Bava Kama Daf 46 - Hamotzi M'Chaveiro Alav Ha'Raya
Summary
- This shiur opens with several sponsorships and proceeds to conclude the fourth perek by establishing, through Rava and Abaye, the basis for Rabbi Eliezer’s view that a dangerous *shor mu'ad* has no effective guarding short of *shechita*, integrating Rabbi Natan’s prohibition against maintaining hazards at home and Tosafot Rabbeinu Peretz’s gradation of dangers. The new perek presents a Mishnah on liabilities when an ox gores a pregnant cow, frames the ספק according to Rav and Shmuel, assigns payments of *chatzi nezek* for the mother and *revi'a nezek* for the fetus per Sumchus, and addresses evidentiary and knas issues via the Maharsha and Rabbi Akiva Eiger. The Gemara designates Sumchus as the author of the Mishnah and sets the Chachamim’s “zeh *klal gadol ba-din*” of המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה, explaining its breadth as overriding either ברי ושמא ברי עדיף or rov, illustrated by Rav and Shmuel’s dispute about a sale of a *nagchan* ox and codified as *halacha k'Shmuel be-dinei*. The source of המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה is presented as both סברא and a pasuk directing beit din procedure, and the sugya closes by re-reading the Mishnah’s fractions to avoid three-quarters recovery and by mapping recovery paths based on ownership and whom the claimant sues first.
- The shiur is sponsored by Dr. David Landerman in honor of his wife and children and לעילוי נשמת his mother גולדה בת שמחה עליה השלום; by Daniel Sadi for the success of כלל ישראל and הצלחה for soldiers and captives; by אלישבע and אבישי Newman in honor of the birth of their grandson to AJ and עליזה Youngreis with a blessing to be זוכה להכניסו בבריתו של אברהם אבינו בזמנו לגדלו לתורה לחופה ולמעשים טובים; and by ציפי and Rabbi Dr. Aaron Ross marking the יארצייט of ציפי's father Mr. שלמה פרדמן שלמה חיים אריה לייב בן שמואל נחום הכהן or נמחוא הכהן וחיה with a blessing for עליה לנשמה. The shiur is also sponsored by the virtual הלכה program under רב נבנצל שליט"א, announcing a new לימוד on הלכות בישול בשבת at vhalacha.com.
- Rava derives Rabbi Eliezer’s position that a *shor mu'ad* has no effective guarding from the Torah’s phrasing *velo yishmerenu*, reading it as a factual negation of successful guarding that leaves only *shechita* as prevention. Abaye challenges this from *velo yechasenu* by a *bor*, which clearly admits proper covering, and therefore he establishes Rabbi Eliezer’s basis via a beraita of Rabbi Natan that prohibits keeping a vicious dog and a rickety ladder in one’s house from the verse ולא תשים דמים בביתך, extending that prohibition to a *shor mu'ad* as an inherently dangerous presence that one may not maintain. Tosafot Rabbeinu Peretz asks why ולא תשים דמים בביתך is insufficient and answers that a *shor mu'ad* is less dangerous and more guardable than a כלב רע or a סולם רעוע, so an extra verse expands the category to include it and also explains why the Chachamim permit keeping a *shor mu'ad* while agreeing to remove the more dangerous items. Tosafot further distinguishes a covered *bor* as a third, yet safer, level that is adequately neutralized by a proper cover.
- The Mishnah states that when a *shor tam* gores a pregnant *parah* and the fetus is found dead nearby with uncertainty whether birth preceded or followed the goring, the owner pays *chatzi nezek* for the *parah* and *revi'a nezek* for the *vlad*. The Meiri qualifies that *edim* observed the goring from a distance, avoiding reliance on the *mazik’s* admission because the Rambam and Shulchan Aruch rule *pelaga nizka kansa*, triggering the rule *modeh beknas patur*. Shmuel frames the ספק as viable because אין הולכין בממון אחר הרוב even though רוב פרות אינן מפילות, whereas Rav, who holds הולכין בממון אחר הרוב, frames the ספק as whether fright or impact caused the miscarriage, with only impact generating liability for the *vlad*. The payment of *revi'a nezek* for the *vlad* follows Sumchus that ממון המוטל בספק חולקין.
