## Tosafot on Bava Kamma Daf 16b

###### Tosafot on Bava Kamma 16b:3:1
[Tosafot on Bava Kamma 16b:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/16b:3:1)

דרס ואכל. פירוש שאוכל מחיים כדאמרינן בפרק אלו עוברין (פסחים דף מט: ושם) מה ארי דורס ואוכל ואינו ממתין עד שימות אף עם הארץ כו':

**Tosafot, Translated by Jan Buckler.:**
**[If] it clawed [its prey] and ate [it].**
**The explanation** of the word דורס – he pounces, is **that he eats his prey while it is still alive, as the Gemara says in Perek Ailu Ovrim (P’sochim 49b):
Just as a lion pounces** upon his prey **and eats, and does not wait for it to die, so too, the ignorant etc.** We see that the lion does not allow his prey to die before eating it.


###### Tosafot on Bava Kamma 16b:6:1
[Tosafot on Bava Kamma 16b:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/16b:6:1)

והתניא וכן חיה. תימה ולוקמה בזאב דאורחיה לטרוף וי"ל דחיה סתם קתני בין בארי בין בזאב ולא הוה מצי לשנויי דכרבי טרפון אתיא דאמר (לעיל בבא קמא יד.) משונה קרן בחצר הניזק נזק שלם משלם מדקתני לה גבי תולדה דשן כדמסיק:

**Tosafot, Translated by Jan Buckler.:**
**But isn't it taught [in a baraita]: And similarly, [in the case of] a wild animal?** Shmuel says that it is the nature of a lion to eat its prey while still alive. When he does what is usual for him, he is liable as a derivative of shain – for full payment and only in the courtyard of the nizok. When he tears apart his prey, allowing it to die and then eats it, his behavior is unusual and he is liable as a derivative of keren – for half damages and in a public domain as well.
The Gemara now introduces a Braita that says: when a wild animal enters a courtyard a tears apart it prey, allowing it to die, it is liable for full payment. We see that even when tearing apart, it is considered usual and there is liability as a derivative of shain. Tosafot wonders how this Braita can be presented as a contradiction to Shmuel’s statement:
**This is bewildering! Let us interpret the Braita** as speaking**about a wolf, for whom it is usual to tear apart** and wait for its prey to die?
**We can answer:** That the Braita**teaches** us about**an unspecified wild animal** and that is to be understood as speaking about**both a lion and a wolf.** Since the Braita does not specify which wild animal it is discussing, the term ‘wild animal’ is inclusive we cannot exclude a lion.
There is perhaps another way the Gemara could have deflected the question from the Braita.
**The Gemara could not have answered that the Braita follows R’ Tarfon who says (earlier 14a): Keren,** which is**unusual,** when damaging **in the courtyard of the nizok must pay full damages.** Even if when the lion tears apart its prey and allows it to die it is unusual and a derivative of keren, if it occurs in the courtyard of the nizok, it is liable for full payment according to R’ Tarfon. We can deflect the Gemara’s question by saying that this is the opinion of the Braita. This is not a proper deflection,**because this Braita was taught in regard to derivatives of shain, as the Gemara concludes.** The Braita must be speaking about usual behavior in order for this to be treated as a derivative of shain. This is a contradiction to Shmuel who says that when a lion waits for its prey to die, it is unusual behavior and a derivative of keren.


###### Tosafot on Bava Kamma 16b:12:1
[Tosafot on Bava Kamma 16b:12:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/16b:12:1)

כי תניא מתניתא בארי תרבות ואליבא דר' אלעזר - לא נקט ר'. אלעזר לאפוקי רבנן אלא לרבותא נקטיה וה"ק דלא תימא משום דאורחיה לטרוף משלמת נ"ש דאפילו בארי תרבות אליבא דר' אלעזר דודאי לאו אורחיה הוא איכא לאוקמי דהיינו בדאייעד כדמפרש ואזיל ומאותו הטעם שיתחייב לר' אלעזר יתחייב לרבנן ועוד י"ל דדוקא מוקי לה כרבי אלעזר משום דחיה סתם קתני בין בארי בין בזאב ולר' אלעזר כיון דהוו בני תרבות לאו אורחייהו לטרוף ומיירי תרוייהו בדאייעד אבל לרבנן דלאו בני תרבות נינהו ואורחיה דזאב לטרוף כי לא אייעד נמי משלם נ"ש וזהו דוחק להעמיד הברייתא לצדדים זאב בלא אייעד וארי באייעד וא"ת ולמאי דס"ד השתא דהוי תולדה דקרן אמאי נקט בברייתא שנכנסו בחצר הניזק וי"ל משום זאב נקט דכיון דאייעד חוזר לקדמותו והוי שן דפטור ברה"ר:

**Tosafot, Translated by Jan Buckler.:**
**This baraita was taught with regard to a domesticated lion and in accordance with [the opinion] of Rabbi Elazar.** Raveeno is defending Shmuel who said that it is unusual for a lion to tear apart its prey and wait for it to die before eating it, from the Braita that classifies such behavior as shain which is usual behavior. The Braita is speaking about an unusual situation, the lion was domesticated, thus it is expected not to kill at all and this follows R’ Elozor who holds that domestication is effective. The Gemara will say that since this behavior is unusual, the Braita is telling us that if the lion did it three times, he becomes muad and is liable for full payment.
There is a fairly obvious difficulty with Raveeno’s defense of Shmuel. If we are ultimately going to say that we are speaking of when the lion became muad to do this, why is it necessary to bring in R’ Elozor and say that it was domesticated and therefore unexpected behavior? The Gemara could simply say that it became muad to tear apart its prey and wait for it to die. Even though it is a derivative of keren, it is liable for full payment because it is now muad.
Tosafot addresses this difficulty:
Raveeno **did not mention R’ Elozor** as the author of the Braita **to exclude the Rabonon** who disagree with R’ Elozor and hold that domestication is ineffective, because according to the Rabonon as well, we can say that the Braita is speaking of when the lion became muad to do something which is unusual such as to tear apart and wait for its prey to die.**
And this is what** Raveeno**is saying: That you should not say** that the Braita is saying that **because it is usual** for the lion**to tear apart** its prey and wait for it to die**it pays full damages, for we can even interpret** this Braita **according to R’ Elozor** who holds that domestication is effective and it is **certainly not usual** for this lion to tear apart and wait for its prey to die and even so his owner will be liable for full damages and that is **when he became muad** to tear apart his prey **as the Gemara continues to explain.
And for that very same reason that he is liable according to R’ Elozor,** which is that he became muad, **he will be liable according to the Rabonon,** because according to the Rabonon tearing apart and waiting for its prey to die is unusual behavior for a lion and is liable for full damages only after becoming muad.
According to this explanation, when the Raveeno says **ואליבא דר' אלעזר** – and according to R’ Elozor, it means even according to R’ Elozor and certainly according to the Rabonon. Tosafot now suggests an alternative explanation, where the meaning of **ואליבא דר' אלעזר** – and according to R’ Elozor – will be that the Braita follows R’ Elozor exclusively.
**And we can also answer: That** Raveeno**specifically interpreted the Braita according to R’ Elozor, because** the Braita uses the word**‘wild animal’ anonymously** which implies that it is speaking of**both a lion and a wolf.** This is reasonable **according to R’ Elozor,** who holds that **since they can** and have**been domesticated, it is not usual for** either of**them to tear apart** and wait for their prey to die,**and** the Braita**** must be**speaking of when they became muad** and that is why they both pay full damages.**
However, according to the Rabonon** who hold that wild beasts **cannot be domesticated, and it is usual for a wolf to tear apart** its prey and wait for it to die,**** even**when it did not become muad, it would also pay full damages.** Why is the Braita discussing a wolf that need not be a muad and a lion that must be a muad to be liable for full damages in the same sentence?
**And it is awkward to set up the Braita** as speaking about**two separate cases: a wolf that did not become muad** by tearing apart three times **and a lion that did become muad.** Raveeno therefore says that this explanation of the Braita, that it is speaking of when the wolf and the lion became muad is reasonable only according to R’ Elozor, who holds that they first became domesticated and they are therefore tam and they then became muad by tearing apart three times.
**If you ask: According to what the Gemara holds now, that the Braita is speaking about a derivative of keren, why does the Braita mention that they entered into the courtyard of the nizok,** keren is liable even in a public domain?**
We can answer: The Braita mentioned** that the ‘wild animal’ entered into the courtyard of the nizok**because** it also speaks **of a wolf. Because as soon** as the wolf**becomes muad** by tearing apart three times,**he reverts to his original status** and tearing apart is the equivalent **of shain which is exempt in a public domain.** The Braita mentions that the ‘wild animal’ entered the courtyard of the nizok, because the wolf will only be liable in the courtyard of the nizok. The lion, however, will be liable even in a public domain, because when he tears apart and allows his prey to die, that is not usual and it is a derivative of keren which is liable in a public domain.


