(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 116

BAVA KAMA 116 - dedicated by Mr. Simon and Mr. Yitzi Joseph, of Manchester, to the memory of their late great uncle, Reb Yaakov ben Meir Eichen.

1) PAYING AS STIPULATED

(a) (Mishnah): If Levi said, I will save your (honey...Yehudah must pay for his wine).
(b) Question: Why can't Yehudah say, 'I was only joking!'?
1. (Beraisa): Reuven was fleeing from jail. He told the ferryman 'I will give you a Dinar to take me to the other side' - he need only give the standard amount.
i. This is because he can say 'I was only joking!' - we should say the same here!
(c) Answer: Our case is like the end of the Beraisa .
1. (End of the Beraisa): If he said 'Take a Dinar as your wages', he must pay the full wage.
2. Question: What is the difference between this and when he said 'I will give you a Dinar'?
3. Answer (Rami bar Chama): Here, the case is that the ferryman was taking fish from the sea; by crossing the river, he lost a Dinar's worth of fish.
(d) (Mishnah): A flooding river overcame their donkeys; Reuven's was worth 100...
(e) We need to hear both cases.
1. If we only heard by the wine - one might have thought, only there he is compensated for his loss when he stipulated, for he actively caused his own loss (he spilled out the wine);
2. If we only heard by the donkeys - one might have thought, only here he is not fully compensated unless he stipulated, for the loss came by itself.
(f) Question (Rav Kahana): Reuven stipulated that he will save Shimon's donkey and be compensated for his own. He went to save Shimon's, and his own donkey came to safety by itself - what is the law?
(g) Answer (Rav): Hash-m was gracious (to give Reuven a gift) - Shimon must pay as agreed.
(h) This is as Rav Safra's case.
1. Rav Safra was in a caravan; a lion accompanied them. Each night, a member of the caravan would give his donkey to the lion, and the lion ate it.
2. On Rav Safra's night, the lion did not eat the donkey; Rav Safra made an acquisition on the donkey.
3. Question (Rav Acha mi'Difti): Why did he need to make an acquisition? He only made it Hefker for the lion, not for others!
4. Answer (Ravina): Really, no acquisition was needed; Rav Safra only did it so no one will contest him.
(i) Question (Rav): Reuven stipulated that he will save Shimon's donkey and be compensated; he was unable to save it - what is the law?
(j) Answer (Rebbi): This is obvious! He only receives the normal wage for his exertion.
(k) Question (Rav - Beraisa): Levi hired Yehudah to bring cabbage and plums to a sick person; by the time he brought it, the patient died or recovered - Yehudah gets the full wage.
116b---------------------------------------116b

(l) Answer (Rebbi): There, Yehudah fulfilled his mission; by the donkey, he did not.
2) LAWS OF PEOPLE TRAVELING TOGETHER
(a) (Beraisa): A caravan was travelling in the wilderness; a troop was about to despoil it. The troop agreed to take a sum of money instead. Members of the caravan pay according to their wealth (since there was no mortal danger);
1. If they hired a guide, for this they may pay a fixed amount per person (since getting lost is mortal danger); they stick to the custom of donkey-drivers.
(b) Donkey-drivers may stipulate that anyone who loses a donkey, will get another donkey - but not if it was lost through negligence.
1. If he says, give me the money for a donkey, I will buy it - we do not accede.
2. Objection: This is obvious! (The whole agreement was in order that he will be motivated to guard well.)
3. Answer: We need to hear in the case when he already has a donkey.
i. One might have thought, he will guard well in any case - we hear, this is not so, he will guard better if he has 2 donkeys.
(c) (Beraisa): A storm was about to sink a ship. The passengers were throwing things overboard to lighten the ship - they must throw equal weights, without regard to the value; they stick to the custom of ship-drivers.
(d) Ship-drivers may stipulate that anyone who loses a ship, will get another ship - but not if it was lost through negligence.
1. If he went to a part of the river where ships do not go, he does not get another ship.
2. Objection: This is obvious!
3. Answer: The case is, he went in spring (when the river is overflowing) to a part of the river normally traveled in fall (when the water level is low). One might have thought, he adopted a normal course - we hear, this is not so.
(e) (Beraisa): A caravan was travelling in the wilderness; a troop despoiled it. A member of the caravan saved some of what the troop took - everyone gets back his own things;
1. If he told them that he is saving for himself, he keeps it all.
(f) Question: What is the case?
1. If the others can also save - why should his declaration help?
2. If they cannot save - why does he need to declare?
(g) Answer #1 (Rami bar Chama): The case is, they were partners; in case as this, a partner can divide the property by himself.
1. Unless he said that he is saving for himself, they are still partners.
(h) Answer #2 (Rava): The case is, the one who saved was working for the caravan; the Tana holds as Rav, that a worker can quit his job in the middle.
1. Until he says he is quitting - he acts on their behalf;
2. When he said that he is saving for himself, he acquires for himself from Hefker.
i. "To Me Benei Yisrael are slaves", they are not slaves of slaves (therefore, a worker can quit when he wants).
(i) Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): The case is, the others could have saved with difficulty.
1. If he never said that he is saving for himself, they did not despair of their property;
2. If he said that he is saving for himself, and they did not protest, this shows that they despaired of their property.
3) SHOWING MONEY
(a) (Mishnah): Reuven stole Shimon's field; extortionists stole it from Reuven. If extortionists are taking fields from everyone, Reuven can say 'your field is still there';
1. If they took it on account of Reuven, he must give another field to Shimon.
(b) (Gemara) - Question: What is the case when they took it on account of Reuven?
1. If they only took Reuven's field - the beginning of the Mishnah teaches this - he is only exempt if everyone is afflicted!
(c) [Version #1 - Answer: The case is, Reuven never stole the field, he merely showed it to messengers of the king who were looking to take land.]
(d) [Version #2 - Answer: The case is, Nochrim forced Reuven to show them his fields; he also showed them the field he stole from Shimon.]
(e) Levi showed a pile of wheat of the Reish Galusa (to extortionists); Rav Nachman obligated him to pay.
1. Rav Huna bar Chiya: Was this letter of the law, or a fine?
2. Rav Nachman: This is the law of our Mishnah - If they took it on account of Reuven, he must give another field to Shimon; we established it when Reuven showed it (to people that would take it).
3. Rav Yosef (to Rav Huna): What difference does it make if it was letter of the law or a fine?
4. Rav Huna: If it was letter of the law, one may learn to other cases; if it was a fine, one may not.
Next daf

Index


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