QUESTION: The seventh Perek discusses the laws of compensation for thievery. The previous Perek discusses the specific laws of the Mazikim of Shen, Regel, and Esh. Normally, there is a logical progression from one chapter to the next in a Masechta. What logical progression is there from the sixth Perek of Bava Kama to the seventh Perek? In what way are the laws of Shen, Regel, and Esh related to the laws of compensation of a thief to his victim?

(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). In the preceding chapters, the Tana of the Mishnah discussed 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). 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 (in 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 which discuss Tashlumei Kefel and Tashlumei Arba'ah v'Chamishah (Shemos 21:37 to 22:4) are written in the midst of the verses which 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 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.

QUESTION: The eighth Perek, "ha'Chovel," discusses the payments which a person is obligated to make for causing damage to the body of another person. The ninth Perek, "ha'Gozel Etzim," returns to the laws of thievery. Why does the Tana interrupt between the seventh Perek, "Merubah," and Perek "ha'Gozel Etzim," which both discuss the laws of thievery, and insert Perek "ha'Chovel" which does not discuss the laws of thievery?

(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 liable 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 laws of Tashlumei Arba'ah v'Chamishah make the act of Geneivah more severe than the act of Gezeilah, and the laws of "Chamishah Devarim" (Nezek, Tza'ar, Ripuy, Sheves, Boshes) which apply to one who injures another person make one who harms someone else ("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 which their father stole).