.
(c) Rav Ashi therefore ruled - that if the guardian was a wealthy man, we assume that the thieves came for his money, and he would be liable (as Abaye just explained); but if he was not, then they probably came for the silver cup, in which case he would be Patur.
(d) In a similar case, where the guardian of a purse of Pidyon Shevuyim handed the thieves who came to steal the purse, Rabah justified his lenient ruling - by pointing out that 'there is no greater Pidyon Shevuyim than this' (seeing as he had no other money with which to pay the robbers at the time - see Tosfos DH 'Ein Lecha').

click for question
11)
(a) When Reuven pushed Shimon's donkey off the ferry into the river and it drowned, Abaye thought that he ought to be Chayav to pay - because he was 'saving himself with someone else's money'.
(b) Rabah nevertheless exempted him because the donkey was a 'Rodef' (threatening to overturn the boat and drown the people in it), and one is permitted to kill the Rodef to save one's own life or even somebody else's, in self-defense.

click for question
12)
(a) Rabah's previous ruling is based on another ruling of his, where he exempt both Reuven and Shimon from paying, if Reuven is chasing Shimon with intent to kill him. He exempts ...
1. ... Reuven if he smashes vessels along the way - because he is Chayav Misah, and whenever someone is Chayav Miysah, we apply the principle 'Kam Leih bi'de'Rabah Mineih' (even if in fact, he is not put to death).
2. ... Shimon if he smashes Reuven's vessels in his efforts to escape - because it is illogical 'for his (Shimon's) money to be more precious than his body' (though this S'vara is limited to the case in hand).
(b) And he exempts Levi who, in an attempt to save Shimon, is chasing Reuven, from paying for vessels that he vbyroke - because otherwise, people will be reluctant to save others, in the knowledge that they will be held responsible for any damage that they cause in the process.
(c) In fact, Levi should really be Chayav - because if Reuven is basically Chayav for saving himself with Shimon's money, how much more so for saving Levi.

click for question
13)
(a) If an overflowing river sweeps away Reuven's donkey which Shimon stole, and the donkey is standing beside the river - the Tana of our Mishnah exempts him from paying ('Omer lo, "Harei she'Lecha Kefanecha" ').
(b) If the same happened to the field that Shimon stole from Reuven, Rebbi Elazar in a Beraisa obligates Shimon to give Reuven another field. The Chachamim exempt him from paying - because they hold that Karka cannot be stolen.
(c) Their Machlokes is based on the Pasuk in Vayikra "ve'Chichesh ba'Amiso ... O mi'Kol Asher Yishava Alav la'Shaker" (in connection with Shevu'as ha'Pikadon). The basis of their dispute is - whether we Darshen 'Ribuy, Miy'ut ve'Ribuy' or 'K'lal u'F'rat, u'Ch'lal' (as we will now explain).

click for question
14)
(a) If Rebbi Elazar Darshens 'Ribuy, Miy'ut and Ribuy' ("ve'Chichesh" ba'Amiso", "be'Pikadon", "O mi'Kol Asher Yishava ... ") - 'the Miy'ut comes to preclude Sh'taros (which are not intrinsically Mamon).
(b) The Rabbanan Darshen 'K'lal u'P'rat u'Ch'lal', and the two requirements we learn from "be'Pikadon" for a Shomer to be Chayav payment or a Shevu'ah are - 'Davar ha'Mitaltel ve'Gufo Mamon' (it must be both movable and have intrinsic value).
(c) Karka is not movable, and Sh'taros have no intrinsic value; whereas Avadim are exempt - because the Torah compares them to Karka.
(d) The Beraisa cites a Machlokes where the Rabbanan argue with Rebbi Elazar over a cow which someone stole and which the river then swept away. Rebbi Elazar obligates the Gazlan to pay, whilst the Rabbanan exempt him. Rav Papa - establishes the Beraisa where the Ganav stole a field with a cow lying in it, and he explains - that according to Rebbi Elazar, who holds that Karka can be stolen, when he acquired the field, he acquired the cow together with it, obligating him to pay for it when it subsequently got swept away; whereas according to the Rabbanan, since he did not acquire the field, he did not acquire the cow either.

Next Daf