(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


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 26

1) POSSIBLE KAL VA'CHOMERIM

(a) Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach that Shen and Regel are liable in a public domain!
1. Keren only pays half-damage in the damagee's premises, and it is liable in a public domain - Shen and Regel, which pay full damage in the damagee's premises, all the more so they should be liable in a public domain!
(b) Rejection #1: "It will consume in another's field" - not in a public domain.
(c) Question: We did not seek to prove that Shen and Regel would pay full damage, only half-damage! (Perhaps the verse says that they only pay full damage in the damagee's premises!)
(d) Rejection #2: "They will divide its value (of an ox that gored, to pay half-damage)" - and not of another (i.e. Shen or Regel).
(e) Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach that Shen and Regel only pay half-damage in the damagee's premises!
1. Keren is liable in a public domain, yet it only pays half-damage in the damagee's premises - Shen and Regel, which are exempt in a public domain, all the more so they should only pay half-damage in the damagee's premises!
(f) Rejection: "He will pay" - full payment.
(g) Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach that Keren is exempt in a public domain!
1. Shen and Regel pay full damage in the damagee's premises, yet they are exempt in a public domain - Keren only pays half-damage in the damagee's premises, all the more so it should be exempt in a public domain!
(h) Rejection (R. Yochanan): "They will divide" - half-damage (of Keren) is the same in a public domain and in the damagee's premises.
(i) Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach that man pays Kofer (when he kills)!
1. An ox does not pay the other 4 damages (pain,...), yet it pays Kofer - man, who pays the 4 damages, all the more so he should pay Kofer!
(j) Rejection "As all that will be placed on him (a man whose ox killed)" - not on a murderer.
(k) Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach that an ox pays the 4 damages!
1. Man does not pay Kofer, yet he pays the 4 damages - an ox obligates its owner to pay Kofer, all the more so it should be liable in the 4 damages!
(l) Rejection: "A man (that damages) his fellowman" - not an ox that damages a man.
2) IS THERE KOFER FOR REGEL?
(a) Question: An animal trampled on a baby in the damagee's premises - does it pay Kofer?
1. Do we equate it to Keren - just as after goring 2 or 3 times, this becomes its nature, and it pays Kofer - it is also an animal's nature to trample, it also pays Kofer!
2. Or - is Kofer only by Keren, where it intended to damage?
(b) Answer (Beraisa - R. Tarfon): Reuven brought his ox into Shimon's yard without permission; it killed Shimon. The ox is killed; Reuven pays full Kofer, whether the ox was Tam or Mu'ad.
(c) Question: From where does R. Tarfon learn full Kofer (for a Tam in the damagee's premises)?
1. Suggestion: He holds as R. Yosi ha'Galili, who says that Tam pays half-Kofer in a public domain; a Kal va'Chomer from Regel teaches that it pays full Kofer in the damagee's premises.
2. This shows, there is Kofer by Regel!
(d) Answer #1 (Rav Simi of Nehardai): No, he makes a Kal va'Chomer from (standard) damages of Regel.
1. Question: We cannot learn from damages of Regel, for damages apply to fire (and Kofer does not)!
2. Answer: We learn from damages of Regel by concealed things - such damages do not apply to fire.
3. Question: We cannot learn from damages of Regel of concealed things, for such damages apply to a pit (and Kofer does not)!
4. Answer: We learn from damages of Regel of vessels - such damages do not apply to a pit.
5. Question: But such damages apply to fire (as we asked above)!
6. Answer: We learn from damages of Regel by concealed vessels - (such damages do not apply to pits or fires).
7. Question: But such damages apply to man (who does not pay Kofer)!
(e) Answer #2: Rather, he indeed learns from Kofer of Regel - this teaches, there is Kofer of Regel.
(f) (R. Acha mi'Difti): Presumably, this is correct, that there is Kofer of Regel - if we learned from damages of Regel, we could ask, Kofer does not apply to Regel!
3) UNINTENTIONAL DAMAGE
(a) (Mishnah): Man is always Mu'ad, whether unintentional or intentional, awake or asleep.
1. If he (unintentionally) blinded a man's eye, or broke vessels, he pays full damage.
(b) (Gemara): It teaches blinding an eye, similarly to breaking vessels - just as the 4 payments do not apply to vessels, also to (unintentionally) blinding!
26b---------------------------------------26b

(c) Question: From where do we know this?
(d) Answer (Chizkiyah): "A wound in place of wound" - this obligates for unintentional damage as for intentional, for Ones as for willing.
(e) Question: We need that verse to obligate for pain, even when paying Nezek (loss in permanent earning potential)!
(f) Answer: Had it said 'A wound for a wound', we would only learn one thing; since it rather says "A wound in place of wound", we learn both.
(g) (Rava): A man did not know that there was a stone in his lap. He stood up, and it fell:
1. Regarding damage - he pays Nezek, but not the 4 damages (pain, medical expenses, temporary unemployment, and embarrassment);
2. Regarding Shabbos - the Torah only forbade intended Melachah;
3. Regarding exile (if it killed a man) - he is exempt;
4. Regarding his slave (if the stone destroyed a limb) - R. Shimon ben Gamliel and Chachamim argue.
i. (Beraisa): A slave asked his master (a doctor) to paint his eye or dig around his tooth. The master blinded the eye or knocked out the tooth - the slave goes free;
ii. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, "And he will destroy it" - he must intend to destroy it.
(h) If a man knew about the stone in his lap, but forgot and stood up, and it fell:
1. Regarding damage - he pays Nezek, but not the 4 damages;
2. Regarding exile - he is exiled - "In forgetting", implying that he once knew;
3. Regarding Shabbos - he is exempt;
4. Regarding his slave - R. Shimon ben Gamliel and Chachamim argue.
(i) If a man intended to throw a stone 2 Amos and it went 4 Amos:
1. Regarding damage - he pays Nezek, but not the 4 damages;
2. Regarding Shabbos - the Torah only forbade intended Melachah;
3. Regarding exile "That he did not lie in wait", excluding this case (he is not killed, rather exiled; another explanation - he is not exiled).
4. Regarding his slave - R. Shimon ben Gamliel and Chachamim argue.
(j) If a man intended to throw a stone 4 Amos and it went 8 Amos - the law is the same as above, except for Shabbos.
1. Regarding Shabbos - if he did not care where it lands, he is liable; if not, he is exempt.
Next daf

Index


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,
daf@shemayisrael.co.il