ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 78
(a) We just explained that the word "O" in the Pasuk by Kodshim "Shor O
Kesev" comes to exclude Kil'ayim. We learn from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ...
1. ..."*Tachas* ha'Shevet" (regarding Ma'aser Beheimah) from "*Tachas* Imo"
(written by Kodshim) - that Kil'ayim is also invalid with regard to Ma'aser
(b) An alternative D'rashah to the latter is a direct Limud from the Pasuk
"Ach Bechor Shor" - from which we extrapolate 'Ad she'Yehei Hu Shor
u'Bechoro Shor (to preclude Kil'ayim).
2. ... "*ve'Ha'avarta* Kol Petter Rechem la'Hashem" (regarding Bechor
Beheimah) from "Kol Asher *Ya'avor* Tachas ha'Shavet" - that it is also
invalid with regard to Bechor.
(a) Having found independent D'rashos for all of the above, Rava's Binyan Av
(invalidating Kil'ayim) pertains to Pidyon Petter Chamor, where the Torah
writes in Bo "ve'Chol Petter Chamor Tifdeh be'Seh".
(b) This is the source of the Mishnah in Bechoros, which invalidates a lamb
of Kil'ayim with regard to redeeming a donkey of Peter Chamor. The Tana
there, also invalidates a calf, a wild animal, a Shechted lamb and a Coy.
1. A Coy is - the offspring of a cross between a Beheimah and a Chayah.
2. ... the reason for the P'sul of a lamb that has been Shechted is -
because a Shechted lamb is not called a 'Seh'.
(a) Rebbi Elazar - permits the redemption of a Petter Chamor with a lamb of
(b) According to Rebbi Elazar therefore, we suggest that Rava's Binyan Av
pertains to a non-Kasher animal that is born from a Kasher mother, but whose
father is not Kasher either (e.g. a horse born from a cow, whose father is a
horse [though we are dealing specifically with a lamb]). The problem with
this explanation is - that a Kasher animal cannot become pregnant from a
(c) We solve the problem - by establishing it when the non-Kasher father
itself was born (not from a non-Kasher species, but) from a sheep, which did
not have split hooves (a Kalut [she'Parsosav Kelutos]), and like Rebbi
Shimon, who does not consider it Kasher.
(a) This explanation cannot go according to Rebbi Yehoshua - who learns
Rava's D'rashah from "Seh Kesavim ve'Seh Izim" (implying that both parents
must be sheep [though it is unclear how Rava can argue with Rebbi
(b) Rebbi Yehoshua argues with Rebbi Shimon - inasmuch as, in his opinion,
as long as both parents are Kasher, the child is Kasher too, provided the
father has at least one Siman of Kashrus (e.g. it chews its cud, even if it
(a) The Tana Kama in the Mishnah in Temurah requires someone who declares a
Neder to bring an Olah, to bring at least a lamb. According to Rebbi Elazar
ben Azaryah - he is even permited to bring an Olas ha'Of (a pigeon or a
(b) In light of this Machlokes, Rava asks that, in the case of Reuven who
stole the ox that Shimon had designated for his Olah - is he permitted to
return a lamb, according to the Rabbanan, or even a bird, according to Rebbi
Elazar ben Azaryah.
(c) Perhaps he may, because at the end of the day, the Ganav is paying back
an Olah, with which the owner fulfills his obligation. He might nevertheless
be obligated to return an ox - because of the owner's claim that he wishes
to perform the Mitzvah in the best possible manner.
(d) Rava concludes that he may indeed return a lamb or even a bird.
According to Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ika's version of Rava's statement - Rava
simply stated the above, not in question and answer form.
(a) If the Ganav sells the stolen article 'except for a hundredth part of
it', or if he is a part owner to begin with, he is Patur from Daled ve'Hey -
because the Torah writes "u'Mecharo", and we extrapolate "u'Mecharo", 'Kulo'
(but not if he sells only part of the animal).
(b) If, instead of Shechting it, he simply kills it - he is Patur from Daled
ve'Hey, because "u'Tevacho" implies specifically Shechitah.
(c) The same applies if he made ...
1. ... Nechirah - tearing it open from the nostrils down to the heart.
2. ... Akirah - tearing out the Simanim (the two pipes) rather than actually
(a) Rav interprets 'except for a hundredth part of it' to mean except for
any part of the animal which is permitted through Shechitah - to preclude a
Ganav who sold everything but the skin, the horns or the fleece, who is
(b) Levi says - even 'Chutz mi'Gizosehah' is Chayav.
(c) Levi's opinion tallies with that of the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, who
says 'Machrah Chutz mi'Yadah ... Raglah ... Karnah ... Gizosehah, Einah
Meshalem Arba'ah va'Chamishah'. The Beraisa continues 'Rebbi Omer, Davar
ha'Me'akev bi'Shechitah, Eino Meshalem'
1. The Tana Kama interprets "u'Tevacho u'Mecharo" - literally and
independently: a. everything must be Shechted, and b. everything must be
included in the sale.
(d) The final opinion in the Beraisa is that of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar.
According to him, 'Chutz mi'Karnah', pays Daled ve'Hey; 'Chutz
mi'Gizosehah', does not - because whereas the former is not destined to be
removed from the animal before the Shechitah, the latter is.
2. ... Rebbi interprets - a. "u'Tevacho" to mean that all major parts of the
animal which would cause the animal to become a Neveilah (were they missing)
must be intact at the time of the Shechitah (such as one of the two pipes,
the thigh, the liver, or the intestines), and b. 'Mechirah Dumya
li'Tevichah'. Note, see Sugya above 77b, where Rebbi Yochanan and Resh
Lakish appear to argue over this point (Rashash there).
(a) We reconcile Rav (who differentiates between 'Chutz mi'Yadah ve'Raglah'
and Chutz mi'Karnah ve'Gizosehah') with the fact that none of the opinions
of the Beraisa hold like him - by citing another Beraisa, where Rebbi Shimon
ben Elazar supports his opinion 'Machrah Chutz mi'Yadah ... ve'Raglah, Eino
Meshalem ... Chutz mi'Karnah ve'Gisosehah, Meshalem ... '.
(b) The reason of Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar in the second Beraisa (and Rav),
where he differentates between the feet of the animal on the one hand, and
its horns and fleece on the other - is that the former require Shechitah,
whereas the latter do not (and like Rebbi, he learns 'Mechirah Dumya
(c) When Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar states two conflicting opinions in two
Beraisos - it is (not Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar himself, but) two Tana'im who
argue over what he said.
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa states that if someone steals an animal with a
foot missing or which is lame or blind and Shechts it, he is Chayav Daled
ve'Hey. Despite the fact that the animal is incomplete, this is not a
question of "u'Tevacho" 'Kulo' - because the Ganav Shechted all that he
(b) The Beraisa also obligates someone who steals an animal belonging to
partners - but the Tana exempts partners who steal, from Dale ve'Hey.
(c) Rav Nachman tries to reconcile this Beraisa with another Beraisa
'Shutfin she'Ganvu, Chayavin', by establishing the latter, by a partner who
stole from a third party, and the former, by one who stole from his
partner - who is Patur because it is not "u'Tevacho" 'Kulo be'Isura'.
(d) Rava refutes Rav Nachman's explanation on the basis of another Beraisa
which exempts a partner even when he steals from a third party, because it
does not conform with "u'Tevacho" 'Kulo be'Isura', and the case in which the
Tana obligates him is - when he Shechted a cow which he stole from a third
party with his partner's consent.
(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah asked whether a Ganav is Chayav Daled ve'Hey if he stole
an ox and sold it barring thirty days (during which time he retained the
right to work with it, or 'bar mi'Melachtah' - meaning that he sold it
permanently for the purchaser to Shecht, but he retained the right to work
with it as long as it was alive.
(b) He also asked whether he would be Chayav if he sold a pregnant cow but
retained the Ubar - a She'eilah according to those who hold 'Ubar La'av
Yerech Imo Hi' (a fetus is not considered an intrinsic part of the mother),
but not according to those who hold 'Ubar Yerech Imo' (in which case he
would obviously be Patur).
(c) According to those who hold Ubar La'av Yerech Imo Hu, the Ganav might be
Chayav Daled ve'Hey because the Ubar is intrinsically attached to the
animal. He might nevertheless be Patur - because it stands to separate from
(d) Another reason to obligate the Ganav to pay Daled ve'Hey is - because it
requires the Shechitah of the mother to permit it to be eaten.
(a) Rav Papa asked whether the Ganav will have to pay Daled ve'Hey if he
subsequently cut off a limb and sold it. On the one hand, he did not sell
the entire animal that he stole, on the other - when he sold the animal, he
sold it in its entirety, retaining nothing.
(b) The outcome of the She'eilah is - Teiku.