Shiur 2007 B”SD

BABA KAMA
Spring Shiur 2007
Chazara Notes

Gemarah- Bikee’us: GF”T Baba Kamma

1. Ulah asks from where do we know that yei’ush is not koneh? We learn from the
mussar given in seifer Malachi: “V’heiveisem gazul v’es hapeesei’ach”- they gave
inferior animals as karbanos, the mussar was how can you give such animals as
karbanos, i.e. stolen and lame animals. Peesei’ach means a lame animal-one that
can’t walk. So the drasha is just like a lame animal will never be fixed, i.e. will
never walk again, so too a stolen animal will always remain a stolen animal even
after yei’ush.
2. Rav Nachman says on the pasuk with the words “tavach” “u’machar” that one is
chaiyiv daled’v’hei if he slaughters or sells a stolen animal-since the pasuk says
straight up if one slaughters or sells he’s chaiyiv d”h, it means he’s chaiyiv in all
cases, even before yei’ush. Rav Sheishes says since the words tavach u’machar
are near each other we say just like one is chaiyiv d”h by slaughtering only once
it’s ahanu ma’asav-meaning the ganav has ripped away the ownership of the
original owner through being koneh through the shinui of slaughtering, (meaning a
chiyuv of d”h can only set in once the ganav has ripped away ownership from the
ba’al) so too by selling, the sale, to make him chaiyiv d”h can only be after yei’ush
because yei’ush and the shinui rishus of selling-together, make the ganav koneh
and therefore rip away the ownership from the original owner. But before yei’ush,
if a sale was made on the stolen animal the ganav is not chaiyiv d”h because he did
not rip away ownership from the original owner. (It’s important to realize that Rav
Sheishes does not hold that ye’ush alone is koneh, it’s the yeush and the shinui
rishus together that makes the ganav koneh and chaiyv d”h.) Rav says one is only
chaiyiv before yei’ush because once yei’ush occurs the ganav is koneh and thus
would be selling his own animal.
3. Our mishnah deals with the following case: A ganav steals an animal, then he is
makdish it to the Beis Hamikdash, then he slaughters the animal-the mishnah says
the halacha is he’s chaiyv keifel but not d”h. He’s chaiyiv keifel for the original
g’neivah that he did and he’s patur from d”h because he was already makdish the
animal. (d”h is a doubling of keifel, we know that keifel is only paid to people
because the pasuk by keifel says “rei’eihu,” since keifel is not paid to the Beis
Hamikdash d”h isn’t either) Bottom line: By bringing a case of hekdesh, the
mishah is presenting a case where one is patur from d”h. If the hekdesh aspect of
the mishnah is coming to create an exemption from d”h there had to have been an
initial cheeyuv of d”h present in order for the case of hekdesh to serve a purpose, it
has to undo something, i.e. a chiyuv of d”h. The only din that creates a possibility
of d”h is when eidim testify that he stole and the beis din say “chaiyiv atah litein
lo-” because this din just establishes that he stole and is chaiyv keifel, but the case
is not closed, he could still be chiyuv d”h if he proceeds to slaughter the animal.
But the din in the mishnah could not have been “tzei tein lo” because that means
the eidim are saying he stole and the beis din says you must pay him keifel-the case
is closed and if he would shecht the animal he would be patur. So we see from this

1
Shiur 2007 B”SD

BABA KAMA
that there is no potential for d”h and therefore “chaiyiv atah litein lo” must have
been the sentence of the beis din.
4. The same mishnah by question #3 applies here also. The mishah said after the
stolen animal is made hekdesh the ganav is chaiyiv keifel for the original gineivah.
Reish lakish says that the ba’al was the one to be makdish the animal. However,
this is a problematic shittah because if the ba’al was the one to be makdish it would
be similar to a case of chazra keren l’ba’alim where the ganav would be patur from
keren by returning the item he stole. By saying that the ba’al is the one being
makdish the animal the act of being makdish shows a connection to the ownership
and is tantamount to the ganav giving back the item. This would make the ganav
patur from keifel because it would be similar to an example of chazra keren
l’ba’alim, yet the mishnah says the ganav is chaiyiv keifel so it’s impossible to
suggest that the ba’al was makdish and Reish Lakish would be wrong.
5. Kerem r’vai are fruits in their 4th year that may only be eaten in Yirushalaiyim.
The method to alert which fruits are kerem r’vai was to place clumps of dirt around
it. The symbolism is that just like clumps of dirt require extra work and one can’t
get immediate hana’ah from them so too one must wait until the 4th yr to get
hana’ah from kerem r’vai in Yirushalaiyim. Orlah means fruits within the first 3
years of their growth may not be eaten. Fruits of orlah were alerted with shards of
pottery placed around it. The symbolism is just like clay never offers hana’ah so
too by orlah we never get hana’ah. They would mark off k’varos with limestone
to prevent kohanim from touching the graves because limestone resembles bones
and that would notify a nearby gravesite.
6. The Tznu’im were pious men who had fields with kerem r’vai in them. They were
concerned that thieves would steal fruits including the kerem r’vai but they would
not realize they took kerem r’vai. Therefore, the Tznu’im feared maybe the thieves
would simply eat kerem r’vai outside of Yirushalaiyim because they didn’t realize
the fruits they stole were kerem r’vai. So the Tznu’im wanted to remove the kerem
r’vai status from the fruits to prevent this aveira. So even though the fruits were
not in their possession they were still able to manipulate the status of the fruits i.e.
take off their kidushah thereby the thieves would just be eating regular fruits. They
transferred the holiness of the fruits to coins that the Tznu’im planned to spend in
Yirushalaiyim. R’ Shimon ben Gamliel said the Tznu’im only removed the
kidushah of the fruits during the 7th yr of the shmittah cycle when the fruits were
already made hefker by the rule of shmittah. Because the fruits were hefker,
people had the right to take the fruits anyway, so we want to protect people who do
things in a mutar manner so that’s the year the kidushah was lifted. But during the
non-shmittah yr when the fruits were not hefker and the people are coming in an
asur manner we don’t look to prevent aveira and we apply the concept of
ha’aleetei’oo l’rasha v’yamus-just let the rasha eat the fruits and die.
7. The halacha of leket is that if the owner of a field is harvesting and he drops 2
bundles of fruit those bundles go to ani’im. Obviously, if the farmer drops 3
bundles the ani’im may only take 2. However, since the ani’im were uneducated
about this halacha and they took all 3 bundles. Rebbi Dosa says at night when the
owner notices that 3 were taken he proclaims whatever was taken during the day
the day is considered hefker. He does this to lift the aveira from these ani’im. R’

2
Shiur 2007 B”SD

BABA KAMA
Yehuda employs breira and says that in the morning the owners should make the
fruits hefker because potentially they might be taken through theft by the poor so
he could make it hefker to prevent aveira, meaning whatever the thieves take is
considered hefker right now if they are taken in the future.
8. If one buys wine from Kutim he must separate truma and maisros before drinking
it. One is not allowed to separate truma and maisros on Shabbos. Let’s say that
one buys the wine close to Shabbos on Friday afternoon and he doesn’t have time
to separate the wine physically. Therefore, he says a portion of this wine will be
set aside to be given as truma and ma’aseir. i.e. it will not be consumed so that
after Shabbos he can physically separate it. He also says he will separate ma’aseir
sheini now by transferring the kidushah of the wine onto coins which he actually
had time to do before Shabbos began. Rebbi Meir says one may drink this wine.
But how can R”M say this? We know that one is not allowed to drink wine that
hasn’t had truma and maisros taken from it yet and in this case it wasn’t separated,
rather, it was merely designated to be separated and l’maiseh it was still in the
bottle, shouldn’t that make the wine asur to drink? The answer is that R”M
employs breira (mentally taking truma and maisros, saying I will take it off but I’m
really doing it later on). (meaning he establishes that an object is declared to be
changed at a future time-after Shabbos, and retroactively it is also changed right
now-Friday.) Meaning, yes it is correct to say that it is asur to drink the wine,
however, the declaration that truma will be taken off later makes it (retroactively)
as if it was separated right now. R’ Yehuda does not hold that breira works
therefore he holds we may not drink the wine.
9. R’ Yochanan holds that a person may not be makdish something that is not in his
rishus, or something that he does not own. R”Y also holds the halacha always
follows a stam mishnah. Yet the stam mishnah of Tznu’im says that one can make
kerem r’vai into chulin even though the fruits are not in his possession. This is a
kasha on R”Y. The Gm’ suggests-why not change the stam mishnah to say that the
Tznu’im made the kerem r’vai into chulin while it was still in their rishus and thus
not making it a kasha on R”Y any more. The Gm’ rejects this by saying, we can’t
just change the stam mishnah, because “Tznu’im v’R’ Dosa amru davar echad”
that the stam holds like R’ Dosa, and R’ Dosa (see question 7) holds that the ba’al
makes the fruits hefker only once it is out of his rishus. Thus the Tznu’im have to
be like R’ Dosa that they change the status while it was not in their rishus.
10. The Gm’ says that harsha’ah is an instance of three people A, B and C. C has
A’s object, and A would like B to get the object from C. In order for B to go to C
on A’s behalf, A needs to place ownership of the object to B. R’ Ashi says A
can’t write ownership to B because the sought after object is not in A’s
possession to give over to B and because we poskin like R’ Yochanan who says
that to manipulate the status of an item you must have it your rishus and be the
owner of it; here we see that it is not in A’s rishus so B can’t go on A’s behalf.
Another reason A can’t write B harsha’ah because the case was that last week A
took C to court, and prosecuted that C had his object, yet C denied ever having it.
So now for A to send B to go get it from C is a dishonest act by A and thus a
harsha’a may not be written.
11. The Gm’ says that the parameters of a harsha’ah must specify that B is fully

3
Shiur 2007 B”SD

BABA KAMA
entitled from A to own/partake in the money or object from C, because if he
wasn’t entitled, C could say to him I have no reason to give to you anything “who
are you?” Lav ba’al divarim didi at, you are not my claimant. Abayey says if A
tells B in the harsha’a that B is entitled to own half, a third, or a fourth of the
object from C, the harsha’a it is still good even though B is not entitled to the
entire package. R’ Ashi says, since A tells B that the court expenses that are
brought about from you going to court against C, will be paid by A, this
commitment by A to pay for B’s expenses makes B A’s shleeyach. Some say
that this commitment by A actually makes B a full partner in the matter. Thus, if
you hold that B is a partner, then B is only entitled to get half of the items and
split it with A. But if you say that B is a shaliyach then he can keep it all because
of the concept “shlucho shel adam k’moso.”
12. A treifa is an animal that is found to have an internal organ deficiency that would
have caused an inevitable death. If one shechts an animal and it turns out that it
is a triefa then it’s not allowed to be eaten. You might have thought that if a
ganav steals an animal, shechts it, and it is found to be a triefa, since the animal is
not fit for eating the ganav should not be chayiv d”h. Never the less the Taana
Kamma holds in the mishnah on daf ai’yan: Chayav d”h. R’ Shimon says no
since he is not fit for eating he is not chayav d”h. The main reason for the Tanna
Kamma is, yes, the food is not fit for consumption but the shcitah has
accomplished something, namely, once the animal has been shechted it can’t be
considered a niveilah- i.e. an animal that’s not fit for consumption because it
drops dead, now that it’s been shechted it can’t drop dead and the ganav has
saved the animal from falling under an additional assur category of niveilah. By
preventing it from being a niveilah the shcitah has accomplished something.
If one shechts an animal in the Beis Hamikdash that was never made hekdesh i.e.
it’s chulin, that animal is asur bihana’ah. So you might think that if the ganav
steals a chulin animal and shechts it in the Beis Hamikdash-since he can’t get
hana’ah you might have thought he isn’t chayav d”h. Nevertheless the Tanna
Kamma says chayiv d”h. R’ Shimon says no, since it is not fit for eating he is not
chayav d”h because the shcitah to make someone chaiyiv d”h must be a shcitah
that allows consumption.
13. Davar v’loh chatzi davar, we need a davar, a complete matter and we don’t
accept a chatzi davar, meaning we only accept complete eidus, R’ Akiva holds by
this halacha in most cases. CASE # 1: 2 eidim see Reuven steal an animal, and 2
other eidim see him shecht the animal. Even though, it was never a complete
eidus that witnessed an act that makes him chayiv d”h, we still combine the 2
groups that make him chayiv d”h collectively. CASE # 2: Chezkas Gimmel
Shanim: A finds B in A’s land. A says to B what are you doing in my land? B
says I bought it from you three years ago. A says show me a shtar. B says I
don’t have a shtar but I have 3 sets of eidim for the three years that I have been
here for. Thus it proves that I bought it from you 3 years ago. The three year
eidus is a rai’ya that there was an agreement that B bought the land. R’ Akiva
says that this is not a rai’ya because each year is a chatzi davar, i.e. we need to
have one set of eidim who have seen 3 years themselves. CASE #3: 2 eidim see
a marriage another two eidim see the same woman from the marriage having

4
Shiur 2007 B”SD

BABA KAMA
relations with a different man. Can we combine the two sets of eidim and have
her be considered an adulteress? Rabbi Akiva says we can combine them
because the two sets are complete. How? Because the first set are complete on
their own and the second set just need to combine with the first set and they will
be able considered viable eidim therefore it’s good enough to combine the 2 and
she is an adulteress. CASE#4: To be considered a gidolah a girl needs two
hairs. One set of eidim say they saw a hair on her back and another two eidim
say they saw a hair on her front. The Rabbanan say this is considered a chatzi
davar and the eidus may not be combined because each set are just proving,
themselves, that she is a kitanah.

Mifarshim, Baba Kamma, Perek Merubah

1. The Gm’ says Ulah brings a pasuk to prove that yei’ush is not koneh (see
question 1 of GF”T). In maseches Gittin regarding a stolen animal that is
given as a korban Ulah says the animal does not fulfill atonement for the giver
even if the owner of the animal already had yei’ush because yei’ush is not
koneh. Thus we have seen two places where Ulah holds yei’ush is not koneh.
However R’ Tam proves an incosistancy within Ulah by citing a Gm’ (Baba
Kamma kuf yud daled) where Ulah says yei’ush is koneh. R’ Tam answers
that really Ulah holds that yei’ush is koneh in all cases. The reason why the
korban (stolen) was not considered a korban was because of mitzvah haba’ah
biaveira. The mitzvah of korban came about through theft. The R”i holds
that really Ulah holds yei’ush is not koneh. The R”i says that by a korban
the stolen animal may be given if you say the ganav is koneh because it is not
considered to be a mitzvah haba’ah biaveira, because the object itself changed
from stolen to not stolen. But because yei’ush is not koneh it remains a stolen
animal therefore it can’t be michapeir for the person. The Gm’ in Succah
says that if one steals a lulav and the ba’al has yei’ush the lulav may not be
used. But the Gm’ says one can’t use it because of mitzvah haba’ah biaveira,
like R’ Tam. The Reshimos Shiurim defends the R”I in light of this Gm’
saying that once one is koneh a stolen object through yei’ush the status
changes from an aveira object to a regular object and even though it came
about through an aveira it may be used. (this answer is still not entirely clear)
2. The Gm’ Yirushalmi in Shabbos discusses tearing kri’ah on Shabbos, and
eating stolen matzah on Pesach. The Gm’ says if one tears kri’ah on Shabbos
he has fulfilled ripping his clothing for a recently deceased relative. But if
one eats stolen matzah he has not fulfilled the mitzvah of matzah. Why is
there a difference in the two cases? One p’shat is that the stolen matzah is a
cheftzah shel aveira but by kri’ah the beged itself is not bad it’s just that he
decided to tear it on Shabbos, so the act is asur but he has fulfilled kri’ah. The
Korban Eidah says by stolen matzah the only reason why the person has the
matzah is solely because of aveira so one is not yotzei, but by kri’ah one is
yotzei because the kri’ah could have been done at another time it’s just that he

5
Shiur 2007 B”SD

BABA KAMA
happened to do it on Shabbos.
3. There is a machlokes in Succah between R’ Eliezer and the Chachamim. If
someone throws a person out of his succah is he yotzei the mitzvah of
yeshivas succah by subsequently sitting in that succah, because we know from
the pasuk “licha” one must sit in his own succah? R’E says one is not yotzei
and the Chachamim say he’s yotzei. Regarding this machlokes, do we hold
karka nigzeles or karka eino nigzeles? Meaning, is it possible to actually steal
land? So, anything that is attached to the ground is considered karka-ground.
If one holds karka nigzeles that means stealing a succah, which is attached to
the ground, and therefore considered ground, is as if it was stolen. We hold
that karka is not nigzeles, thus the succah that is attached to the land can be
borrowed only and never achieve the status of “stolen.” But the question is
how can the Chachamim say one who throws his friend out of his succah is
yotzei succah, it’s a mitzvah haba’ah biaveira? The Ritva says in order for
something to be labeled as mitzvah haba’ah biaveira, the item (the cheifetz)
being used for the mitzvah had to have come about with an aveira. The reason
why the Chachamim say that one is yotzei in this case is because they hold
karka eino nigzeles. Thus if succah (which is attached to the land) is not
considered stolen because we hold karka eino nigzeles, it is not a cheftza shel
aveira and thus one can be yotzei with it.
4. The Gm’ in Succah on 9A asks why do we need a pasuk to tell us that one has
to sit in his own succah to be yotzei? We really don’t need the pasuk because
we already know that if he is not sitting in his own succah i.e. he is sitting in
someone else’s succah he wouldn’t be yotzei because of mitzvah haba’ah
biaveira. Tosfos answers, the reason why we have the pasuk to tell us you
must sit in your own succah is because that makes it a chiyuv m’d’oraisa to sit
in your own succah and the concept of mitzvah haba’ah biaveira is only
d’rabanan, therefore we prefer to use the d’oraisa pasuk of “licha” to show us
that succah can’t be stolen and must be yours instead of a concept
m’d’rabanan. The Minchas Chinuch says the reason why we have a special
pasuk from the torah of “licha” to tell us that the succah needs to be yours is
in order to create an issur of one who decides to eat in a stolen succah. We
basically want to punish those who steal and don’t eat in their own succah on
a d’oraisa level. Mitzvah haba’ah biaveira means that the mitzvah came about
through an aveira, this merely means the person is not yotzei. For example, if
one steals a pair of tzitzis and wears them he is not yotzei the mitzvah of
tzitzis but he doesn’t get an aveira while wearing these tzitzis. But, by succah
if one eats in a stolen succah not only is he not yotzei the mitzvah but by
having a pasuk that says he must have his own succah he is going against it
and therefore oveir an issur too. If it was just a mitzvah haba’ah biaveira then
he just wouldn’t be getting the mitzvah. L’maskanah, according to the
Minchas Chinuch, mitzvah haba’ah biaveira means that the cheifetz, the
object itself is not tainted, it’s just that the gavra, the person, is not yotzei
because he’s done an aveira however, the succah is still a good succah. The
Sha’ar Yosheir, R’ Shimon Shkup, says if a succah is stolen a person is not
yotzei and the succah itself has become a cheftza shel aveira and is invalid.

6
Shiur 2007 B”SD

BABA KAMA
5. The pasuk in parshas Ki Seitzei says “Nadva ahseir dibarta b’feecha.” The
Gm’ in Rosh Hashana says “b’feecha-zu tzedakah” meaning, the word
b’feecha in the above pasuk refers to saying a pledge for tzedakah i.e. a person
must give tzedakah if he pledges to give. The question is when the Gm’ says
this does it mean that when one pledges he must give, or is that as soon as he
pledges to give it’s considered as if he has given the tzedakah and it’s already
in the ani’im’s hands? We say elsewhere that if one pledges to make
something hekdesh, as soon as he pledges to do so, the item (even before
bringing it to the beis hamikdash) is considered hekdesh. So too maybe by
tzedakah we should say the same thing, that a pledge to give tzedakah is like
the ani is already koneh. Gm’ Baba Kamma says a victim who had shofar
blown into his ear came to R’Yosef and R’ Yosef said the aggressor has to
pay a medinah (a very small amount.) The victim says such a small amount I
don’t want-please give it to tzedakah. Later the victim changes his mind and
says he wants the medinah. R’Yosef said you can’t have it because the ani’im
were koneh it already when you said you would give it to tzedakah. Ay, there
were no ani’im present at that time!? R’Y says he was considered the ani, so
he was koneh it for them. The question is, did R”Y say the ani’im were
already koneh because of b’feecha zu tzedakah or because of an occurrence of
ma’amad shlashtan? So everyone agrees it was a ma’amad shlashtan. The
Eekah Ma’an in the Dapei HaRif says because we see the Gm’ uses ma’amad
shlashtan as the reason for R’Y keeping it, we see that b’feecha zu tzedakah
does not mean that the ani is koneh because the Gm’ could’ve easily used that
reasoning of b’feecha zu tzedakah and it didn’t. The Rif responds the Eekah
Ma’an and says this Gm’ does not disprove that b’feecha zu tzedakah is
koneh, because a pledge to give tzedakah can only be valid if the money is in
one’s hand, (the victim’s rishus) but here the victim never had the money
because he refused to take it, therefore the fact that the Gm’ didn’t use the
answer of b’feecha zu tzedakah doesn’t disprove it, it had to use ma’amad
shlashtan, it had no choice.
6. The Ba’al Hami’or says what does the Rif mean it was not in the victim’s
rishus and therefore we couldn’t have used b’feecha zu tzedakah!? I define
something being in a person's rishus as accessibility. The victim has
accessibility because the offender is obligated to pay him. Thus since the Gm’
didn’t use bifeecha zu tzedakah and we see now it could’ve it shows that
b’feecha zu tzedakah is not koneh. The Ramban refutes the Ba’al Hami’or.
He says this Gm,’ by using ma’amad shlashtan does not disprove bifeecha zu
tzedakah because bifeecha zu tzedakah could not be used because of the same
reason as the Rif (the money was not in his hands) something is considered to
be in one’s hands only when one is koneh it.
7. The first source of arvus is in parshas Bichukosai. The pasuk says that when
the enemy chases Binei Yisrael all of the people will tumble over their
brothers from all the chaotic running from the enemy. The medrash says that
the pasuk doesn’t mean literally fall over each other but rather a friend will
fall from his other friend if one does not help his fellow while he is sinning.
Meaning it will be considered a stumbling moment for the friend who does

7
Shiur 2007 B”SD

BABA KAMA
not help his sinner friend because he’s missed the opportunity for the mitzvah
of preventing sin. The Gm’ in Sanhedrin says the same thing as this
medrash. Another source of arvus is in parshas Nitzavim. The pasuk says
“hanistaros l’Hashem Elokeinu V’haniglos lanu u’lvaneinu ad olam”-which
means the hidden sins are for Hashem to worry about but the revealed sins are
everybody’s responsibility to prevent. Rebbi Nechemiah says is Gm’
Sanhedrin that we are responsible from preventing open sins of our brothers
only once we crossed the Yardein. The Yirushalmi in Sotah says the bas kol
said that even though there is a shitah that says that everyone is responsible
for everyone’s private aveiros we don’t hold like that.
8. The Gm’ says that the Tznu’im would place signs in front of the kerem r’vai
fruits as a warning not to eat these fruits outside of Yirushalaiyim. This was
only done during the shmittah year because in that year all fruits were hefker,
and therefore we are helping the people not sin, who are taking in a mutar
way. However in a non shmittah year anyone who takes is taking in a non
mutar way and are considered sinners, thus the Tznu’im didn’t put up signs
because of the concept of ha’aleetei’yu l’rasha v’yamus (feed the rasha and let
him die). The question is how can we say we don’t help these thieves not sin?
Don’t we have the concept of always helping out our brothers and preventing
them form sin? Rav Yitzchak Elchanan Spector says arvus does not apply
in this case because arvus only applies in the case of a sin that is done openly
i.e. this sin is done secretively the ganavim privately came into the fields and
stole. The Rambam in his peirush on mishnaiyos explains since the person
was already willing to do the aveira of gineiva we don’t have to stop him from
the worse aveira of eating kerem r’vai outside Yirushalaiyim. The Mi’eeri
says that we want to promote t’shuva and the way to promote t’shuva is to
allow a person to hit rock bottom, and that’s why we let him do kerem r’vai.
He has already stolen and thus we let him go further down.
9. Mishna in D’mai says travelers used to go with food and when they came to
an inn they didn’t want to bring the food with them to their room so they
decided to leave it with the innkeeper. There was a fear that perhaps the
innkeeper would eat the food and give back other food thus maybe we should
require the travelers to take maiseir off of food so the innkeeper isn’t over a
d’oraisa of eating food that hasn’t had truma separated. The Tanna Kamma
says travelers have to take maiseir off before giving her the food, and,
additionally, later when she gives back the food, they must take maiser off
again because we’re afraid maybe she’s not careful with ma’aseir. R’ Yosie
says that when you give the food to the innkeeper you don’t have to take
maiseir off because of ha’aleetei’yu l’rasha v’yamus (let her eat and die!)
she’s considered a rasha because she’s stealing. The Rambam says like the
Tanna Kamma in the mishnah that before we give the innkeeper food we have
to take maiseir off beause we want to protect her from sin. The Gm’ in
Chulin in essence explains that the Tanna Kamma says what he says because
the innkeeper was not a rasha, (if she was a rasha then we takah wouldn’t
want to take maiseir off cause of the ha’aleetei’yu concept). How do we
know she wasn’t a rasha? Because she switched the food because she didn’t

8
Shiur 2007 B”SD

BABA KAMA
want the travelers to have rotten food. The mishnah in D’mai discusses that
in Baba Kamma R’ Shimon ben Gamliel says that risha’im don’t need to be
prevented from sinning. I.e. in non shmittah years we don’t have to take the
kidushah off kerem r’vai because we don’t prevent risha’im from sinning.
However he would not agree with R’ Yosie with the case of the innkeeper.
He would say that we should take maiseir off before giving the innkeeper
because we want to keep the rimai (tricker) from sinning (tricker is not as bad
as a rasha). But R Yosie would definitely agree with R Gamliel because if he
says we don’t have to prevent a tricker from sinning (i.e. he says you don’t
have to take off maiseir before giving to the innkeeper) then kal v’chomeir we
don’t have to prevent a rasha from sinning, i.e. the one’s who stole from the
Tznu’im. The Sh”ut Tuv Ta’am V’da’as was posed with the following
question: A sends B to buy him treif meat. B buys it and gives it to a
shaliyach C to give back to A. C decides to eat the meat and will give A
different meat. The question is does the shaliyach have to be warned by B
that he gave him treif meat? We hold like the Tanna Kamma that we warn the
shaliyach. R’ Shlomo Kluger says if we see an inevitable aveira we should
try to stop it but if not then no.
Question #9a. The Gm’ in Avoda Zarah says, we can’t help a nazir do an
aveira in a specific situation: if the nazir is on one side of the river and there is
wine on the other side, one can’t cross the river and get it or take him to the other
side because without you getting involved he would have never been able to get
the wine, this case is called trei ivrei d’naharah. In other words if it is 2
separate sides of the river it is impossible for the nazir to get the wine without
your help. If the wine is on the same side as the nazir then you can help him
because he could have done it himself, this is called chad ivrei d’naharah. The
Gm’ in Shabbos says a case: an ani whose in rishus harabim comes to the door of
a ba’al who is in his own rishus hayachid. The ani wants bread and so he puts his
hand in the ba’al’s home thereby sticking his hand in a rishus hayachid, he then
brings the bread out and is thereby bringing it into rishus harabim from a rishus
hayachid. This is hotza’ah. The ani is chayav but the ba’al is patur. Tosfos in
Shabbos asks, why would the ba’al be patur, aren’t you not supposed to put a
stumbling block in front of someone to do an aveira? So why is he patur?
Because it was a case of chad ivrei d’naarah it was possible for the ani to get
bread elsewhere, thus helping him is fine and it isn’t lifnei eeveir. This is why he
is not chaiyiv. But it is asur m’d’rabanan for what the ba’al did. However Tosfos
holds that helping someone chad ivrei d’naharah, meaning you weren’t the only
vehicle for his aveira but you helped him anyway, is asur m’d’rabban. The
Mordechai says a case discussing a mumar (rebellious person). If the mumar is
on the same side of the river as the treif wine and he would have consumed the
non kosher wine anyway you can give it to him. So we see a machlokes between
Tosfos and the Mordechai. Tosfos holds even though you are not the sole reason
for his aveira by chad ivrei d’naharah it is still asur, whereas the Mordechai says
since he would have done the aveira anyway you can assist him. The Rama
discusses a case where there are many spice sellers of avoda zarah in one location
and Reuven owns a spice store. If Reuven doesn’t sell the spice to a person then

9
Shiur 2007 B”SD

BABA KAMA
the person will just go somewhere else and buy it. The Rama quotes the
Mordechai who says he would have done it anyway so it’s mutar to sell in this
case; and also quotes Tosfos who says the storeowner may not sell. The Shach
(Sifsei Kohein) holds that there is no machlokes between Tosfos and the
Mordechai. Says the Shach, Tosfos talks about a case with a stam regular Jew
and thus he could’ve done teshuva and change his mind. If the ba’al throws the
bread in his face of course he would just sin and carry out to rishus harabim. But
in the case of the Mordechai the person was a mumar and thus he will for sure do
it no matter what therefore he said it was mutar. The Dagul Mervavah questions
the Shach. How can you say Shach, that the Mordechai says that because he is a
mumar he can help him out. He is a Jew, and seemingly he only seems to be a
mumar in this case, you can’t treat him like an absolute sinner and just help him
sin! So we explain that someone doing an aveira b’meizid is considered a mumar,
thus in the case of the Mordechai he is considered a mumar solely because he has
decided to purposefully drink treif wine and he is considered a mumar for every
mitzvah in the Torah. In this case you have no chiyuv to stop him from doing
aveira because he is a full mumar.
In Summary, Seemingly the Mordechai should’ve said you may not help
someone get treif wine, even if he can get it from another place due to the concept
of arvus that we are all required to help prevent aveiros. The Dagul Mervavah
says the reason arvus doesn’t apply is bc he is willingly doing the aveira and is
considered a mumar because meizid=mumar even if only meizid on one thing.
The Avnei Neizer says we know that the concept of arvus only began
once we entered E”Y thus once we entered E”Y we were accountable for each
others’ aveiros. This implies that only those people who live in E”Y can be
included in arvus. Having said that, the pasuk says, that you should not have an
oveid avoda zarah in E”Y because it will bring the klal into sin. We say from
there a mumar can’t live in E”Y. This means arvus doesn’t apply to a mumar, and
that’s why the Mordechai said you can help him even if he can accomplish it
himself anyway.
Rav Moshe Fienstien zt”l was asked the following shailah, is it called
assisting another person in doing aveira (misayei’ah) if you rent out your wedding
hall to a family that will have a simcha with mixed dancing, and it will be an
inevitable aveira. (This answer does not include Rav Moshe’s lamdus)
L’maskanah he says just like in the Gm’ Baba Kamma R”S”Gamliel says we
don’t have to warn the thieves, because they are bimeizid, and are going to do it
anyway i.e. you don’t have to not take the job of preventing the family from
aveira because they are going to do it anyway.
10. The pasuk in Mishpatim says in the 7th year of the shmittah cycle one has to
stop working his fruits and abandon them and the poor people should eat it.
Fruits in the shmita year are hefker. We ask on this pasuk, usually to make
something hefker you have to verbalize that it’s been made hefker. Is this
pasuk implying that Hashem makes it hefker or that we have to do it
ourselves? The Minchas Chinuch says, if you hold that fruits are
automatically hefker from Hashem, so if the owner decides to lock his fruits
with a gate it doesn’t mean that they become non hefker, they are still hefker

10
Shiur 2007 B”SD

BABA KAMA
from Hashem and thus if a ganav jumps the fence then he is not stealing
because the fruits are automatically hefker. But if one holds that making fruits
hefker in the 7th year is completely up to man, then if an owner decides to
close his gate, he himself has chosen not to make it hefker, and therefore if a
ganav jumps the fence and steals the ganav is chaiyiv.
11. The halacha is that maiseir sheini must be eaten in Yirushalaiyim. However
one does not davka have to lug the fruits all the way to Yirushalaiyim, rather
he can exchange the value for the fruit in coins, get the coins, bring them to
Yirushalaiyim and spend them there. However the pasuk in parshas
Bichukosai says “when he redeems his maiseir sheini” besides transferring
the full value of the fruits to the coins he must transfer an extra one fifth. But
if one redeems his friend’s fruits, then he does not pay the extra one fifth. The
mishnah in Ma’eseir Sheini says if a father sends his older son (The
Mileches Shlomo says the son is a halachik gadol, meaning he is no longer
considered to be attached to his father’s home) to redeem his (the father’s)
ma’eseir sheini, the father would not have to add the extra one fifth payment
because this older son is considered a separate entity and the one fifth is only
added if one redeems his own fruits. Tosfos Yom Tov asks, why do we allow
this type of system, to bypass the one fifth payment? He answers because the
pasuk says the word “bracha” so the pashut pshat is that you redeem the
abundance of your fruits that have come to you because of Hashem’s bracha,
but Tosfos Yom Tov says another way to construe the word bracha is that you
can acquire an extra bracha of bypassing a one fifth payment by having
someone else redeem your fruits.
12. There are two contradictory Rambams. One halacha in the Rambam quotes
R’ Yochanan’s halacha that one is only allowed to be makdish something if it
is shelo or birshuso. Yet the Rambam also quotes the Tznu’im that the
kidushah of kerem r’vai, once it was stolen and out of the ba’al’s rishus was
able to be removed. The Rashba says that the Rambam was able to quote
both halachos because he really holds of R’ Yochanan’s halacha that it must
be in your rishus, however, he was able to quote the Tznu’im because that
case was an exception where the fruits were considered mammon gavo’hah,
meaning they totally belong to Hashem, and were never considered shelo,
yours, therefore, the fact that they are not in the possession of the ba’al does
not take away the rights of the ba’al to manipulate the kedusha of the fruits
because it’s always mammon gavo’hah so ownership does not stop abilities to
manipulate because there is never true ownership. The Mi’eeri says the
reason why the Tznu’im were able to remove the kedusha of the fruits is
because in order to add kidushah to fruits one must have them in his rishus but
kedusha may be removed even when the fruits are not in his rishus. Therefore
the concept of Tznu’im does not contradict R’Yochanan because R”Y was
discussing adding kedusha but the Tznu’im were discussing removing
kidushah. The Lechem Mishnah says similar to the Rashba but also adds that
the reason why the Tzn’uim are able to remove the kidushah of the fruits is
because the Chachamim made a takanah that if ani’im accidently take extra
leket we may make the fruits hefker, so too, that takannah extends to ganavim

11
Shiur 2007 B”SD

BABA KAMA
who took kerem revai. Therefore, the Tznu’im and R’”Y are not
contradictory and can both be quoted by the Rambam.
13. The Chachamim say by a case of chezkas gimmel shanim (A finds B in A’s
land. A says to B what are you doing in my land? B says I bought it from
you three years ago. A says show me a shtar. B says I don’t have a shtar but I
have 3 sets of eidim for the three years that I have been here for thus, their
eidus proves that I bought it from you. The three year eidus is a rai’ya that
there was an agreement that B bought the land) that when there are 2 separate
sets of eidim each year for three years they say that this adds up to create a
chazakah to make him own the land. This is not the actual kinyan but rather
just a proof that a kinyan was made. But, by a case of a g’dolah the
Chachamim say the eidim saw one hair on her back and another set says they
saw one on her front, we don’t combine testimonies because it is considered a
chatzi davar. Why do the Chachamim rule differently regarding the case
of land and the hairs? Tosfos answers, that the Chachamim said that eidus
works by the case of land because what the eidim saw and testified about is all
that they could have seen at that moment. But in the case of hairs, the full
eidus is excepted because they could have really seen both hairs at once and
they didn’t, and thus each eid only saw one hair that means she is still a
kitanah. The Rif says, that Chachamim said in the case land was good
because each set of eidim accomplish a complete eidus. How? We thought
you needed 3 years for full eidus? So the Rif says because if in the end there
was no 3 year proof that he lived there then the eidus of the 1 year would be
valid testimony for us to accuse this person for illegally living in this person’s
land. Thus since each year is a good eidus, even though each year’s eidus is
not similar for the end purpose it can still combine the eidus for the end
purpose. The Mi’eeri says the Rif is incorrect. We can’t say that we can
combine the eidim in this matter because each set of eidim is coming to cause
this person to pay for living in that land if the 3 years aren’t proven and that
eidus is supposed to combine that he owns the land in the end!? The R”i
Migash says there is no inconsistency within the rabanan. The simple reason
why they don’t combine the eidus by the hairs is because we are required to
have testimony to have 2 hairs in the same spot adjacent to each other. Here
each eid only testifies about one hair. The Rashba says that the reason there
is no combination of hairs according to the Chachamim is because each set
does not accomplish anything because they are each telling us about 1 hair
and even the youngest of kitanos has 1 hair and thus 1 hair doesn’t mean
anything. In the Shitah Mikubetzes, the Shitah Lo Nodeh L’mi says that
the reason why that the Chachamim say that we can combine eidus by land is
because the 3 years eidus is just a proof that the kinyan was made 3 years ago,
and since it is just a rai’ya it doesn’t need to be a complete matter. But the
eidus by hairs does not combine because the testimonies on the hairs
determines whether or not she is a gidolah and it’s not just a proof that she’s a
gidolah, it’s the actual chalos of her becoming a gidolah, it’s the guf hadavar.
Rav Elchanan Wasserman asks in the Koveitz Shi’urim about a case: we
know that we define night with tzeitz hakochavim. Asks Rav Elchanan, are

12
Shiur 2007 B”SD

BABA KAMA
stars what actually brings the night or does night actually mean night and stars
are just a proof? R’ Elchanan had a case where 3 sets of eidim came saying
each saw one star. If we hold that stars are just a rai’ya for night then we can
combine like the Shitah Lo Nodeh L’mi says. But if we hold that stars are
mamish night, like the s’aros case then you can’t combine like the Shitah Lo
Nodeh L’mi. His proof is that on the first day of creation the Torah says and
it was night and day. We know stars were created on the 4th day. I.e. there
was already an establishment of night thus showing that stars are merely a
rai’ya for night and not mamish night and so the eidim can be combined.
14. Gm’ Sotah discusses 2 steps. Sotah=unfaithful wife. We need 2 steps to
establish a lady as a Sotah. First step – keenoy literally means jealous, but
here the husband suspects his wife for being with another man and then
forbids her from going to hang out with that other man again. The second
step=steera (from the word seiseir=secret) that the woman secludes herself
with the man that her husband forbade her to see. (she is now tested with the
sotah water) Everybody agrees that we need 2 eidim by keenoy, there is
machlokes that we may need 2 eidim for the seclusion. R’ Moshe says it
seems that we can have 2 eidim A and B by keenoy and C and D by stira and
still combine. R’ Moshe says why do Chachamim say that hairs you cant
combine the eidus? Because you need both hairs at the same time in order to
say she is a g’dolah. Here when set A comes on Monday and testify about
one hair, then set B come on Tuesday and testify about a second hair, we cant
assume that the 2 sets count as 2 hairs because who is to say that the hairs that
A saw did not fall out right before B’s testimony. Therefore it’s possible that
B would only be testifying about 1 hair. The Or Sameach says the opposite
of the shittah of the Lo Nodeh L’mi. The Shittah Lo Nodeh L’mi says that the
reason why that the chachamim say that we can combine eidus by land is
because the 3 years eidus is just a proof that the kinyan was made 3 years ago,
and since it is just a rai’ya it doesn’t need to be a complete matter. But the
eidus by hairs does not combine cause the testimonies on the hairs determines
whether or not she is a g’dolah and it cant just be a proof but rather it needs to
be the actual qualifier. The Or Sameach says the opposite, when we are
talking about guf hadavar i.e. in the case of hairs it means that hairs actually
mean she is a g’dolah and without them she is not. By guf hadavar it is a film
of what happened so we can just combine bits of information. One hair from
this set and another from the other set and combine to show a chalos that
determines whether or not she is a g’dolah or not. By a rai’ya the Or Sameach
says you must have full eidus. The question is keenoy and stira, are they a
rai’ya that she is a sotah or a guf hadavar that she is a sotah? So one may
think that it is a rai’ya but we see that it’s really a guf hadavar. We know this
because once she is found to have done keenoy and found to have done steera
she already faces the punishments that a sotah woman has. i.e. she can’t eat
truma if she was married to a kohein. Even if it is not completely known
about the stira of keenoy. So we see it’s a guf hadavar.
15. The halacha is when one gets married he needs 2 eidim. What about a case
where 2 eidim who the giving of a ring and another 2 see the woman take the

13
Shiur 2007 B”SD

BABA KAMA
ring. So the question is can we combine the 2 and say the giving and taking
has been seen? So the Pischei T’shuva says that if there was a wall between
the chasson and kallah with a hole in it we could say like Tosfos who says that
it is good because the eidim saw what the fullest they could see. R’ Shimon
Shkup says that when the eidim create a chalos of kiddushin, meaning
without the eidim there would be no kiddushin because they’re the tool to
reach the status of marriage, you need a full matter-need full eidus.

Halacha: Hamapil, Shabbos, Kiddush, Purim

1. By Birchas Hamapil he question is, is one allowed to speak after they say
hamapil? Gm’ Brachos says, even though we already said krias shima by
ma’ariv one has a mitzvah to say it again by ones bed. The pasuk says
“rigzu vi’al techeta’oo= you should be scared and you wont sin. Imru
bilvavchem=you should say in your heart al mishkavchem=on their beds
(this means saying shima while nearing sleep.) v’domu selah”= and be silent
implying that maybe you should say shima while your about to go to sleep,
and then be quiet. Gm’ Yirushalmi Brachos=R’ Shmuel bar Nachmeini
(machmir) used to watch R’ Yaakov hidden at night, and he saw he was
saying shima multiple times so he could say it right before he went to sleep.
So we see the inyan that you should say shima right before you go to sleep.
Brachos hasmuchos l’chaverta=when there are 2 brachos near each the
first starts with baruch and the second does not. Tosfos Harash=quotes the
Raived saying Elokai Nishama does not begin with a baruch. Meaning that
elokai nishama is samuch lechaverta to hamapil. Thus maybe from here one
should not talk after hamapil in order to keep the connection between elokai
nishama and hamapil. R’ Yaakov Emden (meikil) says if one needed to
speak after he already said hamapil he can speak and repeat hamapil. As
long as while you spoke you didn’t become so involved in the conversation
then there will be hesech hada’as (not in the mode of sleeping anymore.)
The Shlah (machmir) says that hamapil is a bracha on sleep. It is similar to
birchas hane’he’nin=brachos on food. (Meaning you should try to go to
sleep as close to the bracha, if you cant fall asleep fine don’t have to repeat
it, but if talk then that’s not ok according to the Shlah). The Ben Ish Chai
(machmir) said we never used to say hamapil because we feared that we
would inevitably talk before we went to sleep thereby creating a bracha
livatalah. The Chazon Ish (machmir) says if you have to go to bathroom
after hamapil you don’t say asheir yatzar until the morning. The Brisker
Rav (machmir) once couldn’t fall asleep all night because he was distressed
that he spoke after hamapil and thus he stopped saying hamapil all together.
The Kinesses Hagidolah (meikil) says hamapil is not a birchas hane’he’nin,
i.e. that we would have to fall asleep after bracha. Rather hamapil is a
bracha on the overall coming of the time of sleep in the world, thus it is ok
to say hamapil and not fall asleep right away it is a bracha on the zman of
sleep not on sleep itself. The Kol Bo (meikil) says “domu selah” maybe
means not supposed to talk maybe means you are allowed to talk. The
Chayei Adam (meikil) says hamapil is a bracha that is on the general act of

14
Shiur 2007 B”SD

BABA KAMA
going to sleep you don’t really have to go to sleep until afterwards.
Hisorirus T’shuvah (meikil) says you should be able to sleep after hamapil
as long as you are nichnas leeshon (entering the sleep mode) you can speak
afterwards. Halichos Shlomo (meikil) says if one is learning right before
he goes to sleep in the beis medrash you can say hamapil in the beis
medrash.
2. Rebbi in the Gm’ says that we are not bound to follow a gizeirah
m’dirabanan during the time of day of bein hashmashos (between
shkeeyah and tzeis hakochavim). If during bein hashmashos one repaired an
eiruv by going up tree, so since going on a tree on Shabbos is only assur
m’d’rabanan and it was done during bein hashmashos since we are not
bound by d’rabanans during bein hashmashos, the eiruv is valid. The Rosh
says that a g’zeirah d’rabanan that was instituted to prevent one from being
oveir an aveira m’d’oraisa should be kept even during bein hashmashos.
Rashi explains a particular Gm’ that says we can’t separate truma during
bein hashmashos even though separating truma on Shabbos is only assur
mid’rabanan because we are bound by gizeiras during bein hashm. The
Rambam says we can only push aside a g’zeirah d’rabanan if it’s for the
need of performing a mitzvah. So the Rambam argues with Rashi b/c Rashi
holds that we can’t perform a mitzvah if it means pushing aside a g’zeirah
whereas the Rambam holds performance of a mitzvah may push aside a
g’zeirah.
3. Tiltul Muktzeh-moving a muktzeh item on Shabbos. This is an issur
midirabanan- so we are not bound to following it during bein hashm..
Therefore one may remove money from a table during bein hashm. Since
telling a goy to do milachah on Shabbos is only assur midirabanan, during
bein hashm. we may tell a goyto do milachah. Maharshal-one may tell a
goy to light a yaertzeit candle during bein hashm. if the Jew forgot before
bein hashm. Regarding doing a milacha she’eina tzricha l’gufah there’s an
argument if it’s allowed to be done during bein hash.
4. Can we say that one can only do milacha prohibited by the Rabbi’s during
bein hashm. if the individual wasn’t mikabeil Shabbos yet and if he was
already mikabeil Shabbos he can’t do this milacha anymore? The Shulchan
Aruch says if the tzibur already said barchu-no milacha may be done.
However, elsewhere the Shulchan Aruch says you can construct an eiruv
during bein hashm. even after one was mikabeil Shabbos. So the Dagul
M’rvavah resolves the contradiction within the Shulchan Aruch by saying
that if one was mikabeil Shabbos b’zman then it would be assur to do
milachah during bein hashm. But if one was mikabeil Shabbos early then
you can do milacha during bein hashm. But if the whole tzibur is mikabeil
Shabbos early then milacha is prohibited.
5. Maiseh Shabbos=milacha done on Shabbos. The rule is that benefit cannot
be derived from maiseh Shabbos. This is basically a kinas against the one
who performed the milacha because seemingly neither himself or others can
derive benefit from his act. The Gm’ Kisubos brings 3 opinions. R’ Meir
says that if maiseh Shabbos was done accidentally benefit can be derived on

15
Shiur 2007 B”SD

BABA KAMA
Shabbos. If milacha was done on purpose the person who did the act can’t
ever get hana’ah and others can get it after Shabbps. R’ Yehudah said
bishogeig = he himself and others may get benefit after Shabbos and if he
did it purposely he can never derive benefit but others can after Shabbos. R’
Yochanan says if done bishogeig others may eat it after Shabbos but not
him. If done bimeized no one can ever get hana’ah. Shulchan Aruch
poskins like R’ Yehudah. The Gra says like R’ Meir. The Mishnah Brurah
says even if the act that was done bishogeig i.e. he does bishul bishogeig
which is d’oraisa, even so others may derive benefit; Also we follow R Meir
if the act performed was merely a breach of an issur d’rabanan. The
Rambam holds one may not be tovel a utensil on Shabbos because it is half
the amount of fixing it. If a person was tovel on Shabbos a kli on shabbos
we follow R’ Meir.
6. Gm’ in Eiruvin with a din of t’chum of Shabbos. 2 halachos you the person
and your property are not allowed to go out of t’chum. Once you go out of
t’chum you can only walk 4 amos. So what’s the din with when someone
brought your fruits out of t’chum and then brought them back so do we say
that since they were brought out now you can only carry them 4 amos or
not. Gm’ says that the peiros didn’t have say in the matter they are oneis so
they are ok. Why not problem with maiseh Shabbos aren’t you getting
hana’ah from a milacha on Shabbos. Ramban= bottom line is that they are
back to square 1. They were there in the beginning and now they are back
so not really getting any hana’ah. But, if it would be brought to another
place then it would have regular din of ma’aseh Shabbos Because there is
hana’ah. Ritva= has different pshat 1st pshat is that maybe talking about
yom tov and not Shabbos which t’chum is d’rabanan. 2nd pshat is quoting R’
Yona saying that ma’aseh Shabbos is only a physical change like cook
something. If you just transferred something even though there is benefit
there is no real guf hadavar. If there was no eiruv in the community and
they brought wine to the house or they brought there car to the house or food
that is ma’aseh Shabbos according to the Ramban, but not the Ritva.
Rashbah=only if the form changes. If someone brings something chutz
l’tchum= (someone drove from queens to the heights on shabbos and brings
cake can you serve cake on shabbos?) Rambam no! Rabbeinu Yonah ok.
But ? is that lichorah from the poskim they are machmir on t’chumim.
Shulchan Aruch= if they were brought chutz m’tchum bishogeig you can eat
it b’meizid no! If someone carries a key with no eiruv R’ Moshe in Igros
Moshe says that it might be a ? on hana’ah on shabbos. R’ Shomo Zalman
originally thought it was assur then changed mind saying your not getting
hana’ah from guf hadavar. R’ Ovadya Yosef what if you were did boreir
the wrong way on Shabbos? Kulah that ma’aseh Shabbos only said when
goal is through the milacha. By boreir since you could have done it in a
mutar way it’s ok.
7. The Gm’ in P’sachim quotes the pasuk “Zachor es yom HaShabbos
l’kadsho” and says this means one should remember the Shabbos over a cup
of wine. Does this drasha suffice to make kiddush a chiyuv d’oraisa? So,

16
Shiur 2007 B”SD

BABA KAMA
truthfully, everybody holds there is a chiyuv d’oraisa to say kiddush on
Shabbos, however, the Chachamim argue if kiddush on wine is also
midioraisa or merely a d’rabanan. So what difference would it make if wine
is m’d’oraisa? The Gm’ in nazir speaks about a nazir’s vow not to drink
wine. If the wine of kiddush is a chiyuv d’oraisa, his vow not to drink wine
is overridden by the Torah telling him he must drink wine for kiddush.
Additionally, from the fact that he stood at Har Sinai and heard this first, his
subsequent vow can’t override words he heard at Har Sinai. Rashi says
because the nazir is allowed to drink kiddush wine we see that wine on
Kiddush is m’d’oraisa. Tosfos says, no, since we hold kiddush on wine is
m’d’rabanan, the nazir never heard anything about kiddush with wine at Har
Sinai, therefore he may not drink the wine because his vow overrides the
chiyuv d’rabanan. Bottom line is if we say kiddush on wine is d’oraisa the
nazir must drink it (Rashi) and if it’s only M’d’rabanan the nazir may not
drink (Tosfos).
8. Gm’ in Baba Basra says a lug is six beitzim. Kiddush must be made over a
cup of wine that has a rivi’is of a lug. Rivi’is = 1.5 beitzim = rivi’is of lug.
Tzlach/Nodeh B’Yehuda = years ago a lug = 6 eggs but nowadays since
eggs have gotten smaller, so now a lug is 12 eggs and a rivi’is is 3 eggs. R’
Chaim Na’eh disagrees with the Tzlach. R’Chaim Na’eh makes the
shiurim smaller. Says that since the eggs are smaller today doesn’t mean we
add eggs rather we still keep the same amount when they were bigger. The
Chazon Ish says like the tzlach. Because there is a requirement to have
more wine Friday night maybe it is d’oraisa.
9. Gm’ P’sachim says from the Rivi’is of wine that one makes kiddush on you
must have a cheek full. Milo lugmav from the rivi’is. The Shulchan Aruch
says milo lugmav is a personal amount, and milo lugmav has nothing to do
with a cheek full of the kos is and then calculate what the milo lugmav is.
The Shulchan Aruch says that milo lugmav is 1.3 ounces. The Shulchan
Aruch continues and says if the one making kiddush and didn’t have a Milo
lugmav, others around the table may make it. The Rosh says that the one
making kiddush does not have to drink it all just someone has to. The
gi’onim say that the one making kiddush does have to drink it.
10. The Bei’or Halacha says if a milo lugmav of the kiddsuh is not consumed,
not yotzei = must drink rov kos. Beis Yosef discusses a case where one
made kiddush and before he drank the wine spilled and nothing you can do
about it. He says that you are still yotzei. Or Hachaiyim says that you can
split it up unless it is kiddush. Ritva = you can split it up as long as it is
drunken no problem. If person speaks in between bracha and drinking,
should make a new bracha, no, rather they should get a new kos and make
kiddush again.
11. Rosh = even though no obligation for all to drink it is still a mitzvah to
drink. Because it shows you love for the mitzvah (R. Simon pours everyone
kiddush so at least he can drink rov) Shulchan Aruch once mikadesih drinks
a little you can take that kos fill it up and make kiddsuh again. R’ Abadi all
wine on the table is considered kos shel bracha.

17
Shiur 2007 B”SD

BABA KAMA
12. 12. The Gm’ in Baba Basra says that the only type of wine that’s fit for
kiddush is wine that could be poured on the mizbei’ach. This comes really
to exclude the use of inferior wine for kiddush such as wine with sediments
floating in it. The Rambam has two opinions. First he says that the GM’ is
coming to exclude for use in kiddush wine containing sugar or any other
foreign substance. His second opinion allows sweet wine but doesn’t allow
inferior wine or yai’yin mivushal. At what point is wine considered
mivushal? The Shach says if the wine has been brought to a temperature of
yad soledes i.e. pasteurized, it is considered mivushal. Seifer Nishmas
Shabbos says mivushal is only wine that’s reached 212 degrees.
13. 13. The Gm’ says that if one merely squeezed a grape into a cup he may
make kiddush on it even though clearly it hasn’t become fermented and
would not make a person drunk. Some use this as a proof that grape juice is
valid for kiddush. The K’neses Hagidolah brings that if one makes grape
juice impossible to ferment one would say shihakol on it and therefore it
would be disqualified from kiddush.
14. 14. The Kol Bo says we should stand for the first paragraph of kiddush, i.e.
va’yichulu because of kavod haMelech and then we should sit for the rest of
kiddush. The Kol Bo contemplates that maybe it would look inconsistent
and a little bit like a joke to stand for kiddush and then sit for the meal, so
maybe we should sit for the entire kiddush. So Rav Abadi says this would
not be an issue because kiddush is separate from the meal. The Rama says
it’s better to sit for kiddush but we may stand. The Arizal says it’s better to
stand for kiddush. Rav Abadi concluded that S’fardim should follow the
Arizal and Ashkenazim can do either way. It’s mashma from the Rambam
that he used to sit for kiddush because during his time they didn’t sit on
chairs and the Rambam says one should lift the cup a certain amount of
t’fachim from the ground. It’s only possible to lift a cup a few t’fachim
from the ground if one is sitting, so apparently the Rambam was implying
that one should sit. The Gra seems to say we should sit to make the kiddush
an established event but then he changes his mind.
15. 15. The Gm’ includes the word chai as one of the requirements for kiddush.
What is chai? Rashi interprets chai as that one should pour the wine into
the cup undiluted then dilute it after the bracha is made. Rabbeinu Tam
says chai means one should pour semi-diluted wine into the cup then make a
bracha. Rabbeinu Yonah says chai means the cup must be complete. Rav
Moshe says based on this that one may not use a plastic cup because, he
asks, what’s the basis for not using a broken cup?... because it’s not
considered chashuv enough for kiddush. Therefore, plastic cups would be
similar to broken cups, i.e. not chashuv enough. The Sh’lah holds that one
should hold the cup in the palm of his hand with his fingers going up the
sides of the cup. The Magein Avraham says hold it by the sides.

18
Shiur 2007 B”SD

BABA KAMA
Inyanei D’yoma
1. The Ritva says we are obligated to give at least a prutah to be yotzei matanos
l’evyonim. The Zerah Yaakov comments that it should be enough for one meal,
which is approximately $10 per ani. The Rama says that since we give shalach
manos on Purim day we should also give matanos l’evyonim on Purim.
2.The Gm’ discusses a case when megillah was moved earlier to the 11th or 12th
or 13th of the month. Can we give matanos l’evyonim at that earlier date? The
Gm’ answers since ani’im look for tzedakah on the day the megillah is read we
should honor their expectations and give matanos l’evyonim on that day. The
Mishnah says that we may read the megillah early if needed. The Gm’ says we
can only read early during times when all of Klal Yisrael is in E”Y. However,
nowadays when we’re scattered and are unsure when Rosh Chodesh falls out we
judge when to start Pesach by counting 30 days from Purim. If the megillah
were to be read early people would miscalculate the beginning of Pesach by
counting 30 days from the early date of megillah and they will end Pesach early
when it’s still in reality Pesach and they’ll come to eat chameitz on Pesach.
The Rif says we are not allowed to read megillah early because it is understood
that ani’im anticipate the day the megillah is read in order to collect tzedakah.
If the megillah would be read early they may not be aware and will come on the
normal day of Purim looking for tzedakah and nobody will be giving then. The
Ba’al Hami’or questions the Rif’s reasoning. He says the Gm’ says that we
may read the megillah early because the ani’im come on that early date also to
collect. However, that, according to the Rif is a problem because, yes, it worked
in the times of the Gm’ to have the ani’im come early, however, nowadays that
wouldn’t work because we know the ani must have the money from matanos
l’evyonim with him to spend on Purim day, today, ani’im are so poor that if they
would come to the early reading of megillah they would obtain matanos but
they would be compelled to spend it before Purim, therefore we wouldn’t be
yotzei the mitzvah properly.
3. The Gm’ in Baba Mitzee’ah says regarding matanos l’evyonim “ein
midakdikin badavar,” Rashi says it means we should not be cheap in the
mitzvah, meaning, if we determine that there are 50 ani’im in the town and
collectively we have enough to support 70 ani’im we should spend the amount
to suffice for 70 anyway and all the extra materials that are bought can be resold
and the proceeds can go to tzedakah. The Gm’ Yirushalmi says it means “kol
haposheit yad nosnim lo” meaning we shouldn’t investigate if this person
actually qualifies to be considered an ani. The general consensus according to
Rav Abadi is that we may give matanos l’evyonim prior to Purim as long as the
ani will have the money in his pocket on Purim day so that he can have simchas
Purim. Mei’ikar hadin matanos l’evyonim money must be spent towards having
things for the se’udah but this is not entirely mandatory.
4. The Bach says everybody must give matanos l’evyonim even ani’im.
However, the Pri Chadash disagrees and says ani’im should only give
shalach manos.
5. The Gm’ says because a megillah must be bound with flax in the same
manner a seifer must be bound, so megillah should have the same status of

19
Shiur 2007 B”SD

BABA KAMA
a seifer. However, elsewhere it says that since a seifer is bound all the way
up and down and megillah only has 3 ties it is different than a seifer and it
should be considered as an eegeres. Another Gm’ says megillah must be
written with the same type of letters, on parchment and with the same type
of ink as a seifer. Still another Gm’ makes a drasha by saying that because
a pasuk in Yirmiyahu has the word “c’siv” and in Ester we find the same
word, we say that since Yirmiyahu is written on parchment with special ink
so too megillah should be the same way. The Ramban asks, why do we
need to learn from Yirmiyahu that Ester should be on parchment with
special ink, we already know the halacha that megillah is called a seifer and
would inherently need those characteristics of a seifer i.e. parchment and
ink. The answer is because in reality megillah is only called an eegeres.
The Gm’ in Megillah seems to imply that a megillah is considered an
eegeres because: if a word or even an entire pasuk is missing from a
megillah the megillah is still kosher, however, we know by a seifer Torah
all letters must be there for it to be kosher. The Gm’ in Gittin says
regarding a seifer Torah that it’s only passul if it’s missing an entire
column, this seems to imply that if it’s missing a letter it would be good
nonetheless. The Ran quotes the Ramban who says a seifer Torah needs
every letter to be kosher but a megillah can be missing things; as long as it
has the majority it’s kosher. The Ran explains that one is only yotzei
writing a seifer Torah if all letters are there and one’s tefillin are kosher
only if all letters are present in the parshios. For the reading of a seifer
Torah to be considered invalid that’s when we apply the rule that there
can’t be an entire missing column. The Ramban and Ran argue because
the Ramban says a seifer Torah must be complete and a megillah can have
missing letters as long as the majority of the letters are there. When the
Gm’ said a seifer Torah is passul is it’s missing a column that’s if the
column is missing at the beginning or the end. The Ran equates megillah to
a seifer Torah. The Bei’ur Halacha says if one walked in late by megillah
reading he may read what he missed and still be yotzei. The Shiltei
Giborim adds that we only correct the ba’al korei during megillah reading
if his mistake altered the meaning of the word. If it was just a minor
mistake we do not correct him.

20