BAVA KAMA 76 (10 Av) - Dedicated by Rabbi Dr. Eli Turkel of Ra'anana, Israel, in memory of his father, Reb Yisrael Shimon ben Shlomo ha'Levi Turkel. Isi Turkel, as he was known, loved Torah and worked to support it literally with his last ounce of strength. He passed away on 10 Av 5740.
 

PAST DEDICATION
BAVA KAMA 76 (18 Adar) - Dedicated by Reb Gedalya Weinberger of Brooklyn, NY, in memory of his father, Reb Chaim Tzvi ben Reb Shlomo Weinberger, on the day of his Yahrzeit. Reb Chaim Tzvi, who miraculously survived the Holocaust, raised his children with a strong dedication to Torah and its study.

1)

MAKING A STOLEN ANIMAL HEKDESH

(a)

(Mishnah): If Reuven stole an animal, was Makdish it, and slaughtered or sold it (he only pays Kefel).

(b)

We understand why he does not pay four or five for slaughtering it. He slaughters the animal of Hekdesh, not of the original owner!

(c)

Question: He should pay four or five for making it Hekdesh. Giving to Hekdesh is like selling to a person!

(d)

Answer #1: The Mishnah is like R. Shimon, who says that Kodshim with Achrayus are considered to be in the Reshus of the original owner.

(e)

Question: Since R. Shimon taught the Seifa, the Reisha is not R. Shimon!

(f)

Answer #2: Rather, the Mishnah discusses Kodshei Kalim. It is like R. Yosi ha'Glili, who holds that they are considered the property of the owner, and are in the owner's Reshus (jurisdiction).

(g)

Question: Would he say that one pays four or five for Kodshei Kodoshim

1.

If so, why does the Reisha teach that if he stole an animal, slaughtered it and made it Hekdesh, he pays four or five? It should distinguish within the case of slaughtering after making it Hekdesh!

i.

It should say that he is exempt from four or five only for Kodshei Kalim, but for Kodshei Kodoshim, he is liable!

(h)

Answer: Even for Kodshei Kodoshim, he is exempt. We distinguish between giving to Hekdesh and selling to a person;

1.

When one sells to a person, the animal changes from being Shimon's ox to Levi's ox;

2.

When one gives to Hekdesh, it is called Shimon's ox before and after the Hekdesh!

2)

THE EXEMPTION OF HEKDESH

(a)

(Mishnah): R. Shimon says...

(b)

Question: Granted, R. Shimon does not distinguish between giving to Hekdesh and selling to a person, but he should say oppositely!

1.

For Kodshim with act, he should be exempt, for they are still in the original owner's Reshus;

2.

For Kodshim without Achrayus, he should be liable, for they leave the original owner's Reshus!

(c)

Answer: R. Shimon refers to a different matter (our Mishnah is abbreviated. It means as follows);

1.

If one steals from a thief, or steals Hekdesh from its owner's house, he does not pay four or five.

2.

Question: Why is he exempt for Hekdesh?

3.

Answer: "And it was stolen from the man's house" - not from the house of Hekdesh.

4.

R. Shimon says, he is liable (four or five) for Kodshim with Achrayus.

5.

Question: What is his reason?

6.

Answer: It is considered stealing from the owner's house (only) if there is Achrayus.

(d)

Question: R. Shimon holds that slaughter that does not permit the meat is not considered slaughter. Slaughter of Kodshim (outside the Mikdash) forbids the meat!

(e)

Answer #1 (Rav Dimi, citing R. Yochanan): The case is, it was Tam (unblemished), and he slaughtered it in the Mikdash, Lishmah (for the sake of the owner).

1.

Question: If so, the owner fulfilled his obligation. It is as if he returned the animal!

2.

Answer (R. Yitzchak bar Avin): The blood spilled (invalidating the Korban).

(f)

Answer #2 (Ravin, citing R. Yochanan): It was Tam, and he slaughtered it in the Mikdash Lo Lishmah. (The meat may be eaten, but he did not fulfill his obligation.

76b----------------------------------------76b

(g)

Answer #3 (Reish Lakish): It was blemished, and he slaughtered it outside the Mikdash.

3)

SOMETHING THAT WAS FITTING

(a)

Objection (R. Elazar): These slaughters do not permit the meat (until another act is done)!

1.

Slaughter of a Tam does not permit it. Throwing the blood permits it! Slaughter of a blemished Korban does not permit it. Redemption permits it!

(b)

Answer: R. Shimon holds that whenever the blood is destined to be thrown (i.e. after slaughter), it is as if it was thrown (i.e. as if slaughter permits the animal immediately);

1.

He also holds that whenever an animal is destined to be redeemed (i.e. after slaughter), we view it as if it was redeemed (and permitted immediately).

2.

(Beraisa - R. Shimon): Sometimes, Nosar (Kodshim that was not eaten in the allowed time, and is now forbidden) receives Tum'ah like food. Sometimes, it does not:

i.

If the time for eating passed and the blood was never thrown, it does not receive Tum'ah;

ii.

If the blood was thrown in time, it receives Tum'ah.

3.

We hold that this means that if the blood was never ready to be thrown, it does not receive Tum'ah. If it was ready, it receives Tum'ah.

4.

Question: What is considered ready or not ready to be thrown?

5.

Answer: It was slaughtered right before sunset, there was no time to throw it, it was not ready; if it was slaughtered with enough time to throw it, it was ready.

6.

Inference: He holds that anything ready to be thrown, it is as if it was thrown (and the meat receives Tum'ah).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF