ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 7
BAVA KAMA 7 - dedicated by Rabbi Eli Turkel and his wife of Ra'anana,
Israel, in honor of the birth of their grandson to Rachel and Oz Mandelbrot
in Berlin, Germany.
(a) We finally establish Rebbi Akiva ('Kal va'Chomer le'Hekdesh') like Rebbi
Shimon ben Menasya, who Darshens from "Shor Re'eihu" - that for goring a
Shor shel Hedyot, a Shor Tam pays only half damages, but for goring a Shor
Hekdesh, he pays in full.
(b) Rebbi Akiva is now coming to add - that should this occur, he must pay
(c) We therefore suggest that Rebbi Akiva concedes to Rebbi Yishmael the
Mazik pays his Ziburis (since it is the equivalent of the Nizak's Idis), and
that there Machlokes is confined to Hekdesh (Rebbi Akiva holds like Rebbi
Shimon ben Menasyah, and Rebbi Yishmael, like the Rabbanan ("Shor Re'eihu,
ve'Lo Shor shel Hekdesh"). We refute this suggestion however, from Rebbi
Akiva's very own words ...
1. ... 'Lo Ba ha'Kasuv Ela Lig'vos le'Nezikin min ha'Idis' - implying that
he argues with Rebbi Yishmael with regard to Shor shel Hedyot, too (and not
just regarding Shor shel Hekdesh).
(d) The most convincing proof however, is from the Beraisa quoted by Rav
Ashi - which explicitly quotes Rebbi Akiva as saying 'Meitav Sadeihu shel
Mazik, Meitav Karmo shel Mazik' (what the original Beraisa does not say).
2. ... 'Kal va'Chomer le'Hekdesh' - implying that he comes to be Machmir,
which makes no sense according to our current interpretation of his
statement, which comes purely to be lenient (to allow him to pay with his
own Ziburis like Rebbi Yishmael).
(a) Abaye pointed out an apparent discrepancy between the Pasuk "Meitav
Sadeihu ... Yeshalem" and that of "Kesef Yashiv li'Be'alav" - from which we
learn that the Mazik may even pay with oats.
(b) Rava replied - that the latter speaks when he pays of his own volition
(without having to be taken to Beis-Din), and the former, when he is taken
to Beis-Din against his will; that is where he has to pay with his best
fields or with money (as a sort of penalty).
(c) Abaye refutes Ula B'rei de'Rav Ila'i, who supports Rava from the Lashon
"Yeshalem", which he says, implies 'Ba'al Korcho' - on the grounds that to
the contrary, "Yeshalem" implies of his own volition (and the word for
having to pay against his will would be Meshulam")?
(a) So Abaye resolves the discrepancy differently, based on Rabah's
interpretation of a Beraisa, which speaks about someone who has houses,
fields and vineyards which he is unable to sell for two hundred Zuz. The
significance of this figure is - that someone who does not have cash to that
amount, is eligible to receive Ma'aser Ani (up to the amount of a hundred
and ninety nine Zuz).
(b) The Beraisa says - that someone who has houses, fields and vineyards
which he is unable to sell for a value of two hundred Zuz - may be fed
Ma'aser Ani up to the value of half that amount (enabling him to sell them
cheaply for a hundred Zuz).
(c) Even though the Tana could be speaking about a rich man who has other
money with which to sustain himself - we prefer to establish it in the case
of a poor man, who does not.
(a) We ask on this Beraisa, assuming that ...
1. ... due to a general price slump, nobody else is able to obtain that
amount either - why should he not receive the full two hundred Zuz, seeing
as, through no fault of his, he is currently a poor man.
(b) So Rabah established the Beraisa when the owner needed to sell the
property specifically in Tishri - when fields that have not yet been sown
are sold at a cheaper price, because the sowing season has passed and the
purchaser will have to wait until the following year.
2. ... others are able to obtain it, but he isn't, due to the fact that he
is running around trying to obtain money - why we give him anything at all,
seeing as his inability to sell his property for its full value is the
result of his own lack of discretion.
