PAST DEDICATION
BAVA KAMA 47 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for this Daf for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.

1)

A SAFEK ABOUT WHETHER THE FETUS HELPED DAMAGE (cont.)

(a)

(Inference): This is because we do not know if the calf was born before or after the goring. Had we known it was born after (and was a partner in the damage), the entire half-damage could be collected from it!

(b)

This is like Rava taught, that if a pregnant cow damaged, one may collect from the calf.

(c)

Question: What is the reason?

(d)

Answer: It was part of the cow.

(e)

If a chicken damaged, we do not collect from the eggs.

(f)

Question: What is the reason?

(g)

Answer: It is like something separate from the chicken.

2)

HOW MUCH DOES ONE PAY IF HIS OX CAUSED A COW TO MISCARRY?

(a)

(Rava): (In the Reisha, a dead calf was found near a gored cow.) We do not evaluate the cow by itself and the calf by itself. Rather, we evaluate how much the calf increased the value of the mother.

1.

To evaluate it by itself would make the damager pay too much.

(b)

Similarly, if Reuven cut off the hand of Shimon's slave (we do not estimate how much Shimon would demand to allow this, rather, we evaluate the loss in value of the slave) or damaged his field (we do not estimate the damaged area by itself, rather, we evaluate how much it decreased the value of a sizable portion of the field).

(c)

Question (R. Acha brei d'Rava): Why is this considered 'too much', if this is what the damager should pay?

(d)

Answer (Rav Ashi): The damage was done to a pregnant cow, so that is what we evaluate.

(e)

Obviously, if Reuven owns the cow and Levi owns the calf, Reuven gets the compensation for the increased fat.

(f)

Question: Who gets paid for the increased value due to the larger volume (it looks fatter and healthier)?

(g)

Answer #1 (Rav Papa): Reuven gets it.

(h)

Answer #2 (R. Acha brei d'Rav Ika): They share it.

1.

The Halachah is, they share it.

3)

BRINGING PROPERTY INTO ANOTHER'S DOMAIN

(a)

(Mishnah): If Shimon brought his pots or fruit into Reuven's yard without permission, and Reuven's animals broke or ate them, he is exempt;

1.

If Reuven's animals were damaged by the pots or fruit, Shimon is liable.

2.

If Shimon had permission to bring them in, Reuven is liable.

47b----------------------------------------47b

(b)

If Shimon brought his ox into Reuven's yard without permission, and Reuven's animals damaged it, he is exempt;

1.

If the ox damaged Reuven's animals, or fell into a pit and dirtied the water, Shimon is liable;

2.

If Reuven's father or son was inside the pit, Shimon pays Kofer;

3.

If Shimon had permission to bring his ox in, Reuven is liable.

(c)

Rebbi says, in all cases one is liable only if he accepted responsibility for the other's property.

(d)

(Gemara) Inference: Shimon is liable because he had no permission. Had he had permission, he would be exempt when Reuven's animals were damaged;

1.

We do not say that Shimon accepted to guard Reuven's animals. This is like Rebbi, who says that Stam (without specifying), one does not accept responsibility for another's animals.

(e)

Question (next clause of Mishnah): If Shimon had permission to bring his pots in, Reuven is liable.

1.

This is like Chachamim, who say that Stam one accepts responsibility to guard himself from damaging another's property!

2.

The Mishnah concludes with Rebbi's opinion. Can the Reisha and Seifa be like Rebbi, and the middle is like Chachamim?!

(f)

Answer #1 (R. Zeira): Different Tana'im taught the Mishnah. (The Tana of the middle clause holds that Chachamim argue with Rebbi. The Tana of the Reisha and Seifa holds that Chachamim agree with Rebbi.)

(g)

Answer #2 (Rava): The entire Mishnah (until it mentions Rebbi) is like Chachamim. When Reuven gives permission, he accepts to guard Shimon's property even from falling in the wind!

4)

AN ANIMAL THAT WAS DAMAGED BY EATING

(a)

(Mishnah): If Shimon brought his fruit into Reuven's yard...

(b)

(Rav): Shimon is liable only for damage to Reuven's animals if they slipped on the fruit. If they got sick from eating the fruit, Shimon is exempt.

(c)

Question: What is the reason?

(d)

Answer: The animals should not have eaten them.

(e)

Question (Rav Sheshes - Beraisa): If Levi put poison in front of Yehudah's animal, he is exempt b'Yedei Adam (Beis Din cannot make him pay), but liable b'Yedei Shamayim (Hash-m holds him accountable).

1.

Inference: This refers only to poison, which animals do not normally eat. If they ate fruit, which is normal, even Beis Din forces him to pay!

2.

According to Rav, he should be exempt, for the animal should not have eaten!

(f)

Answer #1: Even regarding fruit, Beis Din cannot make him pay;

1.

The Beraisa discusses poison to teach that even though animals normally don't eat it, he is liable b'Yedei Shamayim.

(g)

Answer #2: The Beraisa discusses a poisonous fruit. (Even though it is normal for animals to eat it, Beis Din does not make him pay.)

(h)

Question (Beraisa): If a woman, without permission, brought wheat into Reuven's premises to grind it and Reuven's animal ate it, he is exempt.

1.

If Reuven's animal was damaged, she is liable.

2.

According to Rav, we should say that Reuven's animal should not have eaten!

(i)

Answer: Just like Rav explains that the Mishnah is when the animal slipped on the fruit, also the Beraisa!

(j)

Question: This is obvious! The one who asked, what did he think?

(k)

Answer: The Mishnah says 'Reuven's animal was damaged ba'Hen (through them)', which can mean that it slipped on them;

1.

The Beraisa says only 'Reuven's animal was damaged', which connotes that it ate them!

2.

Rav holds that both can be explained to mean that it slipped on them.

(l)

Question (Beraisa): If Shimon brought his ox into Reuven's yard without permission, and it ate wheat, fell sick and died, Reuven is exempt;

1.

If Shimon had permission to bring his ox in, Reuven is liable.

2.

According to Rav, we should say that Shimon's animal should not have eaten!

(m)

Answer (Rava): You cannot compare when there was permission to when there was not!

1.

One who gives permission accepts responsibility, even if the animal chokes itself!

5)

DAMAGE IN THE PREMISES OF A THIRD PARTY

(a)

Question: When one accepts responsibility, does he accept only that his own property will not damage it, or even that others' property will not damage it?

(b)

Answer #1: Rav Yehudah bar Simon taught that if Shimon brought his fruit into Reuven's yard without permission and Levi's ox ate them, he is exempt;

1.

If Shimon had permission to bring them in, he is liable.

2.

Question: Who is exempt or liable?

i.

Suggestion: Reuven is. (This shows that one accepts responsibility even that others' property will not damage it.)

(c)

Rejection: No, Levi is.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF