BAVA KAMA 21-25 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Mrs. Estanne Abraham Fawer to honor the ninth Yahrzeit of her father, Rav Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Rabbi Morton Weiner) Z'L, who passed away on 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Dafyomi study -- which was so important to him -- during the weeks of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.

[a - 43 lines; b - 44 lines]

1)[line 1]ריחק נגיחותיו חייב, קירב נגיחותיו לא כל שכן?RICHEK NEGICHOSAV CHAYAV, KIREV NEGICHOSAV LO KOL SHE'CHEN?- if [the owner of an ox is fully] responsible for [the damage that it causes when it was established as a Mu'ad through] acts of goring that were far apart (i.e., over three days), is he not all the more [responsible] if [it was established as a Mu'ad through] acts of goring [that] were close together?

2)[line 2]זבהZAVAH - A Woman who Menstruates Following her Nidah Period

(a)The eleven days which follow the seven days of Nidah (see Background to Pesachim 112:62) are termed days of Zivah. If a woman experiences uterine bleeding during this time for either one day or two consecutive days, she is known as a Zavah Ketanah and is Teme'ah. As long as she does not bleed over the following night and day, she may immerse in a Mikvah to become Tehorah. She may even immerse the morning immediately following the bleeding, although whether or not she becomes Tehorah is contingent upon whether or not she sees blood later on that day. A woman who has bled during this time for one or two days is called a Shomeres Yom Keneged Yom, for she must watch the following day in order to determine whether or not she has continued to bleed.

(b)If a woman has a show of blood for three consecutive days during her eleven days of Zivah, she attains the status of a Zavah Gedolah. In order to become Tehorah, she must count seven "clean days" during which she experiences no further bleeding. On the morning of the seventh clean day she may immerse in a Mikvah. As long as she experiences no further bleeding over the rest of that day she is Tehorah and no longer a Zavah. She must then offer a Korban Zavah in order to enter the Beis ha'Mikdash or partake of Kodshim. This Korban consists of a pair of turtle-doves or common doves, one as an Olah and one as a Chatas (Vayikra 15:25-30).

3)[line 2]תוכיחTOCHI'ACH- proves [that your logic is not sound]

4a)[line 2]ריחקה, ראיותיה טמאהRICHAKAH RE'IYOSEHAH, TEME'AH- if she bled on three occasions that were far apart (i.e., on three consecutive days), she is Teme'ah

b)[line 3]קירבה, ראיותיה טהורהKIRVAH RE'IYOSEHAH, TEHORAH- if she bled on three occasions that were close together (i.e., three times on one day), she is Tehorah

5)[line 4]"וְזֹאת תִּהְיֶה טֻמְאָתוֹ בְּזוֹבוֹ: [רָר בְּשָׂרוֹ אֶת-זוֹבוֹ, אוֹ-הֶחְתִּים בְּשָׂרוֹ מִזּוֹבוֹ, טֻמְאָתוֹ הִוא.]""V'ZOS TIYEHEH TUM'ASO B'ZOVO: [RAR BESARO ES ZOVO, O HECHTIM BESARO MI'ZOVO, TUM'ASO HI.]"- "And this shall be his impurity of his Zov: [if his male organ emits a clear discharge, or the discharge causes a blockage of his male organ, then this is his impurity]" (Vayikra 15:3). From that which the word "Zovo" appears three times in this verse, Chazal derive that a Zav (see next entry) who has experienced three emissions becomes Tamei to the point that he must offer a Korban. The word "v'Zos" implies a limitation, from which our Gemara derives that a Zavah does not become a Zavah Gedolah until she bleeds specifically on three consecutive days, as the verse (Vayikra 15:25) implies (see Rashi DH Richakah).

6)[line 5]זבZAV

(a)A man who emits Zov at least twice, whether this occurs over the course of one day or two or consecutive days, is called a Zav. Zov is a clear discharge with the appearance of the white of a sterile or spoiled egg (in contrast to semen, which has the consistency of fresh egg white). Zov also may be a pus-like discharge resembling the liquid component of barley dough or soft barley batter. A Zav has the status of an Av ha'Tum'ah and may not enter "Machaneh Leviyah" (see Background to Yevamos 7:27).

