כ"ג סיון תשעו“  Wednesday, June 29 2016

בבא קמא כ“ט OVERVIEW of the Daf Distinctive INSIGHT 1) Defining intent (cont.) It is probably R’ Eliezer... תסתיים דרבי אליעזר הוא דאמר חייב Abaye successfully challenges Rabbah’s explanation and offers his own understanding of the dispute between he Gemara reports a dispute between R’ Yochanan Tanna Kamma and R’ Yehudah. T and R’ Eliezer regarding the law of a person who disowns Abaye suggests that the is proof to his under- an obstacle or item of danger after having placed it in the standing of the dispute. public domain. One Amora says that a person is still liable Abaye’s understanding of the Mishnah is challenged. in such a case, while the other says that a person is no long- R’ Acha defends Abaye’s explanations. er liable after he declares the object ownerless. Although R’ Acha’s explanation is challenged and an alternative the Gemara does not know which Amora espouses each explanation is offered. opinion, the Gemara says that “’we can most probably con- The use of the term intent in the context of someone that it is R’ Eliezer who holds that one is ” תסתיים clude who declares a hazard ownerless is explained. The reason for this presumption is that R’ Eliezer, in . חייב R’ Elazar offers an explanation of the dispute between in the public בור the name of R’ Yishmael, says that a R’ Meir and Chachamim. domain is not owned by the person, but the one who dug it R’ Elazar’s explanation is clarified. is nevertheless liable for any damage it causes. R’ Yochanan offers an explanation of the dispute be- Tosafos ( Katan 3b) states that the Gemara will it is— תסתיים “ tween R’ Meir and Chachamim. not use the tentative experession of R’ Yochanan’s explanation is clarified. probably” if the indication to arrive at a conclusion is deci- explains that a conclusive proof (2:1) יבין שמועה sive. Sefer 2) Declaring a hazard ownerless is where the Amora is directly quoted with the opinion The Gemara reports that R’ Yochanan and R’ Elazar which is being cited. However, in our Gemara where R’ disagree whether one is liable for hazards that one de- Eliezer clearly states that one is liable even when the source clared ownerless. of damage is no longer owned by him, he is quoting R’ It is suggested that the dispute is the same as the dis- Yishmael. Here, it is only probable that R’ Eliezer agrees pute between R’ Meir and Rabanan. with the statement which he quotes in the name of R’ Yish- The parallel between these two disputes is rejected. mael. Yet, because he is quoting someone else, there is a It is demonstrated that R’ Elazar is the one who main- remote possibility that he does not agree with R’ Yishmael. explains that if ( ”ד ה בור ,tains that one is liable for hazards that one declared owner- Rashi in (6b less. someone digs a pit in the middle of the street, he is liable This assertion is unsuccessfully challenged from anoth- for any it may cause, although the pit certainly er ruling of R’ Elazar. does not belong to him. Even though he dug the pit, it does Ravina offers a parable for R’ Ada bar Ahavah’s answer not become his property. The Torah does refer to the one the owner of the pit,” but this is — בעל הבור “ to the challenge regarding R’ Elazar’s position. who dug it as This parable is rejected and R’ Ashi offers another par- only in reference to his being responsible for the conse- able. quences of his act, and not in terms of his actual owner- This parable is unsuccessfully challenged. ship. The conclusion that according to R’ Yochanan one is The Gemara mentions that the pit is not in his proper- exempt from liability if he declares hazards ownerless is ty, but the Torah holds him responsible as if it were his unsuccessfully challenged. property. Chasam Sofer (ibid.) notes that in fact, if the pit The Gemara on its second attempt demonstrates that would be in his property, the digger would be exempt, as he R’ Yochanan subscribes to the position that one is liable could tell the victim, “What are you doing in my property?” for a hazard even if he declared it ownerless. Toras Chaim explains that a pit in the public domain This means that according to R’ Elazar one is exempt becomes the responsibility of the one who dug it. Similarly, on Pesach (after six hours erev Pesach) is completely חמץ and the Gemara begins to formulate a challenge to that position.  ownerless, but the Torah associates it with its previous own- er just for liability.  בבא קמא כ“ט—Number 1428 HALACHAH Highlight REVIEW and Remember How deep should fingernails be buried? 1. According to Abaye what are the two points of dispute ?between Tanna Kamma and R’ Yehudah המצניע את הקוץ ואת הזכוכית One who hides a thorn or piece of glass ______2. What intent makes a person liable for hazards that a T eshuvas Mareh Yechezkel 1 was asked for his opinion person declared ownerless? about the following interesting question. A person cut his fin- ______gernails on Erev Shabbos and put them into his pocket so that 3. What is the point of dispute between R’ Yochanan and he could burn them before Shabbos. He forgot to burn them R’ Elazar? and on Shabbos while taking a stroll in a garden he realized ______that they were still in his pocket. At that moment he was un- 4. What is the significance of the Mishnah’s use of the ? הפף certain whether he should turn his pocket inside out to get the term fingernails out of his pocket to prevent any further carrying of ______the fingernails or perhaps he should not throw them onto the ground since the Gemara Moed Katan (18a) states that one Teshuvas Daas Moshe 2 disagrees with the assertion that who throws his fingernails where others will walk is catego- fingernails should be buried at a particular depth. Rashi rized as someone who is wicked. After discussing how deep ( 17a) explains that one who burns his fingernails is fingernails should be buried to prevent any harm he wrote that called righteous because fingernails that are buried rather than the question is inconsequential since one is not permitted to burned can become exposed. This concern indicates that they dig a hole in the ground on Shabbos. He therefore advised are not buried at any particular depth. Therefore, he rules that that the person should walk back to his house with the finger- if it is possible for him to shake the fingernails out of his pock- so that no (מקום מוצנע) nails still in his pocket and dispose of them there. The ra- et to a place where people do not walk tionale is that transporting items on our streets is only a Rab- one will be harmed, that is preferable. If there is no such place binic transgression and it is done in a passive form (since the it is permitted to carry them home to dispose of them there so fingernails are already at rest in his pocket). If he was to dis- as not to dump them in the street where others could be pose of the fingernails in the garden he would actively violate a harmed by them.  .1 “שו ת מראה יחזקאל סי “כ‘ ו-ה -Rabbinic prohibition and thus it is better to violate the Rab .2 “שו ת דעת משה סי ח‘ ‘  .binic prohibition passively rather than actively

