Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 30, 2016 | 讻状讚 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Kamma 30

The gemara states that Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree about one who renounces his property in the public thoroughfare – is he responsible for damages or not. 聽The gemara doesn’t know who holds which opinion and brings different statements of theirs to be able to conclude who help by which opinion. 聽In doing so, they analyze different cases and make distinctions between cases where one may or may not be held responsible. 聽The gemara brings 3 opinions advising people how to become a pious person – one should fulfill either nezikin, avot or brachot. 聽One can attempt to suggest theories as to the uniqueness of each of these categories. 聽Taking out garbage or putting out garbage to become fertilizer in the time of the Mishna/Talmud聽raised various questions about the level or responsibility of the one who took it out in the event it caused damage. 聽Does the fact that one is allowed to do something, remove him from responsibility for damage it may cause?

诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻讜壮

in the name of Rabbi Yishmael that one is liable to pay for damage caused by a pit that he dug in the public domain, even if it is not his personal property?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讗 讚专讘讬讛

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This ruling, that he is exempt, is his own opinion, whereas that ruling, that he is liable, is the opinion of his teacher Rabbi Yishmael, and he disagrees with it.

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜驻讱 诪讬诐 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讜讝拽 讘讛谉 讗讞专 讞讬讬讘 讘谞讝拽讜 讛诪爪谞讬注 讗转 讛拽讜抓 讜讗转 讛讝讻讜讻讬转 讜讛讙讜讚专 讗转 讙讚专讜 讘拽讜爪讬诐 讜讙讚专 砖谞驻诇 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讜讝拽讜 讘讛谉 讗讞专讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讘谞讝拽谉

MISHNA: In the case of one who pours water in the public domain, and another person in-curred damage due to it, the one who poured water is liable to pay for his damage. In the case of one who conceals a thorn or a piece of glass in his wall adjacent to the public domain, or one who puts up a fence of thorns, or one who puts up a fence that subsequently fell into the public domain, and others incurred damage due to any of these, he is liable to pay for their damage.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚谞讟谞驻讜 讻诇讬讜 讘诪讬诐 讗讘诇 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 驻讟讜专 拽专拽注 注讜诇诐 讛讝讬拽转讜

GEMARA: With regard to the case of one who pours water in the public domain, Rav says: They taught that he is liable only when the clothes of one who slipped were soiled by the dirty water, but if the one who slipped himself was injured, the one who poured the water is exempt, as it is the impact with the ground that injured him, not the water.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇专讘 诇讗 讬讛讗 讗诇讗 讻专驻砖讜

Rav Huna said to Rav: Why should he be exempt from paying restitution for the injury? Even if the water that he poured is considered only like his filth that he tossed in the public domain, he should be liable. Since the muddy ground caused the injury, and the mud belongs to him, as it results from the addition of his water to the dirt, he should be liable.

诪讬 住讘专转 讚诇讗 转诪讜 诪讬讗 讘讚转诪讜 诪讬讗

Rav responded: Do you maintain that this is a case where the water was not absorbed into the ground? It is a case where the water was absorbed, leaving only moist dirt. Since there is no mud there that can be deemed as belonging to the one who spilled the water, he is exempt from liability.

讜转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara asks: But if the mishna鈥檚 ruling refers only to the soiling of the pedestrian鈥檚 clothes, why do I need two mishnayot to state this halakha? According to Rav, this halakha was already addressed in the previous mishna, with regard to a jug that broke, causing a pedestrian to fall and his clothes to become soiled.

讞讚讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜讞讚讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐

The Gemara answers: One halakha was stated with regard to a case where this occurred in the summer, the dry season, and one with regard to a case where it occurred in the rainy season.

讚转谞讬讗 讻诇 讗诇讜 砖讗诪专讜 驻讜转拽讬谉 讘讬讘讜转讬讛谉 讜讙讜专驻讬谉 诪注专讜转讬讛谉 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 专砖讜转 讜讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讬砖 诇讛诐 专砖讜转 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讘专砖讜转 讗诐 讛讝讬拽讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇砖诇诐

As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to all those people who engage in activities that the Sages stated are permitted, i.e., those who open [potkin] their gutters and drain the sewage from their houses into the public domain, and those who flush out the water from their caves, where foul-smelling water was stored, into the public domain, during the summer they do not have permission to do so, while during the rainy season they have permission to do so, since the street is rained upon in any event and thereby washed. And although all these people perform their actions with permission, if they cause damage they are liable to pay for it. Because of the difference between the summer and the rainy season with regard to whether it is permitted for one to pour water into the public domain, both mishnayot are necessary, one for each season. This is in order to teach that even in the rainy season, when it is permitted to pour water into the public domain, one is nevertheless liable to pay for damage resulting from the water.

讛诪爪谞讬注 讗转 讛拽讜抓 [讜讻讜壮] 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪驻专讬讞 讗讘诇 诪爪诪爪诐 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 驻讟讜专 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻谉 砖诇 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诇讛转讞讻讱 讘讻转诇讬诐

搂 It is stated in the mishna that one who conceals a thorn or a piece of glass, or one who puts up a fence of thorns, is liable to pay for damage resulting from them. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: They taught that he is liable only in a case where he projects these obstacles into the public domain, but if he restricts them to his own property, he is not liable. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that he is exempt? Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, says: It is because it is not the typical manner of people to rub against walls, but to keep a certain distance from them. Therefore, if a pedestrian is wounded by the thorns, it is considered an unusual accident, for which the owner of the fence is not liable.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪爪谞讬注 拽讜爪讜转讬讜 讜讝讻讜讻讬讜转讬讜 诇转讜讱 讻讜转诇 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜讘讗 讘注诇 讻讜转诇 讜住转专 讻讜转诇讜 讜谞驻诇 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讝讬拽讜 讞讬讬讘 讛诪爪谞讬注

The Sages taught (Tosefta 2:6): With regard to one who conceals his thorns or his pieces of glass in another鈥檚 wall, and the owner of the wall came and demolished his wall and it fell into the public domain, and the thorns or glass caused damage, the one who concealed them is liable.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讻讜转诇 专注讜注 讗讘诇 讘讻讜转诇 讘专讬讗 讛诪爪谞讬注 驻讟讜专 讜讞讬讬讘 讘注诇 讛讻讜转诇

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: They taught this only in the case of an unstable wall, since the one who concealed his items should have anticipated that the owner of the wall would soon demolish it, but in the case of a stable wall, the one who concealed his items is exempt, and the owner of the wall is liable.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讛诪讻住讛 讘讜专讜 讘讚诇讬讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜讘讗 讘注诇 讚诇讬 讜谞讟诇 讚诇讬讜 讞讬讬讘 讘注诇 讛讘讜专

Ravina says: That is to say that in the case of one who covers his pit with another鈥檚 bucket, and the owner of the bucket came and took his bucket, and the pit causes damage, the owner of the pit is liable.

驻砖讬讟讗

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? This is exactly the same halakha as Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement with regard to one who conceals thorns in an unstable wall, i.e., that the hazardous item was likely to be revealed from the moment that it was concealed, and therefore its owner is liable to pay for any damage that it causes. What is the novel element in Ravina鈥檚 statement?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 讬讚注 诇讬讛 讚诇讜讚注讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讬讚注 诇讬讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇讗讜讚讜注讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: It is necessary. Lest you say: It is only there, in the case of the thorns, that the owner of the wall is exempt, since he did not know who concealed the hazardous item in order to inform him that he should remove them, but here, since the owner of the bucket knew who dug the pit, he should have informed him that he was taking his bucket and is consequently liable to pay for damage caused by the pit, Ravina therefore, teaches us that he is not required to inform the owner of the pit, and he bears no responsibility for any damage caused.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞住讬讚讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讛讬讜 诪爪谞讬注讬诐 拽讜爪讜转讬讛诐 讜讝讻讜讻讬讜转讬讛诐 讘转讜讱 砖讚讜转讬讛谉 讜诪注诪讬拽讬诐 诇讛谉 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬注讻讘 讛诪讞专讬砖讛

The Sages taught: The early pious people would conceal their thorns and their pieces of glass in their fields, and would dig to the depth of at least three handbreadths in order to bury them, so that they would not obstruct the plow.

专讘 砖砖转 砖讚讬 诇讛讜 讘谞讜专讗 专讘讗 砖讚讬 诇讛讜 讘讚讙诇转

The Gemara relates: Rav Sheshet would toss his thorns into fire, so they would not cause damage to others. Rava would toss them into the Tigris [Diglat] River.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讘注讬 诇诪讛讜讬 讞住讬讚讗 诇拽讬讬诐 诪讬诇讬 讚谞讝讬拽讬谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讬诇讬 讚讗讘讜转 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诪讬诇讬 讚讘专讻讜转

Rav Yehuda says: One who wants to be pious should observe the matters of tractate Nezikin, so as to avoid causing damage to others. Rava said he should observe the matters of tractate Avot. And some say he should observe the matters of tractate Berakhot.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 转讘谞讜 讜拽砖讜 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讝讘诇讬诐 讜讛讜讝拽 讘讛谉 讗讞专 讞讬讬讘 讘谞讝拽讜 讜讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讘讛谉 讝讻讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛诪拽诇拽诇讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讝讬拽讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇砖诇诐 讜讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讘讛谉 讝讻讛

MISHNA: In the case of one who takes out his straw [teven] and his hay [kash] to the public domain to use afterward as fertilizer and another person incurred damage due to them, he is liable to pay for his damage, and whoever takes possession of the hay and straw first acquires them for himself. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: With regard to anyone who places obstacles in the public domain and they cause damage, he is liable to pay damages, and whoever takes possession of them first acquires them.

讛讛讜驻讱 讗转 讛讙诇诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讜讝拽 讘讛谉 讗讞专 讞讬讬讘 讘谞讝拽讜

In the case of one who turns over dung in the public domain and another person incurred damage due to it, the former is liable to pay for his damage.

讙诪壮 诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

GEMARA: Let us say that the ruling in the mishna that one is liable to pay for damage caused by straw or hay that he put in the public domain is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖注转 讛讜爪讗转 讝讘诇讬诐 讗讚诐 诪讜爪讬讗 讝讘诇讜 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜爪讜讘专讜 讻诇 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 谞讬砖讜祝 讘专讙诇讬 讗讚诐 讜讘专讙诇讬 讘讛诪讛 砖注诇 诪谞转 讻谉 讛谞讞讬诇 讬讛讜砖注 讗转 讛讗专抓

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: During the period when fertilizer is taken out, a person may take his fertilizer out to the public domain and let it accumulate there for a full thirty days, so that it gets trampled by people鈥檚 feet and by animals鈥 feet, as it was on this condition that Joshua bequeathed Eretz Yisrael to the Jewish people (see 80b). In other words, people do not have the right to prevent someone from taking out his straw to the public domain, since they received their portion of Eretz Yisrael following Joshua鈥檚 conquest on this condition. Apparently, since one has the right to take out his straw, he is not held liable to pay for damage caused by it.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讗诐 讛讝讬拽 诪砖诇诐 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, since Rabbi Yehuda possibly concedes that if the fertilizer caused damage, he is liable to pay for the damage it caused, although he acted within his rights.

讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讘专砖讜转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 专砖讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: If a pile of straw on the back of an animal that was passing through the public domain catches fire from a Hanukkah lamp that was placed outside a store, the owner of the lamp is exempt, since he put it there with permission (see 62b)? What, is it not because he put it there with the permission of the court and is therefore exempt from paying for damage caused by it?

诇讗 诪砖讜诐 专砖讜转 诪爪讜讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 专砖讜转 诪爪讜讛

The Gemara answers: No, it is because he put it there with the permission granted to those performing a mitzva. Permission of the court is not sufficient to exempt him from paying damages, unless, in addition, permission was granted for the purpose of performing a mitzva. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that if it caught fire from a Hanukkah lamp he is exempt because he had permission to put it there in order to perform a mitzva.