(b)One who emits Zov is not necessarily Tamei. If he is an Ones - an external factor contributed to the emission - then he remains Tahor. Circumstances that may induce an emission of Zov are: 1. overeating; 2. overdrinking; 3. carrying a heavy load; 4. jumping; 5. sickness; 6. seeing a) a frightening sight (RASHI to Nazir 65b); b) a woman (even if he had no impure thoughts; ROSH ibid.); 7. impure thoughts.

(c)A Zav must count seven "clean" days during which he experiences no discharge in order to start his purification process. On the seventh day or following, he immerses himself in a Mikvah during the daytime. At nightfall he becomes Tahor (assuming that he continues to experience no emissions; Zavim 2:2).

(d)If a Zav emits Zov only twice, he need not bring a Korban. If he has discharged Zov three times, however - whether over the course of one day or over two or three consecutive days - he must offer a Korban after completing his seven clean days in order to be able to enter the Beis ha'Mikdash or eat Korbanos.

(e)The Korban which a Zav must offer consists of a pair of turtle-doves or common doves, one as an Olah and one as a Chatas.

7)[line 6]אימא למעוטי זב מימיםEIMA LI'ME'UTEI ZAV MI'YAMIM- perhaps it comes to exclude [one from attaining the status of] a Zav when [he has experienced three emissions spread over three consecutive] days. As the Gemara goes on to say, Chazal derive that one becomes a Zav in such a scenario from a Hekesh (see also TOSFOS DH v'Dilma).

8)[line 8]מקישMAKISH (HEKESH - A Comparison of Two Subjects Mentioned Together in One Verse or Neighboring Verses)

(a)One of the methods employed by Chazal when determining Halachah from the verses of the Torah is "Hekesh". A Hekesh entails comparing two subjects that are mentioned together in one verse or neighboring verses.

(b)A Hekesh is a powerful way of determining Halachah. When two subjects are compared through a Hekesh, all possible parallels are drawn between them, unless a different Derashah teaches us otherwise ("Ein Hekesh l'Mechetzah"). Additionally, Pirchos (logical differences) that would impede a Kal va'Chomer (see Background to Avodah Zarah 46:22) or a Gezeirah Shavah (see Background to Yevamos 70:26) do not stand in the way of learning one subject from another through a Hekesh ("Ein Meshivin Al ha'Hekesh").)

9)[line 11]ומה ראית?U'MAH RA'IS?- and what did you see [that made you decide to derive that a Zav becomes Tamei even if his emissions are spaced far apart whereas a Zavah does not become Teme'ah when she bleeds three times on one day, rather than deriving the opposite]?

10a)[line 11]מסתברא קאי בראיות ממעט ראיותMISTABERA KA'I B'RE'IYOS MEMA'ET BI'RE'IYOS- it is logical that [the verse] which refers to emissions should exclude emissions

b)[line 12]קאי בראיות ממעט ימים?KA'I B'RE'IYOS MEMA'ET B'YAMIM?- [is it logical that the verse] which refers to emissions should exclude [that which a Zavah must experience bleeding over three] days [in order to become Teme'ah]?

11)[line 17]לחזרהL'CHAZARAH- regarding [that which a Mu'ad must refrain from goring when presented with an opportunity to do so on three different days in order to] revert [to the status of a Tam]

12)[line 21]מרMAR- a third-person term of respect

13)[line 25]רבי יוסי נימוקו עמוREBBI YOSI NIMUKO IMO - The Halachah follows Rebbi Yosi

(a)The Chachamim laid down various guidelines to follow when determining a Halachah that is subject to a Tana'ic dispute.

(b)The Halachah follows the opinion of Rebbi Yosi when he disagrees with a single other Tana. The reason for this is that "Nimuko Imo," which means that a) his reasoning for his opinion is always sound (from "Nimuk" - reason; RASHI to Gitin 67a and Bechoros 37a); b) his opinion is always straight and exact (from "Nim v'Kav" - straight - RASHI to Eruvin 51a).