(a) Based on Rabah's interpretation of the Beraisa, Abaye resolves the
discrepancy between the two Pesukim ("Meitav" and "Yeshalem" ['Afilu
Subin']) - when the Nizak comes to claim damages in Tishri and asks for a
little more Beinonis than the Idis that he is entitled to. The Mazik can now
force him to accept Idis at the current cheaper price, or Beinonis at the
higher Nisan price (seeing as the Torah fixes his basic right as Idis).
(b) The problem that Rav Acha bar Ya'akov has with this explanation is -
that if the Torah allows the Nizak to claim Idis, how can we justify
limiting his claim on Beinonis.
(a) According to Rav Acha bar Ya'akov therefore, we can learn the Din of a
Ba'al-Chov from the Din of Rabah - inasmuch as, seeing as his main claim is
from Beinonis, should he claim a little more Ziburis in Tishri, the debtor
can force him to take it at the higher price of Nisan (but this has nothing
to do with the discrepancy between the two Pesukim).
(b) Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ika rejects this explanation however - on the
grounds that, in that case, we are closing the door on future debtors (to
whom potential creditors will refuse to lend - the very reason why Chazal
changed the Din of a creditor from Ziburis to Beinonis in the first place),
because the creditor will say, had he had money available (i.e. had he not
leant him his available cash), he would have been able to purchase the
fields at their current price, and it is only because he (the borrower) has
his money that he is now unable to do so (and this will discourage him from
lending money in future).
(c) Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ika himself learns from Rabah's Din - that if a
woman (whose claim is confined to Ziburis) claims a little extra Beinonis in
Tishri, the husband can force her to take it at the higher price of Nisan.
(a) We reject Rava's proposal to resolve the discrepancy between the two
Pesukim that whatever the Mazik pays (even if it is oats), he must pay the
best quality - on the grounds that the Pasuk writes specifically "Meitav
Sadeihu ... ", implying that the Din of Meitav does not extend to
(b) Rav Papa and Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua explain the distinction
between Metaltelin and Karka - based on the fact that Metaltelin is always
really Meitav, because what cannot be sold in one place, goes for a good
price somewhere else.
(c) According to Rebbi Yishmael, who requires the Mazik to pay with the Idis
of the Nizak, the explanation is clear-cut. But Rav Shmuel bar Aba from
Akrunya asked Rebbi Aba whether Rebbi Akiva goes after the Mazik's Idis or
that of the world - meaning that if the Mazik's Ziburis is equal to the Idis
of others landowners in that area, will he then be permitted to pay the
Nizak his Ziburis.
(d) To which Rebbi Aba replied - that, seeing as the Torah writes 'Meitav
*Sadeihu*', it is clear that we go after the Mazik's Idis and not that of
(a) We query Rebbi Aba from the Beraisa which discusses the various
scenarios that might confront the claimants. The respective claims of a
Nizak, a creditor and a woman claiming her Kesuvah are - from Idis, Beinonis
(min ha'Torah Ziburis) and Ziburis, respectively.
(b) It is obvious that, if the defendant only has Idis, then they all claim
from Idis, and that if he has Idis, Beinonis and Ziburis, then each one
claims what he is entitled to. If he owns ...
1. ... Idis and Beinonis - then the Nizak alone may claim Idis, and the
other two, Beinonis.
(c) Rebbi Aba establishes the middle case ('Beinonis ve'Ziburis ... ') -
when at the time of the debt, the borrower had Idis, in which case the
Beinonis then became Meshubad to the lender, even though by the time the
debt fell due, the borrower had already sold it. (Otherwise, seeing as Rebbi
Aba does not contend with the general public's fields [only with the
Mazik's], we would consider his Beinonis to be Idis, and force the creditor
to take Ziburis.)
2. ... Beinonis and Ziburis - the Nizak and the creditor may claim from
Beinonis, and the woman, Ziburis.
3. ... Idis and Ziburis - then the Nizak alone may claim Idis, and the other