ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 76
(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Ganav ve'Hikdish ve'Achar-Kach Tavach
u'Machar ... Eino Meshalem Tashlumei Daled ve'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. This can only be speaking - after Yi'ush, seeing as his P'tur from
Daled've'Hey is based on the fact that he Shechted Hekdesh, and Hekdesh only
acquires the animal with Yi'sh and Shinuy Reshus.
(c) According to Rebbi Shimon, the Ganav must have first declared 'Harei
Alai Olah', and then designated the stolen animal to fulfil his Neder.
(a) According to the current suggestion, despite the fact that the animal is
still considered the owner's, the Ganav is not Chayav Daled ve'Hey when he
Shechts it - because after all, it is now called a Hekdesh animal (Shinuy
(b) The Seifa forces us to retract from the suggestion that the author must
be Rebbi Shimon - because since the Seifa (' Rebbi Shimon Omer, Kidshim
she'Chayav be'Achariyusan ... ') goes like Rebbi Shimon, the author of the
Reisha cannot be Rebbi Shimon too.
(c) So we establish our Mishnah like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili - who says
'Kodshim Kalim Mamon Ba'alim Hein (and our Mishnah must be speaking about
Kodshim Kalim, such as Shelamim).
(a) Despite the fact that animal still remains the owner's (according to
Rebbi Yossi Hagelili), the Ganav is not Chayav for Shechting it - because,
due to the Shinuy Hashem, he is actually Shechting a Hekdesh animal (as we
explained according to Rebbi Shimon).
(b) The reason cannot be because Rebbi Yossi Hagelili 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 after the
(c) We refute this suggestion too, due to the Seifa, which states 'Ganav
ve'Tavach, ve'Achar'Kach Hikdish, Meshalem Tashlumei Daled ve'Hey'. If, as
we just explained, the Reishah 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 distincton? Why did he not simply switch to
(d) So we finally establish our Mishnah according to everybody, and the
reason that the Ganav is not Chayav Daled ve'Hey for 'selling' the animal to
Hekdesh is - because even though Halachically, the animal now enters the
domain of Hekdesh, technically, it was Reuven's animal, and that is what it
is still called.
(a) We initially think that when Rebbi Shimon differentiated between Kodshim
sh'Chayav be'Achariyusan and Kodshim she'Eino Chayav be'Achariyusan, he was
referring to the Ganav selling the stolen animal, but once he has declared
the animal Hekdesh, it belongs to Hekdesh, and even if he separated it for
his Neder, he is Patur from Daled ve'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, 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 Tashmumei Daled
ve'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.
(a) We conclude that Rebbi Shimon refers to a statement of the Tana Kama
that is not specifically mentioned in our Mishnah. In the first Mishnah in
the Perek, we extrapolated from the Pasuk "ve'Gunav me'Beis ha'Ish" - 've'lo
(b) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah now extends this D'rashah 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 we
extrapolate "ve'Gunav me'Beis ha'Ish" - 've'lo mi'Beis Hekdesh'.
(c) Rebbi Shimon now agrees with this D'rashah - provided the owner does not
retain responsibility (i.e. if it is a Nedavah [where he said 'Harei Zu'),
but not if 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, it is
still considered the owner's.
(d) In a case where the Ganav declares the animal that he stole, Hekdesh -
Rebbi Shimon agrees with the Rabbanan, that it is still called the owner's
animal, in which case he is Patur from Daled ve'Hey.
(a) Rebbi Shimon holds 'Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah, Lo Sh'mah Shechitah'.
(b) This creates a problem with our curent 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 Daled ve'Hey in
(a) When Rav Dimi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted Rebbi Yochanan, who
answered this Kashya by establishing Rebbi Shimon when the Ganav Shechted
the stolen Kodshim inside the Azarah in the name of the owner. The initial
problem with it is - that the if the Ganav Shechted the animal on behalf of
the owner, the latter has fulfilled his obligation, so why should the Ganav
pay Daled ve'Hey?
(b) Rebbi Yitzchak bar Avin resolves this problem - by adding that after the
Shechitah, the blood spilled, in which case, the owner does not fulfil his
(c) When Ravin arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted Rebbi Yochanan
differently. By establishing the case when 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 Kasher - due to the principle that
virtually all Kodshim that are Shechted not in the name of the owner, are
Kasher, only it leaves the owner not having fulfilled his obligation.
The third and final explanation is given by Resh Lakish. According to him,
Rebbi Shimon is speaking about a Kodshim animal with a blemish - which the
Ganav Shechted outside the Azarah.
(a) Rebbi Elazar queries both Rebbi Yochanan and Resh 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 Kasher Korban or a blemished one (in which case, how will they
justify referring to the Shechitah as a Shechitah Re'uyah?). What does
1. ... a Kasher Korban is - the Zerikas ha'Dam (the sprinkling of the
(c) We answer that Rebbi Elazar seems to have forgotten Rebbi Shimon's own
principle - 'Kol ha'Omed Li'zrok ke'Zaruk Dami', and 'Kol ha'Omed Lipados,
2. ... a blemished one is - its redemption.
(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
(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 the Todah and all Kodshei Kodshim
(but not to those that become Nosar only after two days and a night).
(b) We traditionally interpret 'after the Zerikas ha'Dam' to mean - if the
Shechitah took place before Sheki'ah, leaving time fro the blood to be
sprinkled (even though this did not actually happen).
(c) This proves - that Rebbi Shimon holds 'Kol ha'Omed Li'zrok ke'Zaruk