ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 113
(a) If the Beis-Din wrote a Pesicha on someone who ignored a summons, they
only tear it up - when he actually appears in Beis-Din, not when he agrees
to go. In the meantime, the Cherem remains in effect.
(b) Initially, we issue the identical ruling in a case of someone on whom
Beis-Din issued a Pesicha because he refused to abide by Beis-Din's ruling.
We conclude however - that the moment he undertakes to do so, Beis-Din will
already tear it up.
(c) If Beis-Din issue a summons on Monday, in the event that he refuses to
attend - they will issue him with a second summons on the Thursday and a
third summons on the following Monday. Should he continue to ignore the
summons, they will write the Pesicha on Tuesday.
(d) The reason that Rav Kahana wrote a Pesicha on a woman the morning after
the first summons is - because it is only in the case of a man, who is
sometimes out of town, that one gives three chances, but not a woman, who is
generally in town.
(a) Beis-Din will not issue a summons during the months of Nisan and
Tishri - because everyone is busy with the harvest of the corn and the
(b) Neither do they issue a summons - on Erev Shabbos or Erev Yom-Tov.
(c) Beis Din will however, issue a summons in Nisan or Tishri - to appear in
Beis-Din in Iyar and Mar-Cheshvan, respectively.
(d) The same concession will not apply to ...
1. ... Erev Shabbos and Erev Yom-Tov - because everyone is busy with
preparations for Shabbos and Yom-Tov, and they are likely to forget by the
2. ... to those who come to the Kalah (to hear the D'rashah each Erev
Shabbos) and the Rigla (to hear the D'rashah about Hilchos Chag before each
Yom-Tov) - because the thought that they might be issued a summons will
deter people from coming to hear the D'rashah.
(a) Rav Nachman would say to a claimant who approached him at the Kalah or
the Rigla with a request to invite his disputant to a Din-Torah - that this
was not why he had invited everyone to attend the D'rashah.
(b) They changed this Din however - due to swindlers, who would come into
town for business, but, in order to avoid being summoned to a Din Torah,
they would enter the Beis-ha'Medrash making out that they had come for the
(a) We learned in our Mishnah (with regard to 'ha'Gozel u'Ma'achil es
Banav') 'Im Hayah Davar she'Yesh Bo Acharayus, Chayavin Le'shalem'. We have
already cited Rebbi speaking to his son, Rebbi Shimon, who interprets
'Davar she'Yesh Bo Acharayus' to mean - that if the stolen object is
something that is easily recognizable such as a cow for plowing and a laden
donkey that he leads, then the heirs are obligated to return it, out of
respect for their father.
(b) Rav Kahana asked Rav about a couch to recline on and a table to eat on,
which might be different than a cow for plowing - because, unlike the
former, they are situated inside one's home and are not in full view of the
(c) Rav replied 'Ten le'Chacham va'Yechkam Od' - meaning the latter are
considered 'Davar she'Yesh Bo Acharayus' just like the former - since people
who enter the home of the heirs will easily recognize them as property
belonging to the original owner.
(a) Our Mishnah forbids the exchange of coins from a tax-collector's box, or
from the purse of the collector of the king's head-tax - neither may one
accept Tzedakah from them.
(b) All this is permitted however - if the money is taken (not from the box
or the purse into which he places the money, but) from his private home or
from his shop in the market.
(a) Despite the prohibition of changing coins from a tax-collector's box,
the Beraisa permits someone who owes half a Dinar of taxes to give him a
Dinar and to receive change - in order to spare himself the loss of half a
(b) The problem with treating a tax-collector like a Ganav is - Shmuel's
ruling 'Diyna de'Malchusa Diyna', which legalizes the non-Jewish tax system
and obligates everyone to pay their dues.
(c) Rebbi Chanina bar Kahana Amar Shmuel establishes the Mishnah by taxes
that are not fixed (where it is the tax-collector who fixes the amounts
everyone has to pay). de'Bei Rebbi Yanai establishes it - by a
self-appointed tax-collector (even if the amounts he collects are determined
by the government).
(a) Others connect the above Machlokes Amora'im with the Mishnah in
Kil'ayim. The Tana there - prohibits the wearing of Kil'ayim on top of ten
garments in order to evade paying taxes.
(b) The Tana Kama of another Beraisa forbids it, too - Rebbi Shimon quoting
Rebbi Akiva permits it.
(c) The basis of their Machlokes regarding the wearing of Kil'ayim is -
'Davar she'Eino Miskaven' (a sin that one performs unintentionally - with an
entirely different motive), which the Tana Kama forbids, and Rebbi Shimon
Amar Rebbi Akiva permits.
(d) In spite of Shmuel's ruling 'Diyna de'Malchusas Diyna', Rebbi Akiva
permits the evasion of taxes - either because he is speaking about an amount
that the tax-collector fixed it at his whim, or about a self-appointed
tax-collector, as we explained above. Note, that nevertheless, the Tana Kama
(a) Yet others connect the same Machlokes with a Mishnah in Nedarim. If
Haragin, Charamin or Muchsin demand that one gives them fruit, the Tana
there permits him - to make a Neder forbidding all fruit on oneself should
they not be Terumah, or should they not be the king's property (even if they
are not [see Tosfos DH 'Nodrin']).
(b) Charamin are trouble-shooters who rob people of their money or property.
(c) Rebbi Chanina bar Kahana Amar Shmuel establishes the Mishnah by taxes
that are not fixed and de'Bei Rebbi Yanai, by a self-appointed
tax-collector. Rav Ashi establishes it - by a Nochri tax-collector (where it
is he presumably, and not the government, who bears the loss.
(d) Rav Ashi basis his ruling on a Beraisa. As a last resort, Rebbi Yishmael
permits one to use force to avoid paying a Jew or a Nochri Anas who are
claiming from him illegal taxes. To avoid using force - he is permitted to
cite Jewish law or even secular law to avoid paying.
(a) Rebbi Akiva disagrees with Rebbi Yishmael - on account of the Chilul
(b) He seems to agree with Rebbi Yishmael though - with regard to the Heter
of Gezel Akum.
(c) When Rebbi Akiva came from Zafirin, he Darshened from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Acharei Nimkar, Ge'ulah Tih'yeh Lo" - that it is forbidden to take
the Eved Ivri who is sold to a Nochri and march him to freedom without
paying for him ('Gezel Akum Asur').
(d) Abaye refutes Rav Yosef's suggestion that Rebbi Akiva's latter ruling
pertains to a Ger Toshav (who stops serving idols, though he continues to
eat Neveilah), his former ruling, to a Nochri - on the basis of the Pasuk
quoted by Rebbi Akiva, which incorporates both a Ger Toshav and a Nochri).
2. ... ve'Chishav Im Konehu" - that the Akum is not entitled to charge any
price that suits him (only what he paid for him).
(e) Besides a Nochri and Ger Toshav, the Pasuk "ve'Nimkar le'Ger Toshav, O
le'Eiker Mishpachas Ger" also incorporates (someone who is sold to work for)
the Avodah-Zarah itself (which we learn from "O le'Eiker").
(a) In spite of having concluded that Rebbi Akiva forbids Gezel Akum, Rava
finally explains the inference from his previous statement (that if not for
the Cilul Hashem, one would be permitted to avoid paying a Moches Nochri
taxes) - because of the difference between stealing from a Nochri (which is
forbidden) and withholding from him one's debts (which is permitted).
(b) Abaye asked why Rebbi Akiva is then strict with regard to releasing an
Eved Ivri from the ownership of a Nochri, seeing as one is only depriving
him of the Eved Ivri's work (which is no more than a debt). But we reply -
that it is Rava who explains Rebbi Akiva in this light, and 'Rava
le'Ta'amei' (Rava follows what he maintains elsewhere) that the master
acquires an Eved Ivri [not just his work, but with a Kinyan ha'Guf]).
(c) Rav Bibi bar Gidal Amar Rebbi Shimon Chasida ...
1. ... learns from the Pasuk "ve'Achalta es Kol ha'Amim Asher Hashem
Elokecha Nosen Lach" - that only the property of the nations that are under
your jurisdictions is permitted to you, but not the property of other
nations ('Gezel Akum Asur').