14a)[line 26]לייעודי תוראL'YI'UDEI TORA- in order to establish the ox as a Mu'ad

b)[line 26]לייעודי גבראL'YI'UDEI GAVRA- in order to establish the owner of the ox as a Mu'ad [who has been warned following three times that his ox has gored (see TOSFOS DH Iy)]

15)[line 27]אתו תלתא כיתי סהדיASU TELASA KITEI SAHADEI- three groups of witnesses came [to report on three instances in which his ox gored, each on a different day]

16)[line 29]מימר אמר, "השתא הוא דקמסהדו בי"MEIMAR AMAR, "HASHTA HU DEKA'MESAHADU BI"- [since] he can say, "It is only now that they have testified against me" [and another two such times are necessary before I must pay full damages]

17)[line 36]בראשונהBA'RISHIONAH- regarding the first [time that his ox gored]

18)[line 37]הן עדות אחת להזמהHEN EDUS ACHAS L'HAZAMAH (EDIM ZOMEMIN - Plotting Witnesses)

(a)If different sets of at least two witnesses each contradict each other, their testimony is termed "Edus Mucheshes", and Beis Din takes no action based upon either claim. If, however, one set of witnesses discredit the testimony of another set by claiming that they were instead with them, elsewhere, when they claimed to have witnessed the crime, then the discredited witnesses are termed "Edim Zomemin". The Torah decrees that under such circumstances the second set of witnesses are believed. As a general rule, Edim Zomemin are punished with whatever punishment they attempted to visit upon he whom they testified against (Devarim 19:16-21; see Mishnah, Makos 5a).

(b)All of the witnesses who testified must be disqualified as Zomemin in order for any of them to be responsible for that which they had attempted to visit upon he whom they testified against. Therefore, in order for the witnesses described in our Gemara to be responsible for their attempt to grant the status of a Mu'ad to the Shor in question, they must all become Zomemin. This is because it would not be a Mu'ad unless in had gored all three times. It is obvious, however, that each set of witnesses is responsible for the payment of Chatzi Nezek in which they had attempted to obligate the owner of the ox.

19a)[line 39]הוא פטורHU PATUR- he is exempt [from paying any more than Chatzi Nezek for a) the third time that his ox gored (RASHI); b) the next time that his ox gores (end of TOSFOS to 23b DH v'Lo)]

b)[line 39]הן פטוריםHEN PETURIN- they are exempt [from paying a) the second half of Nezek Shalem of the third time that his ox gored (RASHI); b) the second half of Nezek Shalem of the next time that his ox gores (first explanation at the end of TOSFOS to 23b DH v'Lo); c) for the depreciation in value of the ox after it was categorized as a Mu'ad (second explanation at the end of TOSFOS to 23b DH v'Lo)] (See Insights)

20)[line 42]"וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם לַעֲשׂוֹת לְאָחִיו ...""VA'ASISEM LO KA'ASHER ZAMAM LA'ASOS L'ACHIV ..."- "And you shall do to him as he had plotted to have done to his brother ..." (Devarim 19:19). This verse describes the punishment of Edim Zomemin.

21)[last line]שפירSHAPIR- [the Beraisa] is satisfactory [since the case could be one in which all three sets of witnesses arrived in Beis Din on the same day, in which case they are responsible as a unit for making the ox into a Mu'ad since they are clearly acting in unison]


22a)[line 1]לימרו הנך קמאיLEIMRU HANACH KAMA'EI- why does the first [set of witnesses] not claim

b)[line 2]אנן מי הוה ידעינן דבתר שלשה יומי אתו הני ומייעדי ליה?ANAN MI HAVAH YAD'INAN D'VASAR SHELOSHAH YOMEI ASU HANEI U'MEYA'ADEI LEI?- were we to know that these [other witnesses] would come to make the ox into a Mu'ad three days later?

23)[line 3]אמריתה לשמעתא קמיה דרב כהנאAMRISAH L'SHAMAITA KAMEI D'RAV KAHANA- I related this [proof] in front of Rav Kahana

24)[line 5]מי ניחא?MI NEICHA?- is it satisfactory?

25a)[line 5]לימרו הנך בתראיLEIMRU HANACH BASRA'EI- why does the last [set of witnesses] not claim

b)[line 5]אנן מנא ידעינן דכל דקאי בי דינא לאסהודי בתורא קאתו?ANAN MINA YAD'INAN D'CHOL D'KA'EI BEI DINA L'AS'HUDEI B'SORA KA'ASU?- were we to assume that all others who come to Beis Din [on the same day that we do] do so in order to testify against the [same] ox [that we are]?