转讗 砖诪注 讻诇 讗诇讜 砖讗诪专讜 诪讜转专讬谉 诇拽诇拽诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗诐 讛讝讬拽讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇砖诇诐 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻讜讟专

Come and hear an alternative proof from a baraita: With regard to all these cases in which the Sages said that it is permitted for people to place obstacles in the public domain, if they caused damage, these people are liable to pay, and Rabbi Yehuda exempts them. Evidently, according to Rabbi Yehuda, if one has the permission of the court to put an item in the public domain, he is exempt from paying damages.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 讛讜爪讗转 讝讘诇讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗

Rav Na岣an said: The mishna is referring to a case where one put his fertilizer outside not during the period when fertilizer is taken out. Therefore, he did not have permission to do so. And it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that one is liable only if he acts without permission.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专

Rav Ashi said an alternative explanation of the mishna according to Rabbi Yehuda:

转讘谞讜 讜拽砖讜 转谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讚诪砖专拽讬

What we learned in the mishna was specifically with regard to a case where one put out his straw and his hay, which are more likely to cause injury than fertilizer and other objects, because they are particularly slippery. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda agrees that in this case he is liable to pay for damage they cause.

讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讘讛谉 讝讻讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘讬谉 讘讙讜驻谉 讘讬谉 讘砖讘讞谉 讜讝注讬专讬 讗诪专 讘砖讘讞谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讙讜驻谉

搂 It is stated in the mishna that if one puts his straw and hay out in the public domain, whoever takes possession of them first acquires them. The Sages disagreed with regard to the extent of this acquisition. Rav says: He acquires them both with regard to the items themselves and with regard to the value of their enhancement, which took place while they were in the public domain. And Ze鈥檈iri says: He acquires them with regard to the value of their enhancement but not with regard to the items themselves, and he must pay the owner of the straw according to their value at the time he placed them in the public domain.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘 住讘专 拽谞住讜 讙讜驻谉 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讞谉 讜讝注讬专讬 住讘专 诇讗 拽谞住讜 讙讜驻谉 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讞谉

With regard to what do they disagree? Rav holds that the Sages penalized the owner by revoking his ownership of the items themselves due to the value of their enhancement that he stands to earn by putting them in the public domain, whereas Ze鈥檈iri holds that they did not penalize him by revoking his ownership of the items themselves due to the value of their enhancement. Rather, he loses only the increase in their value due to their enhancement.

转谞谉 讛讛讜驻讱 讗转 讛讙诇诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讜讝拽 讘讛谉 讗讞专 讞讬讬讘 讘谞讝拽讜 讜讗讬诇讜 讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讝讻讛 诇讗 拽转谞讬

The Gemara attempts to prove that Ze鈥檈iri鈥檚 opinion is correct from a case where there is no enhancement at all. We learned in the continuation of the mishna that in the case of one who turns over dung in the public domain and another person incurred damage due to it, the former is liable to pay for his damage. But it does not teach in this clause that whoever takes possession of it first acquires it. Apparently the Sages did not revoke his ownership of the dung, as it has no enhanced value. This does not seem to accord with Rav鈥檚 opinion.

转谞讗 诇专讬砖讗 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇住讬驻讗

The Gemara answers: The halakha that whoever takes possession of it acquires it is taught in the first clause, with regard to one who puts out straw, and the same is true in the last clause, with regard to one who turns over dung. It is unnecessary to repeat it. Therefore, no support for the opinion of Ze鈥檈iri can be derived from here.

讜讛讗 转谞讬 注诇讛 讗住讜专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita in that regard, i.e., a baraita that discusses the same cases as the mishna, that the hay and straw are forbidden due to the prohibition against robbery, which apparently means that one may not take possession of the dung, contrary to Rav鈥檚 opinion?

讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗住讜专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇 讗讻讜诇讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽讗讬 诇讗讜转讜 砖拽讚诐 讜讝讻讛

The Gemara answers: When it is taught in the baraita that they are forbidden due to the prohibition against robbery, it applies to the entire mishna, not just to this particular clause, and it is referring to taking the items from the one who came first and acquired them. In other words, once someone takes possession of them, it is forbidden for anyone else to take them from him, as that is considered robbery.

讜讛讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讛讻讬 讚转谞谉 讛诪讜爪讬讗 转讘谞讜 讜拽砖讜 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讝讘诇讬诐 讜讛讜讝拽 讘讛谉 讗讞专 讞讬讬讘 讘谞讝拽讜 讜讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讘讛谉 讝讻讛 讜诪讜转专 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇 讜讛讛讜驻讱 讗转 讛讙诇诇 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讜讝拽 讘讛谉 讗讞专 讞讬讬讘 讜讗住讜专 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇

The Gemara asks: But it is not taught in this manner elsewhere, as we learned in a baraita: In the case of one who takes out his straw and his hay to the public domain to use afterward as fertilizer and another person incurred damage due to them, he is liable to pay for his damage. And furthermore, whoever takes possession of them first acquires them, and is permitted to do so with regard to the prohibition against robbery. And in the case of one who turns over dung in the public domain and another incurred damage due to it, he is liable, but it is forbidden to take possession of it due to the prohibition against robbery.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讙诇诇 拽专诪讬转 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 砖讘讞 拽谞住讜 讙讜驻讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讞讜 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讘讞 诇讗 拽谞住讜

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Is it from the case of dung that you raise a contradiction to Rav鈥檚 opinion that one may take possession of straw and hay in the public domain? With regard to an item that has added value due to enhancement over time as a result of lying in the public domain, Rav holds that the Sages penalized one who leaves it in the public domain, revoking his ownership of the item itself because of its added value due to enhancement, but with regard to an item that does not have added value due to enhancement by lying in the public domain, such as dung, perhaps Rav concedes that they did not penalize him in this manner.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 拽谞住讜 讙讜驻谉 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讞谉 诇讗诇转专 拽谞住讬谞谉 讗讜 诇讻讬 诪讬讬转讬 砖讘讞讗 拽谞住讬谞谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the statement of Rav, who says that they penalized him by revoking his ownership of the items themselves because of its added value due to enhancement, do we impose this penalty immediately when he takes the straw out, allowing one to take possession of it even before it has time for its value to become enhanced, or do we impose the penalty only when its enhancement in value emerges?

转讗 砖诪注 诪讚拽讗讬讬专讬谞谉 讙诇诇

Come and hear a proof that the penalty is imposed immediately from the fact that we spoke of a difficulty to Rav鈥檚 opinion from the case of dung, whose value does not become enhanced, indicating that according to Rav the penalty is imposed before there is any enhancement.

讜转住讘专讗 讻讬 讗讬讬专讬谞谉 讙诇诇 诪讬拽诪讬 讚诇砖谞讬 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讘转专 讚砖谞讬 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬专诪讗 讙诇诇 讻诇诇

The Gemara responds: And how can you understand this proof? When we spoke of dung, this was before Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k resolved the difficulty, explaining that perhaps Rav concedes that there is no penalty in this case. But after Rav Na岣an resolved it, is it at all possible to raise an objection to Rav鈥檚 opinion from the case of dung? Therefore, no proof can be brought from there.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 砖讟专 砖讻转讜讘 讘讜 专讘讬转 拽讜谞住讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诇讗 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜诇讗 讗转 讛专讘讬转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛拽专谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转 讛专讘讬转 诇讬诪讗 专讘 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讝注讬专讬 讚讗诪专 讻专讘谞谉

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this dispute is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is stated in a baraita: With regard to a document in which a loan with interest is written, we penalize the lender, and he therefore collects neither the principal nor the interest; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: He collects the principal but not the interest. Shall we say that Rav stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, whose penalty applies to the value of the loan itself due to its enhancement, i.e., the interest, which is prohibited, and that Ze鈥檈iri stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who impose the penalty only on the interest?

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讛转诐 讗诇讗 拽专谉 讚讘讛转讬专讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 拽专谉 讙讜驻讗 拽诪讝讬拽

The Gemara answers that Rav could have said to you: I stated my opinion even according to the opinion of the Rabbis. The Rabbis were saying there that the principal is not forfeited by the lender only because the principal was loaned in a permissible manner, as the prohibition applies only to the interest. But here, in the case of one who put his straw in the public domain, the principal, i.e., the hazardous object itself, causes damage. Therefore, the penalty should relate to the object itself.

讜讝注讬专讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚诪砖注转 讻转讬讘讛 讚注讘讚 诇讬讛 砖讜诪讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚诪讝讬拽

And conversely, Ze鈥檈iri could have said to you: I stated my opinion even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir. The reason Rabbi Meir was saying there, in the case of a loan with interest, that the principal is also forfeited is only that the prohibition was already violated from the time of the writing of the document, by making an appraisal [shuma] of how much money is to be repaid, which included interest. But here, in the case of straw that one placed in the public domain, who can say that it will cause damage? Since the damage was not inevitable at the time that the straw was placed there, there is no justification for revoking the ownership of the straw itself.

诇讬诪讗 讻讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讛诪讜爪讬讗 转讘谞讜 讜拽砖讜 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讝讘诇讬诐 讜讛讜讝拽 讘讛谉 讗讞专 讞讬讬讘 讘谞讝拽讜 讜讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讘讛谉 讝讻讛 讜讗住讜专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛诪拽诇拽诇讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讝讬拽讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇砖诇诐 讜讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讘讛谉 讝讻讛 讜诪讜转专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇

The Gemara suggests alternatively: Let us say that the dispute between Rav and Ze鈥檈iri is parallel to a dispute between these tanna鈥檌m, as it is stated in a baraita: In the case of one who takes his straw and his hay out to the public domain to use afterward as fertilizer, and another incurred damage due to them, he is liable to pay for his damage. And whoever takes possession of them first acquires them, but they are forbidden due to the prohibition against robbery. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In the case of anyone who places obstacles in the public domain and they cause damage, he is liable to pay. And whoever takes possession of them first acquires them and they are permitted to him with regard to the prohibition against robbery.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讘讛谉 讝讻讛 讜讛讚专 拽讗诪专 讗住讜专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讘讛谉 讝讻讛 讘砖讘讞谉 讜讗住讜专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇 讗讙讜驻谉 讜讗转讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇诪讬诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讜驻谉 谞诪讬 讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讘讛谉 讝讻讛

The Gemara clarifies: This matter itself is difficult. First you said that whoever takes possession of them first acquires them, and then it says that they are forbidden due to the prohibition against robbery, indicating that one may not take possession of them. Rather, is this not what the baraita is saying: This statement: And whoever takes possession of them first acquires them, is stated with regard to the value of their enhancement. And this statement: But they are forbidden due to the prohibition against robbery, is stated with regard to the items themselves? And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel came to say that even with regard to the items themselves, whoever takes possession of them first acquires them. Therefore, this tannaitic dispute apparently relates to whether the penalty applies to the items themselves or just to the value of their enhancement.

诇讝注讬专讬 讜讚讗讬 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 诇专讘 诪讬 诇讬诪讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗

The Gemara comments: According to Ze鈥檈iri, it is certainly a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, since Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel explicitly deems it permitted for one to take possession of the items. According to Rav, shall we say that it is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m?

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 拽谞住讜 讙讜驻谉 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讞谉 讜讛讻讗 讘讛诇讻讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讜专讬谉 讻谉 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讗转诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讜专讬谉 讻谉 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讜诪讜专讬谉 讻谉

The Gemara responds that Rav could have said to you: According to all opinions, the Sages imposed a penalty revoking his ownership of the items themselves due to the value of their enhancement. And here in the baraita the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to whether or not it is ruled that this is the halakha but a public ruling is not issued to that effect, as it was stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed as to whether the halakha revoking his ownership of the items themselves should be taught to the public. Rav Huna says that Rav says: This is the halakha, but a public ruling is not issued to that effect. In other words, although it is permitted for one to take possession of the straw, halakhic authorities should not publicly rule that people may do so, lest people become accustomed to taking items that belong to others. This is the opinion of the first tanna in the baraita. Rav Adda bar Ahava says: This is the halakha and a public ruling is issued to that effect. This, Rav could have said, is the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗驻拽专 讞讜砖诇讬 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗驻拽专

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rav Huna declare dried barley [岣shelei] that people laid out in the public domain ownerless? Similarly, didn鈥檛 Rav Adda bar Ahava declare ownerless

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Kamma 30

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 30

诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻讜壮

in the name of Rabbi Yishmael that one is liable to pay for damage caused by a pit that he dug in the public domain, even if it is not his personal property?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讗 讚专讘讬讛

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This ruling, that he is exempt, is his own opinion, whereas that ruling, that he is liable, is the opinion of his teacher Rabbi Yishmael, and he disagrees with it.

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜驻讱 诪讬诐 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讜讝拽 讘讛谉 讗讞专 讞讬讬讘 讘谞讝拽讜 讛诪爪谞讬注 讗转 讛拽讜抓 讜讗转 讛讝讻讜讻讬转 讜讛讙讜讚专 讗转 讙讚专讜 讘拽讜爪讬诐 讜讙讚专 砖谞驻诇 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讜讝拽讜 讘讛谉 讗讞专讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讘谞讝拽谉

MISHNA: In the case of one who pours water in the public domain, and another person in-curred damage due to it, the one who poured water is liable to pay for his damage. In the case of one who conceals a thorn or a piece of glass in his wall adjacent to the public domain, or one who puts up a fence of thorns, or one who puts up a fence that subsequently fell into the public domain, and others incurred damage due to any of these, he is liable to pay for their damage.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讚谞讟谞驻讜 讻诇讬讜 讘诪讬诐 讗讘诇 讛讜讗 注爪诪讜 驻讟讜专 拽专拽注 注讜诇诐 讛讝讬拽转讜

GEMARA: With regard to the case of one who pours water in the public domain, Rav says: They taught that he is liable only when the clothes of one who slipped were soiled by the dirty water, but if the one who slipped himself was injured, the one who poured the water is exempt, as it is the impact with the ground that injured him, not the water.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇专讘 诇讗 讬讛讗 讗诇讗 讻专驻砖讜

Rav Huna said to Rav: Why should he be exempt from paying restitution for the injury? Even if the water that he poured is considered only like his filth that he tossed in the public domain, he should be liable. Since the muddy ground caused the injury, and the mud belongs to him, as it results from the addition of his water to the dirt, he should be liable.

诪讬 住讘专转 讚诇讗 转诪讜 诪讬讗 讘讚转诪讜 诪讬讗

Rav responded: Do you maintain that this is a case where the water was not absorbed into the ground? It is a case where the water was absorbed, leaving only moist dirt. Since there is no mud there that can be deemed as belonging to the one who spilled the water, he is exempt from liability.

讜转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara asks: But if the mishna鈥檚 ruling refers only to the soiling of the pedestrian鈥檚 clothes, why do I need two mishnayot to state this halakha? According to Rav, this halakha was already addressed in the previous mishna, with regard to a jug that broke, causing a pedestrian to fall and his clothes to become soiled.

讞讚讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜讞讚讗 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐

The Gemara answers: One halakha was stated with regard to a case where this occurred in the summer, the dry season, and one with regard to a case where it occurred in the rainy season.

讚转谞讬讗 讻诇 讗诇讜 砖讗诪专讜 驻讜转拽讬谉 讘讬讘讜转讬讛谉 讜讙讜专驻讬谉 诪注专讜转讬讛谉 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 专砖讜转 讜讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐 讬砖 诇讛诐 专砖讜转 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讘专砖讜转 讗诐 讛讝讬拽讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇砖诇诐

As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to all those people who engage in activities that the Sages stated are permitted, i.e., those who open [potkin] their gutters and drain the sewage from their houses into the public domain, and those who flush out the water from their caves, where foul-smelling water was stored, into the public domain, during the summer they do not have permission to do so, while during the rainy season they have permission to do so, since the street is rained upon in any event and thereby washed. And although all these people perform their actions with permission, if they cause damage they are liable to pay for it. Because of the difference between the summer and the rainy season with regard to whether it is permitted for one to pour water into the public domain, both mishnayot are necessary, one for each season. This is in order to teach that even in the rainy season, when it is permitted to pour water into the public domain, one is nevertheless liable to pay for damage resulting from the water.

讛诪爪谞讬注 讗转 讛拽讜抓 [讜讻讜壮] 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪驻专讬讞 讗讘诇 诪爪诪爪诐 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 驻讟讜专 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻谉 砖诇 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诇讛转讞讻讱 讘讻转诇讬诐

搂 It is stated in the mishna that one who conceals a thorn or a piece of glass, or one who puts up a fence of thorns, is liable to pay for damage resulting from them. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: They taught that he is liable only in a case where he projects these obstacles into the public domain, but if he restricts them to his own property, he is not liable. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that he is exempt? Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, says: It is because it is not the typical manner of people to rub against walls, but to keep a certain distance from them. Therefore, if a pedestrian is wounded by the thorns, it is considered an unusual accident, for which the owner of the fence is not liable.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪爪谞讬注 拽讜爪讜转讬讜 讜讝讻讜讻讬讜转讬讜 诇转讜讱 讻讜转诇 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜讘讗 讘注诇 讻讜转诇 讜住转专 讻讜转诇讜 讜谞驻诇 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讝讬拽讜 讞讬讬讘 讛诪爪谞讬注

The Sages taught (Tosefta 2:6): With regard to one who conceals his thorns or his pieces of glass in another鈥檚 wall, and the owner of the wall came and demolished his wall and it fell into the public domain, and the thorns or glass caused damage, the one who concealed them is liable.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讻讜转诇 专注讜注 讗讘诇 讘讻讜转诇 讘专讬讗 讛诪爪谞讬注 驻讟讜专 讜讞讬讬讘 讘注诇 讛讻讜转诇

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: They taught this only in the case of an unstable wall, since the one who concealed his items should have anticipated that the owner of the wall would soon demolish it, but in the case of a stable wall, the one who concealed his items is exempt, and the owner of the wall is liable.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讛诪讻住讛 讘讜专讜 讘讚诇讬讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜讘讗 讘注诇 讚诇讬 讜谞讟诇 讚诇讬讜 讞讬讬讘 讘注诇 讛讘讜专

Ravina says: That is to say that in the case of one who covers his pit with another鈥檚 bucket, and the owner of the bucket came and took his bucket, and the pit causes damage, the owner of the pit is liable.

驻砖讬讟讗

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? This is exactly the same halakha as Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement with regard to one who conceals thorns in an unstable wall, i.e., that the hazardous item was likely to be revealed from the moment that it was concealed, and therefore its owner is liable to pay for any damage that it causes. What is the novel element in Ravina鈥檚 statement?

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 讬讚注 诇讬讛 讚诇讜讚注讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讬讚注 诇讬讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇讗讜讚讜注讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: It is necessary. Lest you say: It is only there, in the case of the thorns, that the owner of the wall is exempt, since he did not know who concealed the hazardous item in order to inform him that he should remove them, but here, since the owner of the bucket knew who dug the pit, he should have informed him that he was taking his bucket and is consequently liable to pay for damage caused by the pit, Ravina therefore, teaches us that he is not required to inform the owner of the pit, and he bears no responsibility for any damage caused.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞住讬讚讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 讛讬讜 诪爪谞讬注讬诐 拽讜爪讜转讬讛诐 讜讝讻讜讻讬讜转讬讛诐 讘转讜讱 砖讚讜转讬讛谉 讜诪注诪讬拽讬诐 诇讛谉 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬注讻讘 讛诪讞专讬砖讛

The Sages taught: The early pious people would conceal their thorns and their pieces of glass in their fields, and would dig to the depth of at least three handbreadths in order to bury them, so that they would not obstruct the plow.

专讘 砖砖转 砖讚讬 诇讛讜 讘谞讜专讗 专讘讗 砖讚讬 诇讛讜 讘讚讙诇转

The Gemara relates: Rav Sheshet would toss his thorns into fire, so they would not cause damage to others. Rava would toss them into the Tigris [Diglat] River.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讘注讬 诇诪讛讜讬 讞住讬讚讗 诇拽讬讬诐 诪讬诇讬 讚谞讝讬拽讬谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 诪讬诇讬 讚讗讘讜转 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诪讬诇讬 讚讘专讻讜转

Rav Yehuda says: One who wants to be pious should observe the matters of tractate Nezikin, so as to avoid causing damage to others. Rava said he should observe the matters of tractate Avot. And some say he should observe the matters of tractate Berakhot.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 转讘谞讜 讜拽砖讜 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讝讘诇讬诐 讜讛讜讝拽 讘讛谉 讗讞专 讞讬讬讘 讘谞讝拽讜 讜讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讘讛谉 讝讻讛 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛诪拽诇拽诇讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讝讬拽讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇砖诇诐 讜讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讘讛谉 讝讻讛

MISHNA: In the case of one who takes out his straw [teven] and his hay [kash] to the public domain to use afterward as fertilizer and another person incurred damage due to them, he is liable to pay for his damage, and whoever takes possession of the hay and straw first acquires them for himself. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: With regard to anyone who places obstacles in the public domain and they cause damage, he is liable to pay damages, and whoever takes possession of them first acquires them.

讛讛讜驻讱 讗转 讛讙诇诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讜讝拽 讘讛谉 讗讞专 讞讬讬讘 讘谞讝拽讜

In the case of one who turns over dung in the public domain and another person incurred damage due to it, the former is liable to pay for his damage.

讙诪壮 诇讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

GEMARA: Let us say that the ruling in the mishna that one is liable to pay for damage caused by straw or hay that he put in the public domain is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖注转 讛讜爪讗转 讝讘诇讬诐 讗讚诐 诪讜爪讬讗 讝讘诇讜 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜爪讜讘专讜 讻诇 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 谞讬砖讜祝 讘专讙诇讬 讗讚诐 讜讘专讙诇讬 讘讛诪讛 砖注诇 诪谞转 讻谉 讛谞讞讬诇 讬讛讜砖注 讗转 讛讗专抓

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: During the period when fertilizer is taken out, a person may take his fertilizer out to the public domain and let it accumulate there for a full thirty days, so that it gets trampled by people鈥檚 feet and by animals鈥 feet, as it was on this condition that Joshua bequeathed Eretz Yisrael to the Jewish people (see 80b). In other words, people do not have the right to prevent someone from taking out his straw to the public domain, since they received their portion of Eretz Yisrael following Joshua鈥檚 conquest on this condition. Apparently, since one has the right to take out his straw, he is not held liable to pay for damage caused by it.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讗诐 讛讝讬拽 诪砖诇诐 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, since Rabbi Yehuda possibly concedes that if the fertilizer caused damage, he is liable to pay for the damage it caused, although he acted within his rights.

讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讘专砖讜转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 专砖讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: If a pile of straw on the back of an animal that was passing through the public domain catches fire from a Hanukkah lamp that was placed outside a store, the owner of the lamp is exempt, since he put it there with permission (see 62b)? What, is it not because he put it there with the permission of the court and is therefore exempt from paying for damage caused by it?

诇讗 诪砖讜诐 专砖讜转 诪爪讜讛 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 专砖讜转 诪爪讜讛

The Gemara answers: No, it is because he put it there with the permission granted to those performing a mitzva. Permission of the court is not sufficient to exempt him from paying damages, unless, in addition, permission was granted for the purpose of performing a mitzva. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that if it caught fire from a Hanukkah lamp he is exempt because he had permission to put it there in order to perform a mitzva.

转讗 砖诪注 讻诇 讗诇讜 砖讗诪专讜 诪讜转专讬谉 诇拽诇拽诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗诐 讛讝讬拽讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇砖诇诐 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻讜讟专

Come and hear an alternative proof from a baraita: With regard to all these cases in which the Sages said that it is permitted for people to place obstacles in the public domain, if they caused damage, these people are liable to pay, and Rabbi Yehuda exempts them. Evidently, according to Rabbi Yehuda, if one has the permission of the court to put an item in the public domain, he is exempt from paying damages.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 讛讜爪讗转 讝讘诇讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗

Rav Na岣an said: The mishna is referring to a case where one put his fertilizer outside not during the period when fertilizer is taken out. Therefore, he did not have permission to do so. And it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that one is liable only if he acts without permission.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专

Rav Ashi said an alternative explanation of the mishna according to Rabbi Yehuda:

转讘谞讜 讜拽砖讜 转谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讚诪砖专拽讬

What we learned in the mishna was specifically with regard to a case where one put out his straw and his hay, which are more likely to cause injury than fertilizer and other objects, because they are particularly slippery. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda agrees that in this case he is liable to pay for damage they cause.

讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讘讛谉 讝讻讛 讗诪专 专讘 讘讬谉 讘讙讜驻谉 讘讬谉 讘砖讘讞谉 讜讝注讬专讬 讗诪专 讘砖讘讞谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘讙讜驻谉

搂 It is stated in the mishna that if one puts his straw and hay out in the public domain, whoever takes possession of them first acquires them. The Sages disagreed with regard to the extent of this acquisition. Rav says: He acquires them both with regard to the items themselves and with regard to the value of their enhancement, which took place while they were in the public domain. And Ze鈥檈iri says: He acquires them with regard to the value of their enhancement but not with regard to the items themselves, and he must pay the owner of the straw according to their value at the time he placed them in the public domain.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘 住讘专 拽谞住讜 讙讜驻谉 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讞谉 讜讝注讬专讬 住讘专 诇讗 拽谞住讜 讙讜驻谉 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讞谉

With regard to what do they disagree? Rav holds that the Sages penalized the owner by revoking his ownership of the items themselves due to the value of their enhancement that he stands to earn by putting them in the public domain, whereas Ze鈥檈iri holds that they did not penalize him by revoking his ownership of the items themselves due to the value of their enhancement. Rather, he loses only the increase in their value due to their enhancement.

转谞谉 讛讛讜驻讱 讗转 讛讙诇诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讜讝拽 讘讛谉 讗讞专 讞讬讬讘 讘谞讝拽讜 讜讗讬诇讜 讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讝讻讛 诇讗 拽转谞讬

The Gemara attempts to prove that Ze鈥檈iri鈥檚 opinion is correct from a case where there is no enhancement at all. We learned in the continuation of the mishna that in the case of one who turns over dung in the public domain and another person incurred damage due to it, the former is liable to pay for his damage. But it does not teach in this clause that whoever takes possession of it first acquires it. Apparently the Sages did not revoke his ownership of the dung, as it has no enhanced value. This does not seem to accord with Rav鈥檚 opinion.

转谞讗 诇专讬砖讗 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇住讬驻讗

The Gemara answers: The halakha that whoever takes possession of it acquires it is taught in the first clause, with regard to one who puts out straw, and the same is true in the last clause, with regard to one who turns over dung. It is unnecessary to repeat it. Therefore, no support for the opinion of Ze鈥檈iri can be derived from here.

讜讛讗 转谞讬 注诇讛 讗住讜专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita in that regard, i.e., a baraita that discusses the same cases as the mishna, that the hay and straw are forbidden due to the prohibition against robbery, which apparently means that one may not take possession of the dung, contrary to Rav鈥檚 opinion?

讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗住讜专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇 讗讻讜诇讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽讗讬 诇讗讜转讜 砖拽讚诐 讜讝讻讛

The Gemara answers: When it is taught in the baraita that they are forbidden due to the prohibition against robbery, it applies to the entire mishna, not just to this particular clause, and it is referring to taking the items from the one who came first and acquired them. In other words, once someone takes possession of them, it is forbidden for anyone else to take them from him, as that is considered robbery.

讜讛讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讛讻讬 讚转谞谉 讛诪讜爪讬讗 转讘谞讜 讜拽砖讜 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讝讘诇讬诐 讜讛讜讝拽 讘讛谉 讗讞专 讞讬讬讘 讘谞讝拽讜 讜讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讘讛谉 讝讻讛 讜诪讜转专 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇 讜讛讛讜驻讱 讗转 讛讙诇诇 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讜讝拽 讘讛谉 讗讞专 讞讬讬讘 讜讗住讜专 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇

The Gemara asks: But it is not taught in this manner elsewhere, as we learned in a baraita: In the case of one who takes out his straw and his hay to the public domain to use afterward as fertilizer and another person incurred damage due to them, he is liable to pay for his damage. And furthermore, whoever takes possession of them first acquires them, and is permitted to do so with regard to the prohibition against robbery. And in the case of one who turns over dung in the public domain and another incurred damage due to it, he is liable, but it is forbidden to take possession of it due to the prohibition against robbery.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讙诇诇 拽专诪讬转 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 砖讘讞 拽谞住讜 讙讜驻讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讞讜 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讘讞 诇讗 拽谞住讜

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Is it from the case of dung that you raise a contradiction to Rav鈥檚 opinion that one may take possession of straw and hay in the public domain? With regard to an item that has added value due to enhancement over time as a result of lying in the public domain, Rav holds that the Sages penalized one who leaves it in the public domain, revoking his ownership of the item itself because of its added value due to enhancement, but with regard to an item that does not have added value due to enhancement by lying in the public domain, such as dung, perhaps Rav concedes that they did not penalize him in this manner.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 拽谞住讜 讙讜驻谉 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讞谉 诇讗诇转专 拽谞住讬谞谉 讗讜 诇讻讬 诪讬讬转讬 砖讘讞讗 拽谞住讬谞谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the statement of Rav, who says that they penalized him by revoking his ownership of the items themselves because of its added value due to enhancement, do we impose this penalty immediately when he takes the straw out, allowing one to take possession of it even before it has time for its value to become enhanced, or do we impose the penalty only when its enhancement in value emerges?

转讗 砖诪注 诪讚拽讗讬讬专讬谞谉 讙诇诇

Come and hear a proof that the penalty is imposed immediately from the fact that we spoke of a difficulty to Rav鈥檚 opinion from the case of dung, whose value does not become enhanced, indicating that according to Rav the penalty is imposed before there is any enhancement.

讜转住讘专讗 讻讬 讗讬讬专讬谞谉 讙诇诇 诪讬拽诪讬 讚诇砖谞讬 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讘转专 讚砖谞讬 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬专诪讗 讙诇诇 讻诇诇

The Gemara responds: And how can you understand this proof? When we spoke of dung, this was before Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k resolved the difficulty, explaining that perhaps Rav concedes that there is no penalty in this case. But after Rav Na岣an resolved it, is it at all possible to raise an objection to Rav鈥檚 opinion from the case of dung? Therefore, no proof can be brought from there.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 砖讟专 砖讻转讜讘 讘讜 专讘讬转 拽讜谞住讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诇讗 讗转 讛拽专谉 讜诇讗 讗转 讛专讘讬转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讙讜讘讛 讗转 讛拽专谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转 讛专讘讬转 诇讬诪讗 专讘 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讝注讬专讬 讚讗诪专 讻专讘谞谉

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this dispute is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it is stated in a baraita: With regard to a document in which a loan with interest is written, we penalize the lender, and he therefore collects neither the principal nor the interest; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: He collects the principal but not the interest. Shall we say that Rav stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, whose penalty applies to the value of the loan itself due to its enhancement, i.e., the interest, which is prohibited, and that Ze鈥檈iri stated his opinion in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who impose the penalty only on the interest?

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讛转诐 讗诇讗 拽专谉 讚讘讛转讬专讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 拽专谉 讙讜驻讗 拽诪讝讬拽

The Gemara answers that Rav could have said to you: I stated my opinion even according to the opinion of the Rabbis. The Rabbis were saying there that the principal is not forfeited by the lender only because the principal was loaned in a permissible manner, as the prohibition applies only to the interest. But here, in the case of one who put his straw in the public domain, the principal, i.e., the hazardous object itself, causes damage. Therefore, the penalty should relate to the object itself.

讜讝注讬专讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚诪砖注转 讻转讬讘讛 讚注讘讚 诇讬讛 砖讜诪讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚诪讝讬拽

And conversely, Ze鈥檈iri could have said to you: I stated my opinion even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir. The reason Rabbi Meir was saying there, in the case of a loan with interest, that the principal is also forfeited is only that the prohibition was already violated from the time of the writing of the document, by making an appraisal [shuma] of how much money is to be repaid, which included interest. But here, in the case of straw that one placed in the public domain, who can say that it will cause damage? Since the damage was not inevitable at the time that the straw was placed there, there is no justification for revoking the ownership of the straw itself.

诇讬诪讗 讻讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讛诪讜爪讬讗 转讘谞讜 讜拽砖讜 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讝讘诇讬诐 讜讛讜讝拽 讘讛谉 讗讞专 讞讬讬讘 讘谞讝拽讜 讜讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讘讛谉 讝讻讛 讜讗住讜专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛诪拽诇拽诇讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讝讬拽讜 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诇砖诇诐 讜讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讘讛谉 讝讻讛 讜诪讜转专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇

The Gemara suggests alternatively: Let us say that the dispute between Rav and Ze鈥檈iri is parallel to a dispute between these tanna鈥檌m, as it is stated in a baraita: In the case of one who takes his straw and his hay out to the public domain to use afterward as fertilizer, and another incurred damage due to them, he is liable to pay for his damage. And whoever takes possession of them first acquires them, but they are forbidden due to the prohibition against robbery. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In the case of anyone who places obstacles in the public domain and they cause damage, he is liable to pay. And whoever takes possession of them first acquires them and they are permitted to him with regard to the prohibition against robbery.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讘讛谉 讝讻讛 讜讛讚专 拽讗诪专 讗住讜专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讘讛谉 讝讻讛 讘砖讘讞谉 讜讗住讜专讬谉 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇 讗讙讜驻谉 讜讗转讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇诪讬诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讙讜驻谉 谞诪讬 讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 讘讛谉 讝讻讛

The Gemara clarifies: This matter itself is difficult. First you said that whoever takes possession of them first acquires them, and then it says that they are forbidden due to the prohibition against robbery, indicating that one may not take possession of them. Rather, is this not what the baraita is saying: This statement: And whoever takes possession of them first acquires them, is stated with regard to the value of their enhancement. And this statement: But they are forbidden due to the prohibition against robbery, is stated with regard to the items themselves? And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel came to say that even with regard to the items themselves, whoever takes possession of them first acquires them. Therefore, this tannaitic dispute apparently relates to whether the penalty applies to the items themselves or just to the value of their enhancement.

诇讝注讬专讬 讜讚讗讬 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 诇专讘 诪讬 诇讬诪讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗

The Gemara comments: According to Ze鈥檈iri, it is certainly a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, since Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel explicitly deems it permitted for one to take possession of the items. According to Rav, shall we say that it is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m?

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 拽谞住讜 讙讜驻谉 诪砖讜诐 砖讘讞谉 讜讛讻讗 讘讛诇讻讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讜专讬谉 讻谉 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚讗转诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讜讗讬谉 诪讜专讬谉 讻谉 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专 讛诇讻讛 讜诪讜专讬谉 讻谉

The Gemara responds that Rav could have said to you: According to all opinions, the Sages imposed a penalty revoking his ownership of the items themselves due to the value of their enhancement. And here in the baraita the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to whether or not it is ruled that this is the halakha but a public ruling is not issued to that effect, as it was stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed as to whether the halakha revoking his ownership of the items themselves should be taught to the public. Rav Huna says that Rav says: This is the halakha, but a public ruling is not issued to that effect. In other words, although it is permitted for one to take possession of the straw, halakhic authorities should not publicly rule that people may do so, lest people become accustomed to taking items that belong to others. This is the opinion of the first tanna in the baraita. Rav Adda bar Ahava says: This is the halakha and a public ruling is issued to that effect. This, Rav could have said, is the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗驻拽专 讞讜砖诇讬 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗驻拽专

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rav Huna declare dried barley [岣shelei] that people laid out in the public domain ownerless? Similarly, didn鈥檛 Rav Adda bar Ahava declare ownerless

Scroll To Top