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)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah 'Ganav v'Hikdish v'Achar-Kach Tavach u'Machar ... Eino Meshalem Tashlumei Dalet v'Hey'. What problem do we have with this statement?

(b)Initially, we answer this Kashya by establishing the Mishnah like Rebbi Shimon, who holds that Kodshim for which one is responsible, remain one's own (even though one is in fact, slaughtering Hekdesh). Is the Tana speaking before Yi'ush or after Yi'ush? How did Hekdesh acquire the animal?

(c)What procedure did the Ganav follow in making the stolen animal Hekdesh, according to Rebbi Shimon?

1)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah 'Ganav ve'Hikdish ve'Achar-Kach Tavach u'Machar ... Eino Meshalem Tashlumei Dalet v'Hey'. The problem with this is why the Ganav is not Chayav for declaring the animal Hekdesh, which is like 'selling' the animal to Hekdesh.

(b)Initially, we answer this Kashya by establishing the Mishnah like Rebbi Shimon, who holds that Kodshim for which one is responsible, remain one's own (even though one is in fact, Shechting Hekdesh). This can only be speaking after Yi'ush, seeing as his Ptur from Dalet v'Hey is based on the fact that he Shechted Hekdesh, and Hekdesh only acquires the animal with Yi'ush and Shinuy Reshus.

(c)According to Rebbi Shimon, the Ganav must have first declared 'Harei Alai Olah', and then designated the stolen animal to fulfill his Neder.

2)

(a)According to the current suggestion, seeing as the animal is still considered the owner's, why is the Ganav not Chayav Dalet v'Hey when he slaughters it?

(b)How does the Seifa force us to retract from the suggestion that the author must be Rebbi Shimon?

(c)So we establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili. What does Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili say?

2)

(a)According to the current suggestion, despite the fact that the animal is still considered the owner's, the Ganav is not Chayav Dalet v'Hey when he Shechts it because, when all's said and done, it is now called a Hekdesh animal (Shinuy Hash-m).

(b)The Seifa forces us to retract from the suggestion that the author must be Rebbi Shimon however because since the Seifa (' Rebbi Shimon Omer, Kodshim she'Chayav be'Achariyusan ... ') goes like Rebbi Shimon, the Reisha cannot go like him, too.

(c)So we establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili who says 'Kodshim Kalim Mamon Ba'alim Hein (in which case our Mishnah must be speaking about Kodshim Kalim, such as Shelamim).

3)

(a)Seeing as the animal still remains the owner's (according to Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili), why is the Ganav not Chayav for slaughtering it?

(b)Why can the reason not be because Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili concedes that, after the Shechitah, the animal becomes the property of Hekdesh, as we learned in the first Perek (regarding 'ha'Mekadesh b'Chelko')?

(c)We refute this suggestion too, due to the Seifa, which states 'Ganav v'Tavach, v'Achar'Kach Hikdish, Meshalem Tashlumei Dalet v'Hey'. How does that negate the current explanation?

(d)So how do we finally establish our Mishnah? Why is the Ganav not Chayav Dalet v'Hey for 'selling' the animal to Hekdesh?

3)

(a)Despite the fact that the animal still remains the owner's (according to Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili), the Ganav is not Chayav for Shechting it because, due to the Shinuy Hash-m, he is actually Shechting a Hekdesh animal (as we explained according to Rebbi Shimon).

(b)The reason cannot be because Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili concedes that, after the Shechitah, the animal becomes the property of Hekdesh, as we learned in the first Perek because that is only with regard to 'ha'Mekadesh be'Chelko', which the owner did after the Zerikas Damim, but not immediately after the Shechitah.

(c)We refute this suggestion too, due to the Seifa, which states 'Ganav ve'Tavach, ve'Achar'Kach Hikdish, Meshalem Tashlumei Dalet v'Hey'. If, as we just explained, the Reisha is confined to Kodshim Kalim then why did the Seifa switch to when the Ganav Shechted the animal before declaring it Hekdesh, in order to make his distinction? Why did he not simply switch to Kodshei Kodshim?

(d)So we finally establish our Mishnah according to everybody, and the reason that the Ganav is not Chayav Dalet v'Hey for 'selling' the animal to Hekdesh is because even though Halachically, the animal now enters the domain of Hekdesh, technically, it is Reuven's animal, and that is what it is still called.

4)

(a)We initially think that when Rebbi Shimon differentiates between Kodshim sh'Chayav b'Achariyusan and Kodshim she'Eino Chayav b'Achariyusan, he is referring to the Ganav selling the stolen animal. What will he then hold with regard to the Shechitah? Will it render the Ganav Chayav or not?

(b)In which point does Rebbi Shimon then argue with the Tana Kama?

(c)What is the problem with this explanation?

4)

(a)We initially think that when Rebbi Shimon differentiates between Kodshim sh'Chayav be'Achariyusan and Kodshim she'Eino Chayav be'Achariyusan, he is referring to the Ganav selling the stolen animal, but once he has declared the animal Hekdesh it belongs to Hekdesh, and even if he then separates it for his Neder, he is Patur from Dalet v'Hey.

(b)Rebbi Shimon then argues with the Tana Kama inasmuch as he holds that selling an animal to Hekdesh is like selling it to a Hedyot (whereas, according to the Tana Kama, even after selling the animal to Hekdesh does not alter the fact that it is still called the owner's animal, as we explained a little earlier).

(c)The problem with this explanation is that Rebbi Shimon should then not have said 'Kodshim she'Chayav be'Achariyusan, Meshalem Tashlumei Dalet v'Hey ... ', but vice-versa, since being responsible for the animal means that it is still his, and that is reason to make him Patur, not Chayav.

5)

(a)We conclude that Rebbi Shimon refers to a statement of the Tana Kama that is mentioned (not in our Mishnah but) in the first Mishnah in the Perek. . What did the Tana there learn from the Pasuk "v'Gunav me'Beis ha'Ish"?

(b)The Tana Kama of our Mishnah now extends this Derashah to someone who steals an animal from a Ganav and slaughters or sells it. What does he say about someone who steals a Hekdesh animal from the owner?

(c)How do we now explain Rebbi Shimon in light of this Derashah? What is his reason?

(d)What will Rebbi Shimon then rule in a case where the Ganav declares the animal that he stole, Hekdesh?

5)

(a)We conclude that Rebbi Shimon refers to a statement of the Tana Kama that is mentioned (not in our Mishnah but) in the first Mishnah in the Perek where the Tana learned from the Pasuk "ve'Gunav me'Beis ha'Ish" "me'Beis ha'Ish", 've'Lo mi'Beis ha'Ganav'.

(b)The Tana Kama of our Mishnah now extends this Derashah to someone who steals an animal from a Ganav and Shechts or sells it, and the same applies to someone who steals a Hekdesh animal from the owner, because, by the same token, we also extrapolate "ve'Gunav me'Beis ha'Ish" 've'Lo mi'Beis Hekdesh'.

(c)Rebbi Shimon now agrees with this Derashah provided the owner does not retain responsibility (i.e. if it is a Nedavah [where he said 'Harei Zu'), but not if he does (i.e. if it is a Neder [where he said 'Harei Alai'), because he holds 'Davar ha'Gorem le'Mamon, ke'Mamon Dami', in which case, the latter is still considered the owner's.

(d)In a case where the Ganav declares Hekdesh the animal that he stole Rebbi Shimon agrees with the Rabanan, that it is still called the owner's animal, in which case he is Patur from Dalet v'Hey.

6)

(a)What does Rebbi Shimon hold with regard to 'Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah'?

(b)What is the definition of a 'Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah')?

(c)How does this create a problem with our current interpretation of Rebbi Shimon?

6)

(a)Rebbi Shimon holds 'Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah, Lo Shemah Shechitah' ...

(b)... a Shechitah that does not render the animal fit to eat.

(c)This creates a problem with our current interpretation of Rebbi Shimon inasmuch as the Shechitah of Kodshim outside the Azarah is a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah, in which case he ought to be Patur from Dalet v'Hey in all cases.

7)

(a)When Rav Dimi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted Rebbi Yochanan, who answered this Kashya by establishing Rebbi Shimon where the Ganav Shechted the stolen Kodshim animal inside the Azarah in the name of the owner. What problem do we initially have with this?

(b)How does Rebbi Yitzchak bar Avin resolve this problem?

(c)When Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted Rebbi Yochanan differently. What did he gain by establishing the case where the Ganav Shechted the animal in the Azarah but not in the owner's name?