26)[line 7]פלגא נזקאPALGA NIZKA- half of the damage (this is the Aramaic equivalent of Chatzi Nezek)

27)[line 8]דקמרמזי רמוזיD'KAMERAMZEI REMUZEI- (the Gemara answers) [the first group of witnesses] motioned to [the third group of witnesses to testify]

28)[line 9]רצופיםRETZUFIM- at the same time [such that they could not help but know each other's purpose for coming]

29)[line 9]במכירין בעל השורB'MAKIRIN BA'AL HA'SHOR- [the case is one] in which the knew who owned the ox [that they witnessed goring]

30a)[line 11]תורא נגחנא אית לך בבקרךTORA NAGCHANA IS LACH BI'VKARACH- you have an ox in your herd that is wont to gore

b)[line 11]אבעי לך לנטורי לכוליה בקראIBA'I LACH LI'NTUREI L'CHULEI BAKRA- [and] you [therefore] must guard your entire herd (See Insights)

31)[line 13]המשסה כלבו של חבירו בחבירוHA'MESHASEH KALBO SHEL CHAVEIRO BA'CHAVEIRO- one who incites the dog of another against a third party

32)[line 13]משסה ודאי פטורHA'MESHASEH VADAI PATUR- he who incited the dog is certainly exempt [since he caused the damage only indirectly (Gerama b'Nizakin)]

33)[line 16]דמשסי ליה ומשתסיD'MESHASEI LEI U'MISHTESI- that it will attack if incited

34)[line 17]לאשהוייהL'ASH'HUYEI- to leave it [where it can be incited to attack others]

35)[line 19]הא נוגחHA NOGE'ACH- [this implies that] if it did gore [another ox when provoked by young children]

36)[line 25]שיסהו הוא בעצמוSHISEHU HU B'ATZMO- if one incited the animal to attack himself

37)[line 26]כל המשנה ובא אחר ושינה בו פטורKOL HA'MESHANEH U'VA ACHER V'SHINAH BO, PATUR- if one acts in an unusual manner (in our case, by inciting the dog), another [who damages him (in our case, the owner of the dog)] is exempt [from paying even] if [the attack (in our case, that of the dog) was] unusual [and would have required the attacker to pay under normal circumstances]

38)[line 29]רבוצהREVUTZAH- crouched (i.e., lying down) [which is an unusual position for a cow in the public domain]

39)[line 30]בעטהBA'ATAH- she kicked

40)[line 32](דאמרינן ליה) [דאמרה לה](D'AMRINAN LEI) [D'AMRAH LAH]- for [the injured cow] "says" to [the attacking cow] (the YA'AVETZ corrects the Girsa)

41)[line 33]לסגויי עליLI'SEGUYEI ALAI- to walk upon me [since I am blocking your way]

42a)[line 35]נגףNAGAF- if it shoved

b)[line 35]רבץRAVATZ- if it squatted upon

43)[line 42]אינו דין ...?EINO DIN ...? (KAL VA'CHOMER - An A Fortiori Argument)

(a)In a Beraisa found in the introduction to the Sifra (the Halachic Midrash on Vayikra), Rebbi Yishmael lists the thirteen methodologies employed by Chazal when determining Halachah from the verses of the Torah. One of these is Kal va'Chomer. This is a logical argument in which proof of a law is shown by means of an already proven stronger law. A Kal va'Chomer can be applied to permit (i.e., something must be permitted since that which is more likely to be forbidden is already permitted) as well as to forbid (i.e., something must be forbidden since that which is more likely to be permitted is already forbidden). Because a Kal va'Chomer is based upon pure logic, one need not have a tradition in order to apply this type of argument. In this, a Kal va'Chomer differs from the other thirteen methodologies found in the Beraisa.

(b)The Gemara will often describe the source of a Halachah as a "Din". Although this can refer to any of the thirteen methodologies in the Beraisa mentioned above, it nearly always refers to a Kal va'Chomer.

44)[line 43]דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדוןDAYO L'BA MIN HA'DIN LIHEYOS KA'NIDON- it is enough for that which is derived from a Kal va'Chomer to be equal to the source from which it is derived