lows that a question in learning is a tre- fetz Chaim’s room they were surprised to STORIES Off the Daf mendous opportunity for spiritual hear him learning Bava Kama 29 with growth. Since such questions often dis- his son-in-law. The two waited with bated A stubborn question turbed Rav Naftali’s sleep and peace of breath as the gadol explained the sugya, mind, he immediately went to the home and he then turned to the exact Tosafos פליגי בשעצ נפילה בנתקל פטור of Rav Betzalel Zeitchik, zt”l, the Rav of that was troubling them. The two were D uring World War I, Yeshivas Ra- the city. He figured that perhaps between astounded when the Chofetz Chaim not din was forced to wander from Radin the two of them some kind of satisfacto- only mentioned Rav Naftali’s question in until they finally settled in the city of ry answer would come to light. the relevant place, but immediately re- Smilovitz in Russia. Rav Naftali Tropp, But after a long stroll throughout the vealed that he had long ago answered zt’l, also traveled with the yeshiva to its city together it was clear that the ques- this question based on a basic principle new location. tion seemed ironclad and that they were expounded in Tosafos in Keraisos. Once, when Rav Naftali was learning no closer to solving it. Quite suddenly, The moment he heard this, Rav on Bava Kama they realized that their aimless wander- Naftali could not contain himself. He נתקל פושע the sugya of 29, he asked a very strong question on ing had brought them to the house immediately entered the room and cried, Tosafos. Like all the great Litvisher where the Chofetz Chaim zt”l, was stay- “Ah! Such lofty genius! Such holiness! roshei yeshiva, learning for him was not ing. Understandably, they decided to ask Only an angel on high can come to such merely an intellectual exercise; it was the him. an exalted level!” 1  .1 חידושי הגרנ“ ט השלם main path to connect to Hashem. It fol- As they prepared to enter the Cho- 23-24

Daf Digest is published by the Chicago Center for Torah and Chesed, under the leadership of HaRav Yehoshua Eichenstein, shlit”a HaRav Pinchas Eichenstein, Nasi; HoRav Zalmen L. Eichenstein, Rov ;Rabbi Tzvi Bider, Executive Director, edited by Rabbi Ben-Zion Rand. Daf Yomi Digest has been made possible through the generosity of Mr. & Mrs. Dennis Ruben.