(d)Why is the Shechitah then Kosher?

7)

(a)When Rav Dimi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted Rebbi Yochanan, who answered this Kashya by establishing Rebbi Shimon where the Ganav Shechted the stolen Kodshim inside the Azarah in the name of the owner. The initial problem with this is that the if the Ganav Shechted the animal on behalf of the owner, the latter will have fulfilled his obligation, so why should the Ganav need to pay Dalet v'Hey?

(b)Rebbi Yitzchak bar Avin resolves this problem by adding that after the Shechitah, the blood spilled, in which case, the owner will not have fulfilled his obligation.

(c)When Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted Rebbi Yochanan differently. By establishing the case where the Ganav Shechted the animal in the Azarah but not in the owner's name he circumvents the previous problem (based on the fact that the owner has fulfilled his obligation).

(d)The Shechitah is nevertheless Kosher due to the principle that Kodshim that are Shechted not in the name of the owner are mostly Kosher (even though the owner has not fulfilled his obligation.

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

8)

(a)The third and final explanation is given by Reish Lakish. According to him, Rebbi Shimon is speaking about a Kodshim animal with a blemish. Where did the Ganav then slaughter it?

8)

(a)The third and final explanation is given by Reish Lakish. According to him, Rebbi Shimon is speaking about a Kodshim animal with a blemish which the Ganav then Shechted outside the Azarah.

9)

(a)Rebbi Elazar queries both Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish. What does 'Tehi Bah Rebbi Elazar' mean?

(b)The gist of his query is that it is not the Shechitah that validates either a Kosher Korban or a blemished one (in which case, how will they justify referring to the Shechitah as a Shechitah Re'uyah?). What then, does validate ...

1. ... a Kosher Korban?

2. ... a blemished one?

(c)We answer that Rebbi Elazar seems to have forgotten Rebbi Shimon's own principle. What does Rebbi Shimon say about 'Kol ha'Omed ... ' in both of the above cases?

(d)Which category of blemished Korban are we referring to? Which kind of blemished Korban is not subject to redemption, according to Rebbi Shimon?

9)

(a)Rebbi Elazar queries both Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish. 'Tehi Bah Rebbi Elazar' means that Rebbi Elazar examined the issue (literally, it means 'to smell', and is used with reference to smelling a barrel of wine to see whether it has turned sour).

(b)The gist of his query is that it is not the Shechitah that validates either a Kosher Korban or a blemished one (in which case, how will they justify referring to the Shechitah as a Shechitah Re'uyah?). What does validate ...

1. ... a Kosher Korban is the Zerikas ha'Dam (the sprinkling of the blood).

2. ... a blemished one is its redemption.

(c)We answer that Rebbi Elazar seems to have forgotten Rebbi Shimon's own principle 'Kol ha'Omed Lizrok ke'Zaruk Dami', and 'Kol ha'Omed Lipados, ke'Paduy Dami' (Whatever stands to be sprinkled/redeemed is considered as if it has already been sprinkled/redeemed).

(d)We are referring specifically to a Korban which was already blemished before the owner declared it Hekdesh whereas a Hekdesh animal that became blemished afterwards, is not subject to redemption, according to Rebbi Shimon.

10)

(a)According to Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa, Nosar is Metamei Tum'as Ochlin, provided it was left overnight after the Zerikas ha'Dam, but not otherwise. What category of Korban is affected by Rebbi Shimon's ruling?

(b)How do we traditionally interpret 'after the Zerikas ha'Dam'?

(c)What do we prove by citing this Beraisa?

10)

(a)According to Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa, Nosar is Metamei Tum'as Ochlin, provided it was left overnight after the Zerikas ha'Dam, but not otherwise. This can only be speaking about a Korban that becomes Nosar on the first morning after it has been brought, such as a Todah and all Kodshei Kodshim (but not to those that become Nosar only after two days and a night, such as a Shelamim).

(b)We traditionally interpret 'after the Zerikas ha'Dam' to mean if the Shechitah took place before sunset, leaving time for the blood to be sprinkled (even though this did not actually happen).

(c)By citing this Beraisa, we prove that Rebbi Shimon holds 'Kol ha'Omed Lizrok ke'Zaruk Dami'.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF