(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Bava Kama 90

1) We have just explained the Machlokes between the two Beraisos (whether 'Nechsei Mi'lug Yotz'in le'Ishah ve'Lo le'Ish', or 'Lo le'Ishah ve'Lo le'Ish') in one of four ways. It is based on 1. ... the principle of Takanas Usha; 2. ... the fact that one was learned before the Takanah, and the other, after it; 3. ... Rava's principle (whether 'Hekdesh, Chametz ve'Shichrur Mafki'in Miydei Shibud' or not); 4. whether Takanas Usha was made to override Rava's principle or not. All explanations however, assume that 'Kinyan Peiros La'av ke'Kinyan ha'Guf'.
What is the fifth way of reconciling the two Beraisos?


(a) Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa rules that if Reuven sells Shimon his Eved on condition that he alone may continue to use him for the first thirty days, the Din of "Yom O Yomayim" applies to Reuven but not to the Shimon.
What are the ramifications of Rebbi Meir's ruling?

(b) What is his reason?

(c) What does Rebbi Yehudah say?

(d) Rebbi Yossi holds that the Din of "Yom O Yomayim" pertains to both of them.
Why is that?

(a) Who is the fourth Tana? What does he hold?

(b) What is ...

  1. ... the logical reason behind Rebbi Elazar's ruling?
  2. ... the Pasuk on which Rava bases this ruling?
(a) Ameimar establishes the Beraisa like Rebbi Elazar.
What does the Tana say about a man and a woman who both sold an Eved Mi'lug? Would this apply even if both signed the document of sale jointly?

(b) What would be the Din if two partners sold an Eved that they owned jointly?

(c) Why the difference?

(d) What did Rav Mordechai tell Rav Ashi quoting Rava in connection with the Beraisa which rules that a Chatzi Eved and Chatzi ben Chorin, as well as an Eved belonging to two partners, does not go out with Shen ve'Ayin?

(a) According to the Tana Kama of our Mishnah, if Reuven blew a trumpet in Shimon's ear, he is fined a Sela (Bo'shes). What else might 'ha'Tokei'a la'Chaveiro' mean?

(b) What does Rebbi Yehudah quote Rebbi Yossi Hagelili as saying?

(c) Someone who slapped his friend's face is obligated to pay two hundred Zuz. How much must he pay if he ...

  1. ... slapped him with the back of his hand?
  2. ... pulled (or nicked) his ear, spat on him, removed his cloak, or uncovered a woman's hair in the street?
(d) According to the Tana Kama, this all depends on the status of the person who has been shamed (this will be explained later in the Sugya).
What does Rebbi Akiva say?
Answers to questions



(a) The Tana tells the story of Rebbi Akiva, who fined a certain man four hundred Zuz for uncovering a woman's hair in the street.
Why did the culprit ask for time to pay?

(b) How did he prove his point?

(c) What was Rebbi Akiva's response? Did he accept his claim?

(d) Which second similar ruling did Rebbi Akiva issue?

(a) We ask whether the Sela and the Manah in our Mishnah refer to the Tzuri system or to that of Medinah.
What is the difference between the two systems?

(b) We resolve the She'eilah from a Beraisa.
What did Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah say when a man who blew a trumpet in someone's ear was brought before him?

(c) On what grounds do we query the suggestion that what he meant was that he was ruling because he saw the episode and that Rebbi Yossi Hagelili stated the figure as a Manah Tzuri?

(d) In a Beraisa, Rebbi Tarfon rules that if the Sanhedrin saw Reuven murder Shimon, some of the Dayanim adopt the role of witnesses and others, of Dayanim.
What does Rebbi Akiva say?

(a) Both Tana'im agree that 'Ein Eid Na'aseh Dayan'. How do we initially reconcile this with the current suggestion that what Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah meant was that he was ruling because he had seen the episode?

(b) Like whom does Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah then hold?

(c) How do we reinterpret Rebbi Yehudah Nesi'ah's statement assuming that the Sanhedrin witnessed the murder by day?

(a) What does Shimon ha'Teimani learn from the Pasuk "ve'Hikah Ish es Re'eihu be'Even O be'Egrof"?

(b) Rebbi Akiva disagree with Rebbi Shimon ha'Teimani.
What does he hold?

(c) On what grounds does he argue with him?

(a) What can we infer from Rebbi Akiva's words 've'Chi bi'F'nei Beis-Din Hikahu'?

(b) How do we reconcile this with what he said earlier (that 'Ein Eid Na'aseh Dayan')?

(a) The Beraisa states with regard to a Shor Tam that gored Reuven to death and wounded Shimon, that Beis-Din will sentence the ox to death, but will not even open the case for damages.
Why not?

(b) What does the Tana say in the equivalent case by a Mu'ad?

(c) What will be the Din if they inadvertently opened the case of Miysah and sentenced the ox to death?

Answers to questions

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,