###### Tosafot on Bava Kamma 16b:20:1
[Tosafot on Bava Kamma 16b:20:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/16b:20:1)

שחשדוהו בזונה - דירמיה כהן הוה וזונה אסורה לכהן:

**Tosafot, Translated by Jan Buckler.:**
**They cast suspicion upon him of [intercourse with] a harlot.** The word **זונה** is often used to describe a harlot. Tosafot here views the word in a more technical sense. Women that have had illicit relations with men who are prohibited to them are in the category of **זונה** and may not marry a Kohain. Yirm’yoh was a Kohain. The people of his generation suspected him of cohabiting with a zonoh. See Artscroll notes 32 and 33.**
For Yirm’yoh was a Kohain and it is prohibited for a Kohain** to have relations with **a zonoh.**


###### Tosafot on Bava Kamma 16b:23:1
[Tosafot on Bava Kamma 16b:23:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/16b:23:1)

אפילו בשעה שעושין צדקה - ול"ג ישראל דאאנשי ענתות קאי:

**Tosafot, Translated by Jan Buckler.:**
**Even at a time when they perform [acts of] charity.
We do not have in our text** the word **Yisro’ail** because this was not a curse against all Jews, but rather it **refers to the people of Anosos,** Yirm’yoh’s home town. They were the ones who persecuted him. His curse was directed only against them.


###### Tosafot on Bava Kamma 16b:23:2
[Tosafot on Bava Kamma 16b:23:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/16b:23:2)

לפניך זו צדקה. שנאמר והלך לפניך צדקך (ישעיהו נ״ח:ח׳):

**Tosafot, Translated by Jan Buckler.:**
**[To stumble] before you, this is charity.** Let them be made to stumble before you (Yirm’yoh 18, 23). Our Gemara interprets the stumbling as pertaining to the merit of the mitzvah of giving charity. Where is there any indication in the verse that Yirm’yoh is speaking about charity? Tosafot explains:
**As it is written (Y’shayoh 58, 8), “and your charity shall go before you”.** We see that the word ‘לפניך - before you’ is used together with צדקך -**** your charity. So too, the same word לפניך - before you, in the verse in Yirm’yoh is a reference to the mitzvah of charity. See Artscroll note 40.


###### Tosafot on Bava Kamma 16b:24:1
[Tosafot on Bava Kamma 16b:24:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tosafot%20on%20Bava%20Kamma/r/16b:24:1)

שהושיבו ישיבה על קברו - לפי שהרבה תורה בישראל כדאמרינן בחלק (סנהדרין דף צד: ע"ש) שבדקו מדן ועד באר שבע ולא מצאו איש ואשה תינוק ותינוקת שלא היו בקיאים בטומאה וטהרה ולא על קברו ממש אלא ברחוק ארבע אמות דליכא לועג לרש:

**Tosafot, Translated by Jan Buckler.:**
**[This teaches] that they established a yeshiva at his grave.** Tosafot is explaining why the Gemara relates this specific honor to Hizkiyah, after all there is no indication in the verse that the honor was establishing an academy at his grave.¹
**Because he increased Torah study in Yisro’ail as the Gemara says in Chailek (Sanhedrin 94b): That** during the reign of Hizkiyah**they searched from Dan to Beersheba and they did not find a man, woman, boy or girl who was not proficient in** the complex laws of **tumoh and taharoh.** Since Hizkiyah made such a great contribution to the study of Torah it is reasonable that they honored him in a way that would stress the importance of his contribution – by establishing an academy to study Torah at this grave.
Tosafot points out that there is a legal problem with learning Torah on a grave.
The academy was **not directly on his grave, but at a distance of four cubits, where there is no ‘ridiculing the poor’.** The Gemara in B’rochos 18a says that one who performs mitzvos in close proximity to a grave is transgressing the verse in Mishlay 17, 5, that speaks of ridiculing the poor. The dead are considered ‘poor’ because they cannot perform mitzvos. When one perform mitzvos or studies Torah in close proximity to the grave it is as if he is ridiculing the departed who can no longer perform mitzvos. Tosafot concludes that an academy directly above Hizkiyah’s grave would be a violation of the Gemara in B’rochos 18a. See Artscroll note 43.²

footnotes:
¹ Perhaps the phrase “and they did him honor” implies that the honor was of a kind that was specific to him, in recognition of what was the greatest accomplishment of his life – the spreading of Torah.
² See Artscroll note 43 for a dissenting opinion.