(d) And in the same context, Ravina learns from the Pasuk there
"u'Metzasah" - that this concession is not confined to not picking up the
lost article of a Nochri, but that it even exempts someone who picked it up
from returning it (because "u'Metzasah" implies that he has already picked
2. ... based on the D'rashah of Rav Chama bar Guri'ah Amar Rav , learn from
the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "le'Chol Aveidas Achicha" - that the obligation of
returning a lost article is confined to one belonging to a Jew, but not if
it belongs to a Nochri ('Aveidas Nochri Mutar').
(a) Rebbi Pinchas ben Ya'ir is strict even with regard to Aveidas Akum - if
it involves Chilul Hashem.
(b) Shmuel paid a Nochri (who Chazal often refer to as Kutim) - three Dinrim
for a golden dish. The Nochri erroneously - accepted the three Dinrim
instead of four. In addition, he thought the dish was made of copper.
(c) Rav Kahana too, paid a Zuz less for the hundred jars that he bought from
a Nochri (also through the Nochri's error). In addition, the Nochri
miscounted and gave him twenty jars more than they had agreed.
(d) What did ...
1. When Ravina and a Nochri bought a palm-tree for firewood, Ravina
instructed his servant - to count out the logs from the thick end, since he
noticed that the Nochri was careful to count the logs, but didn't take note
as to their thickness.
2. When they walked past a vine with clusters of grapes, Rav Ashi instructed
his servant to - fetch him some grapes provided they belonged to a Kuti, but
not if the owner was a Jew (see Tosfos and Shitah Mekubetzes).
3. When the owner, who overheard his instructions, queried him, Rav Ashi
replied that whereas a Jew would refuse to take money, a Nochri would not
(and he not want the grapes free of charge). (See Tosfos and Shitah
(a) From the fact that the municipal officers used to cut down palm-trees
and make bridges, and everyone would use those bridges - Rava brings a proof
for Shmuel, that 'Diyna de'Malchusa Diyna'.
(b) Abaye asked Rava forbids purchasing how we know that this is not because
the owners were Meya'esh, to which Rava replied - because Yi'ush without
Shinuy Reshus is not considered Yi'ush (see also Tosfos DH 'Heichi
(c) Despite the fact that the officers were instructed to cut down trees
from each valley, and they cut them all from one valley, we refer to this as
'Diyna de'Malchusa' - because the officer of a king has, to a certain
degree, the power of the king himself.
(d) Rava concludes that the residents of that particular valley have only
themselves to blame - for not claiming reimbursement for all the trees that
they should have provided.
(a) Rava states that if three partners already took their share of the crops
home, and the fourth partner is still working in the barn when the tax man
claims taxes from him, he pays the tax. By this he means - that the fourth
partner pays for all the partners, from whom he may later reclaim what he
(b) The other ramifications of Rava's statement - are that the tax-collector
has acted within his rights. On the assumption that he purchased the rights
from the king, if he is a Jew, he is permitted to retain what he took, and
in the event that he a Nochri, one is permitted to purchase it from him.
(c) In the equivalent case, where the fourth man is a resident-gardener -
then he pays tax only for himself (since he is not a land-owner), and it is
illegal for the tax-collector to claim the taxes of the others from him.
(a) Rava also permits the tax man to claim a security from Reuven on behalf
of Shimon, if the latter is not available to pay his taxes, because of
'Diyna de'Malchusa'. Assuming that this applies both to land-taxes and to
head-taxes, it will be prohibited - with regard to claiming last year's
head-tax, since the tax-man has generally made up with the king and paid all
his dues up to the end of the year.
(b) Rava forbids the purchase of animals from Nochrim who rent out their
animals to manure fields, inside the T'chum (the city boundaries), but one
may purchase them outside the T'chum (because the owners are Meya'esh). The
basis of the prohibition is - the possibility of Jewish-owned animals having
strayed over to the Nochri's, which now graze with his own animals, and
which he has no authority to sell.
(c) Ravina forbids such a purchase even outside the T'chum - in the event
that the owner of the animal is running after his animal (a sure sign that
he has not been Meya'esh).