Bava Kama Chart #4a
Chart for Bava Kama Daf 12b-13a
WHICH TYPES OF KODSHIM KALIM ARE CONSIDERED "MEMONO," "HIS PROPERTY," ACCORDING TO REBBI YOSI HA'GELILI?
| (A) SHELAMIM |
(B) BECHOR |
||
| 1 | WHILE IT IS ALIVE | RASHI: It is all "his" TOSFOS: It is all "his," except for the Chazeh and Shok (1) |
It is "his property" when: 1. the Beis ha'Mikdash is not standing |
| 2 | AFTER IT IS SLAUGHTERED | RASHI: Nothing is "his" (2) TOSFOS: It is all "his," except for the Chazeh and Shok (1) |
It is "his property" when: 1. the Beis ha'Mikdash is not standing |
Bava Kama Chart #4b
Chart for Bava Kama Daf 13a
WHICH TYPES OF KODSHIM KALIM ARE CONSIDERED "MEMONO," "HIS PROPERTY," ACCORDING TO BEN AZAI? (4)
| (A) LISHNA KAMA |
(B) LISHNA BASRA (RAVINA) |
||
| 1 | TANA KAMA, according to Ben Azai |
Bechor, Shelamim |
Shelamim (& some say even Bechor) (5) |
| 2 | ABA YOSI BEN DUSTA'I, according to Ben Azai |
Bechor (7) | Bechor, Shelamim (6) |
==========
FOOTNOTES:
==========
(1) That is, the portion that goes to the Kohanim is not considered his property, because they "receive it from Shulchan Gavo'ah."
(2) According to Rashi, even the portion that the owner keeps is not considered his property, because the owner, too, "receives it from Shulchan Gavo'ah."
(3) See Tosfos, DH b'Bechor.
(4) From the words of Rashi (DH Matnos Kehunah) it seems that Ben Azai intends to explain the opinion of Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili and not to argue with him. For this reason, we have written here that Ben Azai stated his opinion in accordance with the view of Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili. However, the Ra'avad (in the Shitah Mekubetzes) says that Ben Azai is arguing with Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili. Rebbi Yosi ha'Gelili himself holds that Bechor, Shelamim, and Ma'aser Behemah are all considered property of the owners, "Memono." This also seems to be the view of Rashi in Chulin (137a, DH b'Kedushah) and in Temurah (8a, DH l'Rabos). (See Rashash in Chulin there.)
(5) This is the opinion of the Ra'avad, according to his first explanation. According to this, the Tana Kama and Aba Yosi are only arguing whether or not a Bechor is more Kadosh than Shelamim or less Kadosh than Shelamim. According to Aba Yosi, it is only necessary to mention that Bechor is "Memono," and we would know, Kol she'Ken, that Shelamim is "Memono." According to the Tana Kama, it is only necessary to mention that Shelamim is "Memono" (since it is more Kadosh), and we would know, Kol she'Ken, that Bechor is as well. The explanation of the Ra'avad is consistent with his reasoning that we cited in the Insights here (13:1:b). However, according to what we wrote there (1:a) to explain the view of Rashi, the opinion that holds that Shelamim is more Chamur than Bechor is referring to Bechor in Chutz la'Aretz, and the opinion that holds that Bechor is more Chamur than Shelamim is referring to Bechor in Eretz Yisrael. Thus, according to all opinions, a Bechor in Chutz la'Aretz is the least Chamur of all, Shelamim is more Chamur than Bechor in Chutz la'Aretz, and Bechor in Eretz Yisrael is the most Chamur of all (see Insights).
(6) This Lishna Basra is refuted by the Gemara, due to the fact that Aba Yosi said, "Ben Azai only said Bechor 'Bilvad' (alone)!" implying that he is excluding Shelamim as well, like the Lishna Kama.
(7) This is how most of the Rishonim and Acharonim explain. However, the Talmidei Rabeinu Yisrael (in the Shitah Mekubetzes) explain that even according to the Lishna Kama, the Tana Kama and Aba Yosi are not arguing (similar to the first explanation of the Ra'avad in the Lishna Basra, see footnote #2 above).