POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Bava Kama 24
BAMA KAMA 23 & 24 - This daf has been dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Esther Chaya
Rayzel bas Gershon Eliezer, upon her Yahrzeit and Yom Kevurah, by her
daughter and son-in-law, Jeri and Eli Turkel. Esther Friedman was a woman of
valor who was devoted to her family and gave of herself unstintingly,
inspiring all those around her.
1) THE SOURCE FOR WHAT MAKES A MU'AD
(a) Question: What is R. Meir's reason?
2) WHY THREE DAYS ARE NEEDED
(b) Answer: If it becomes Mu'ad after intermittent gorings,
all the more so when the gorings are close together!
1. Chachamim: A Zavah (a woman that experienced
post-menstrual bleeding) disproves this - if she
sees blood on 3 consecutive days, she is a Zavah,
but not for 3 sightings on 1 day!
(c) (Beraisa - R. Yosi): An animal is Mu'ad after witnesses
testify that it gored on 3 days; an animal that does not
gore when children play with it is Tam;
2. R. Meir: "This is the law of his Tum'ah through his
emissions" - the Torah attributes the Tum'ah of a
Zav (a man that sees emissions) to sightings, and
that of a Zavah to the days she sees.
3. Question: How do we know that the verse excludes a
Zavah (that she is not Teme'ah through sightings,
unless they are on consecutive days) - perhaps it
excludes a Zav from Tum'ah if he sees on consecutive
4. Answer: "And one that has a flow, a man or a woman"
- the Torah equates them.
i. Just as a woman becomes a Zavah through
sightings on consecutive days, also a man.
5. Suggestion: We should also equate a woman's law to
that of a man - just as a man becomes a Zav through
sightings on 1 day, also a woman!
6. Rejection: "This is" excludes a woman.
7. Question: Why not learn the other way? (That a woman
becomes a Zavah through sightings on 1 day, as a
man, and "This is" excludes a man who sees on
8. Answer: The verse "This is" speaks of sightings (on
1 day) - it is more reasonable that it comes to
exclude sightings (of a woman) on 1 day, than to
exclude sightings (of a man) on consecutive days.
1. R. Shimon says, after witnesses testify 3 times that
it gored, it is Mu'ad;
(d) (Rav Nachman): The law is as R. Yehudah by a Mu'ad and as
R. Meir by a Tam, because R. Yosi holds that way.
i. Three days are only needed to revert to being
Tam (if it doesn't gore in 3 days).
1. Rava: Why not say the law is as R. Meir by a Mu'ad
and as R. Yehudah by a Tam, because R. Shimon holds
(e) Rav Nachman: I hold as R. Yosi because he has superb
reasons and proofs.
(a) Question: Why are 3 days needed - to establish that the
ox gores, or to warn the man?
1. Question: What difference does it make?
(b) (Beraisa): An ox does not become Mu'ad unless they
testify about it in front of the owner and in front of
2. Answer: If 3 sets of witnesses testify on 1 day
about gorings on 3 days.
i. This suffices to establish that the ox gores,
but not to warn the man - he can say, I only
learned of the gorings now.
1. If 2 witnesses testified about the first goring, 2
about the second, and 2 about the third, they are 3
testimonies, but they are considered 1 testimony
(c) This fits the opinion that the testimony is to establish
the ox as a gorer.
i. If the first 2 witnesses are found to be Edim
Zomemim (witnesses that testified about
something they were not present to see) - the
latter 2 testimonies stand, the lying witnesses
are not punished (for trying to make the ox
ii. If the next 2 witnesses are also found to be
Zomemim - the last testimony stands, the ox is
not Mu'ad, the lying witnesses are not
iii. If all the witnesses are found to be Zomemim -
they are all punished - "You will do to him as
(d) Question: If we need 3 days to warn the man - why are the
first 2 pairs of witnesses punished?
3) INCITEMENT TO GORE
1. They can say, (we didn't intend to make it Mu'ad,)
we didn't know that more witnesses would come!
(e) Question (Rav Kahana): We can similarly ask if the
testimony is to establish the ox as a gorer!
1. The witnesses on the last goring can say, we only
came to make the owner pay half-damage - we didn't
know why the other witnesses were in Beis Din!
(Rashi - the case is, the third damagee asked all 6
witnesses to testify - the witnesses on the previous
gorings know, he wants to make the ox Mu'ad. Tosfos
- the case is, the witnesses on the previous gorings
only testified after the witnesses on the last
goring. Ra'avad - even the witnesses on the last
goring can claim, they only came to obligate
(f) Answer #1: The witnesses gestured to each other. (Rashi -
this (and the coming) answers are as the opinion that the
testimony is to establish the ox as a gorer; Tosfos - the
answers also work for the opinion that the testimony is
to warn the man.)
(g) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): The witnesses came together.
(h) Answer #3 (Ravina): The witnesses do not know which ox
gored (so they cannot obligate half-damage), but they
know whose ox gored.
(i) Question: If so, how can they make it Mu'ad?
(j) Answer: They say, since the man has a goring ox, he must
guard his whole herd.
(a) Question: Levi incited Reuven's dog to bite Shimon - what
is the law?
4) "KEREN" IN THE PREMISES OF THE PERSON WHO WAS DAMAGED
1. Surely, Levi is exempt (he only caused damage) - is
(b) Answer (R. Zeira - Mishnah): An animal that does not gore
when children play with it is Tam;
i. Can he say - I didn't do anything!
ii. Or - since he knows that his dog can be
incited, he should not have such a dog!
1. (Inference): If it does gore other oxen (when
incited by children), it is liable!
(c) (Mishnah): A man incited a dog or snake to bite - he is
2. Rejection (Abaye): No - if it gores when incited, it
is a Mu'ad ox - but it is exempt for that goring.
(d) Question: Who is exempt?
1. Suggestion: The inciter is exempt, but the owner of
the dog or snake is liable.
(e) Answer: No, even the enciter is exempt.
(f) (Rava): If you will say that when Levi incited Reuven's
dog to bite Shimon, Reuven is liable - but if it bit the
inciter, Reuven is exempt.
1. This is because if 1 party does something abnormal,
and another party acts abnormally and damages the
first, the second party is exempt.
(g) (Rav Papa): Reish Lakish supports Rava.
1. (Reish Lakish): A cow was crouching in a public
domain; another cow was walking. If the walking cow
kicked the crouching cow - it is exempt;
(h) (Rava): I say, even in the first case, it is liable - the
walking cow has the right to walk over the crouching cow,
it may not kick it.
i. If the crouching cow kicked the walking cow -
it is liable.
(a) (Mishnah): An ox that damages in the damagee's premises:
1. If it gored, pushed, bit, crouched or kicked in the
public domain, it pays half-damage;
2. In the damagee's premises - R. Tarfon says it pays
full damage, Chachamim say, half-damage.
3. R. Tarfon: In a public domain, the Torah is lenient
to exempt Shen and Regel, but they pay full damage
in the damagee's premises - Keren, which pays
half-damage in a public domain, all the more so it
pays full damage in the damagee's premises!
4. Chachamim: Dayo (the most we can learn from a Kal
va'Chomer is the same as the source) - just as Keren
pays half-damage in a public domain, also in the
5. R. Tarfon: I need not learn Keren from Keren - I can
learn Keren from Regel!
i. In a public domain, the Torah is lenient to
exempt Shen and Regel, but Keren pays
half-damage - in the damagee's premises, where
Shen and Regel pay full damage, all the more so
Keren pays full damage!
6. Chachamim: Dayo - it only pays half-damage, as in a