Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Bava Kama, 62

62b

I. QUESTION: The seventh Perek discusses the laws of compensation for thievery. Normally, there is some sort of logical progression from one chapter to the next in a Masechta. What logical progression is there, though, from the sixth Perek, which discusses the specific laws of the Mazikim of Shen, Regel, and Esh, to the seventh Perek, which discusses the laws of compensation of a thief to his victim?

ANSWERS:

(a) RABEINU YEHONASAN cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes writes that the payments of a thief of "Tashlumei Kefel" and "Tashlumei Arba'ah v'Chamishah" are included in the twenty-four Avos Nezikin, as listed in the Beraisa earlier (4b). Until this Perek, the Tana of the Mishnah was discussing the laws of Shor, Bor, Mav'eh, and Hev'er that were not guarded properly, and the laws relevant to Shomrim, agents appointed to guard items that have potential to cause damage, as Shomrim are also included in the twenty-four Avos Nezikin. Therefore, the Tana here begins to discuss the details of the laws of the Ganav and Gazlan, for they, too, are included in the twenty-four Avos Nezikin.

(b) The MELECHES SHLOMO (on the Mishnayos) explains as follows. At the end of the sixth Perek (from 60a until the end of the Perek), the Gemara teaches the laws of Esh, which is one of the four primary Avos Nezikin (2a). In the Torah, the verses regarding Tashlumei Kefel and Tashlumei Arba'ah v'Chamishah (Shemos 21:37 to 22:4) are written in the midst of the verses that mention the four Avos Nezikin (Shemos 21:28 to 22:5). Therefore, immediately after the Tana completes the discussion of the laws of the four Avos Nezikin, he discusses the laws of Tashlumei Kefel and Tashlumei Arba'ah v'Chamishah, to parallel the Torah's discussion of those two subjects in proximity.

(c) The TIFERES YISRAEL (in the Mishnayos) explains that after the Tana has taught the laws of the four Avos Nezikin, for which one is obligated to pay even when one had no intention to do damage, the Tana teaches the laws of compensation of a thief who must pay because he had intention to cause a loss to his fellow man in order to profit for himself.

II. QUESTION: Following the seventh Perek comes the Perek of "ha'Chovel," which discusses the payments that a person is obligated to pay for causing damage to the body of another person. The following Perek, "ha'Gozel Etzim," returns to the laws of thievery. Why does the Tana interrupt between Perek "Merubah" and Perek "ha'Gozel Etzim," which both discuss the laws of thievery, and interject Perek "ha'Chovel" which does not discuss the laws of thievery?

ANSWERS:

(a) RABEINU YEHONASAN cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes answers that it is the nature of a person who is a victim of thievery (Geneivah, wherein the Ganav steals surreptitiously and the victim does not know who stole from him) to become overly suspicious of other people. This suspicion brings a person to feelings of animosity and, ultimately, to acts of violence against his fellow man (for which he is Chayav to pay the forms of compensation mentioned in Perek "ha'Chovel"). Therefore, the Tana placed Perek "ha'Chovel" after Perek "Merubah," which deals with the laws of Geneivah. Following the laws of "ha'Chovel," the Tana returns to discuss the laws of Gezeilah (in Perek "ha'Gozel Etzim"), indiscreet robbery (wherein the victim knows who stole from him).

(b) The TIFERES YISRAEL answers that the Tana wanted to teach the most severe laws first. The law of Tashlumei Arba'ah v'Chamishah makes the act of Geneivah more severe than that of Gezeilah, and the laws of "Chamishah Devarim" (Nezek, Tza'ar, Ripuy, Sheves, Boshes) of one who injures another person makes "ha'Chovel" more severe than a Gazlan. Therefore, Perek "Merubah" and Perek "ha'Chovel" precede Perek "ha'Gozel Etzim." The last Perek, "ha'Gozel u'Ma'achil," follows "ha'Gozel Etzim" because it discusses additional, supplementary laws of Gezeilah (such as the laws of heirs of a Gazlan who consumed the item that their father stole).