(Permission is granted to redistribute this material as long as the Kollel
header and the subscription info at the end are included.)

_________________________________________________________________
CHARTS FOR LEARNING THE DAILY DAF

brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Email - daf@shemayisrael.co.il
_________________________________________________________________

Bava Kama Chart #5

Bava Kama Daf 14a

THE HALACHOS OF KEREN (K), SHEN, AND REGEL (S&R) THAT DAMAGED THE FRUITS OF THE "NIZAK" IN VARIOUS TYPES OF DOMAINS,
(ACCORDING TO REBBI TARFON(7))
  (A)
CHATZER HA'MAZIK
FOR *FRUIT* &
FOR *OXEN* (1)		 (B)
CHATZER HA'MAZIK
FOR *FRUIT* (2)		 (C)
CHATZER HA'MAZIK
FOR *OXEN*
1) CHATZER HA'NIZAK
FOR *FRUIT* &
FOR *OXEN*		 K: 1/2
S&R: Patur 		K: Full
S&R: Chayav(3)		 K: 1/2
S&R: Chayav(6)
2) CHATZER HA'NIZAK
FOR *FRUIT*		 K: 1/2
S&R: Patur 		K: Full
S&R: Chayav(3)		 K: 1/2
S&R: Chayav(6)
3) CHATZER HA'NIZAK
FOR *OXEN* (4)		 K: 1/2
S&R: Patur		 K: Full(5)
S&R: Patur		 K: 1/2
S&R: Patur
==========
FOOTNOTES:
==========
 (1) The Chatzer in such a case is considered like Reshus ha'Rabim with regard to Shen and Regel (S&R), since the owner is entitled to bring his Shor there and also to bring his Peros there, and thus the Mazik is Patur.
(2) Since the Nizak was entitled to bring into the Chatzer the item that was damaged, and the Mazik was *not* entitled to bring his Shor there, it is considered like the Chatzer of the Nizak with regard to Keren, and the Mazik must pay Nezek Shalem according to Rebbi Tarfon.
(3) According to the opinion that holds that Rav Chisda and Rebbi Elazar are arguing about the statement of Rebbi Zeira (14a), this Halachah will be argued by Rav Chisda and Rebbi Elazar (since the Mazik is entitled to bring his Peros there but not his Shor, and according to Rebbi Elazar -- who holds like Rebbi Zeira -- in such a case one is Patur for Shen and Regel).
(4) The Chatzer in such a case is considered like Reshus ha'Rabim with regard to Shen and Regel, and therefore the Mazik is Patur, since the Nizak does not have permission to bring his Peros there.
(5) This applies only if the Mazik's Shor damaged the *Shor* of the Nizak (which the Nizak was entitled to bring into the Chatzer). If the Mazik's Shor damaged the *Peros* of the Nizak, though, the Mazik would be Chayav to pay only Chatzi Nezek, since the Nizak did not have permission to bring his Peros there.
(6) This is according to the Girsa of Rashi. That is, wherever the Mazik does not have permission to bring his *Peros* there, it is considered the Chatzer of the Nizak with regard to Shen and Regel, and it is not considered like Reshus ha'Rabim -- even though the Mazik *does* have permission to bring his Shor there. However, according to the Girsa of Rabeinu Tam (see Insights), since the Mazik has permission to bring his Shor there it is considered like Reshus ha'Rabim with regard to Shen and Regel, and the Mazik is therefore Patur in these two cases for damages caused by Shen and Regel.
(7) Rebbi Tarfon maintains that one must pay in *full* for any damage incurred in the Nizak's domain, even if the animal that caused the damage was a "Tam."

Main
Bava Kama Page		 List of Charts
and Graphics		 Insights
to the Daf
 Background
to the Daf		 Review the Daf
Questions and Answers 		Point by Point
Summary

For questions or sponsorship information, write to daf@shemayisrael.co.il