- Acharonim ask how liability for the *vlad* can stand given *pelaga nizka kansa* and the absence of *edim* on the *vlad*, which should restore *modeh beknas patur*. The Maharsha answers that *edim* on the goring plus an *umdana* that the trauma caused the miscarriage, when combined with the defendant’s admission, suffices and is not standard *modeh beknas patur* because the beit din had a foundation independent of the admission. Rabbi Akiva Eiger explains that the ספק was born in beit din from the *edim*’s testimony on the goring, so the obligation flows from the ספק per Sumchus rather than from the admission.
- When a pregnant *parah* is the *mazik* and the *vlad* is found afterward, recovery from a *shor tam* is מגופו, which includes the *vlad* only if the *parah* was still pregnant at the time of damage. The Mishnah assigns *chatzi nezek* from the *parah* and *revi'a nezek* from the *vlad*, generating the question of apparent three-quarters liability that the Gemara resolves later through two approaches, attributed to Abaye and Rava.
- Shmuel attributes the Mishnah to Sumchus that ממון המוטל בספק חולקין, with the implicit condition that the ספק is קיים בלי טענותיהם, i.e., there is no דררא דממונא. The Chachamim state zeh *klal gadol ba-din*, המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה, and the Mishnah’s claimant fails for the *vlad* because the owner of the *shor* retains a *chazakat mara kama*. The Gemara defines “zeh *klal gadol ba-din*” either to teach that המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה overrides ברי ושמא ברי עדיף or to teach that it overrides rov in ממונות.
- Rav rules that a buyer who found the ox to be a *nagchan* may claim *mekach ta'ut* because rov buyers acquire oxen for *charishah*, and the sale fails for that standard purpose. Tosafot Rosh, as quoted in Shita Mekubetzes, asks why not join a מיעוט of buyers who purchase for *shechita* to the seller’s monetary *chazaka* as סמוך מיעוטא לחזקה, and answers that a fluid *chazaka* in possession cannot combine against a rov. Shmuel rules that the seller can say לשחיטה מכרתיו לך and retain the money because המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה applies in דיני ממונות and, unlike באיסורא where *azlinan batar ruba*, in ממונא לא אזלינן בתר רובא, so rov does not extract money. The Gemara removes potential clarifications by profession and price, positing a buyer who trades in both fields and a market where meat and plow oxen fetch the same price, and confines the dispute to a case where the seller can refund; the result rules *halacha k'Shmuel be-dinei*, establishing המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה over rov.
- A baraita restates the pregnant-cow case and assigns *revi'a nezek* for the *vlad* per Sumchus because ממון המוטל בספק חולקין, while the Chachamim exempt the *vlad* entirely based on המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה.
- Rav Shmuel bar Nachmani cites מי בעל דברים יגש אליהם as the source for placing the evidentiary burden on the claimant, reading יגש as presenting proof. Rav Ashi asserts that המוציא מחברו עליו הראיה is סברה, and he applies the pasuk instead to Rav Nachman in the name of Rabba bar Avuha that beit din addresses the *tove'a* first—מי בעל דברים יגש אליהם—extracts accordingly, and only then hears the *nitba’s* counterclaims. The Neharde’ei qualify that beit din sometimes attends first to the *nitba* when דקא זילי נכסיה, to prevent losses from devaluation or missed opportunities.
- Abaye re-reads the Mishnah to avoid a three-quarters payment by treating its “*chatzi nezek*” as one quarter of the *nezek* and its “*revi'a nezek*” as one eighth, reflecting a halving of the already halved entitlement under ספק. Abaye states that if the *parah* and *vlad* belong to one owner, the *nizak* compels a full *chatzi nezek* on a ממה נפשך, but the Mishnah’s case is where the *parah* and *vlad* have different owners, yielding fifty from the *parah’s* owner and twenty-five from the *vlad’s* owner on a two-hundred loss. Abaye further conditions that if the *nizak* first sued the *ba’al parah*, he can demand the entire *chatzi nezek* absent the *ba’al parah’s* proof of a partner, but if he first sued the *ba’al vlad*, he revealed his own stance that there is a partner, limiting his recovery from the *ba’al parah* to a quarter and sending him to the *ba’al vlad* for the balance. A variant holds that even when he first sued the *ba’al parah*, the *ba’al parah* can assert partnership and, coupled with his monetary *chazaka* and a *chazaka* of מעוברת, even Sumchus concedes המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה to limit the claimant to a quarter from the *parah* and an eighth from the *vlad*.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions