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

Daf Yomi

January 2, 2024 | ื›ืดื ื‘ื˜ื‘ืช ืชืฉืคืดื“

  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Bava Kamma 61

This week’s learning is sponsored in honor of Shoshana Baker. “Mazal tov on completing 4.039 daf yomi cycles of marriage! With love and joy, Mark.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Suri Stern in honor of the birth of a granddaughter Hallel Rus, daughter of Esther and Shai Goldman and in loving memory of her father Harav Reuvain ben Chaim, whose yahrzeit was on the 17th Tevet. “My father completed Shas many times and was an anav as gabbai rishon for the white shul.”ย 

Today’s daf is sponsored by Susan Cashdan in loving memory of her father ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืŸ ืžืฉื” ื—ื•ื ื” ื–”ืœ and for the refua shleima of their little grandson Ziv Shimon ben Shulamit Chaya and Shulamit Chaya bat Sara Devora.

In Shmuel 2 Chapter 23, David desires water from Beit Lechem and three of his warriors bring water for him from inside the Philistine camp in Beit Lechem. When they return, David refuses to accept the water as they endanger their lives unnecessarily. This story is understood by the sages homiletically – that David was looking for an answer to a halakhic question and refused to accept the answer. What was the halakhic question and why did he refuse to accept the answer? The Gemara brings three different suggestions and analyzes them based on the story in the text of Shmuel 2 and Chronicles. Regarding laws of fire, the Mishna discusses cases where one is exempt from damage caused by a fire, such as, if there is a non-flammable fence between the fire and the neighbor’s property four cubits high, or a public thoroughfare or river in between. If the fire is in a field of thorns, the four cubits of the fence are measured from the height of the thorn bushes. Rav and Shmuel disagree about what type of fire one is exempt from in the Mishna – one that blazes high or one that blazes low. The Mishna quotes a debate between several tannaim – if one lights a fire in one’s field, up to what distance can the fire travel and the owner will still be liable for damages? The final opinion in the Mishna, Rabbi Shimon, seems to say that there is no limit and one is always responsible for damages caused by his fire. Is it possible that Rabbi Shimon said this as elsewhere he says there is a limit? Rav Nachman explains that Rabbi Shimon’s statement in the Mishna meant something else – that it all depends on the height of the fire. Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis disagree on whether or not there is an exception from paying damages for a fire that burns something hidden. Items inside a building are not considered hidden, whereas items in a stack of grains would be. Rav Kahane holds that the debate is only when one lights a fire on one’s own property and it spreads to a neighbor’s property, but if one lit a fire on someone else’s property, all agree that one is liable for hidden items as well. Rava disagrees and holds that they disagree in both cases. However, he distinguishes within the case of one who lit a fire in another’s property between items typically and non-typically hidden.

ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืืฉ ืงืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ืžืื™ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืงืจืื™ ืืžืจ ืœืš ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื•ื—ื“ื ืžื”ื ืš ืงืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื”


But according to Rava, who cited Rav Naแธฅman, the one who says that David asked with regard to the halakha of a concealed article damaged by a fire, for what purpose does he require the two verses that describe a field of lentils and a field of barley? Rav Naแธฅman could have said to you that David was asking both about concealed articles damaged by a fire and one of these other two dilemmas.


ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ื ื™ ืชืจืชื™ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืœื ืื‘ื” (ื“ื•ื“) ืœืฉืชื•ืชื ืืžืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืœื ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืืฉ ืงื ืžื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ืžื›ื“ื™ ื’ืžืจื ื”ื•ื ื“ืฉืœื—ื• ืœื™ื” ืžืื™ ืœื ืื‘ื” (ื“ื•ื“) ืœืฉืชื•ืชื


Granted, according to the one who says one of these two explanations, that David was asking either about repaying barley with lentils or burning the stacks of barley, this is as it is written of David: โ€œBut he would not drink itโ€ (IIย Samuel 23:16). David said to himself: Since there is a prohibition involved in this action, it is not satisfactory to me to act in this manner, even though technically it is permitted for a king. But according to the one who says that David was raising a dilemma with regard to the halakha of a concealed article damaged by a fire, since they sent him an answer that was a tradition with regard to the halakha, what is the meaning of: โ€œBut he would not drink itโ€?


ื“ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ื”ื• ืžืฉืžื™ื™ื”ื• ืืžืจ ื›ืš ืžืงื•ื‘ืœื ื™ ืžื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ื ื• ืฉืœ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืจืžืชื™ ื›ืœ ื”ืžื•ืกืจ ืขืฆืžื• ืœืžื•ืช ืขืœ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืชื•ืจื” ืื™ืŸ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืœื›ื” ืžืฉืžื•


The Gemara answers: This means that he did not say the halakha in their names. He did not transmit the ruling in the name of those who went in the time of battle to ask the Sages what the halakha is. David said to himself: This is the tradition that I received from the court of Samuel of Rama: With regard to anyone who hands himself over to die for the sake of words of Torah, the Sages do not say a matter of halakha in his name, so that others will not follow this ruling and endanger their lives.


ื•ื™ืกืš ืืชื ืœื”ืณ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ื ื™ ืชืจืชื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืขื‘ื“ ืœืฉื ืฉืžื™ื ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืืฉ ืžืื™ ื•ื™ืกืš ืืชื ืœื”ืณ ื“ืืžืจื™ื ื”ื• ืžืฉืžื ื“ื’ืžืจื


The Gemara asks another question: The verse states: โ€œHe poured it out to the Lordโ€ (IIย Samuel 23:16), which indicates that David acted stringently and did not rely on the lenient ruling that he received. Granted, according to the one who says either of these two explanations, that David asked either about burning the stacks of barley or about replacing their value with lentils, he poured out the water to God due to the fact that he acted for the sake of Heaven and did not rely on the lenient ruling he had received. But according to the one who says that David asked about a concealed article damaged by a fire, what is the reason that he poured out the water to the Lord? The Gemara answers: The reason is that they said this halakha in the name of the tradition, without associating it with any specific individual.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืขื‘ืจื” ื’ื“ืจ ืฉื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ื•ื” ืืจื‘ืข ืืžื•ืช ืื• ื“ืจืš ื”ืจื‘ื™ื ืื• ื ื”ืจ ืคื˜ื•ืจ


MISHNA: If one kindled a fire that crossed a fence that is four cubits high, or if the fire crossed the public thoroughfare, or if the fire crossed a river, and in each case it caused damage on the other side, he is exempt from liability.


ื’ืžืณ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืขื‘ืจื” ื’ื“ืจ ืฉื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ื•ื” ืืจื‘ืข ืืžื•ืช ื—ื™ื™ื‘


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita that if a fire crossed a fence that is four cubits in height, the one who kindled the fire is liable? This appears to contradict the mishna.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืชื ื ื“ื™ื“ืŸ ืงื ื—ืฉื™ื‘ ืžืœืžืขืœื” ืœืžื˜ื” ืฉืฉ ืืžื•ืช ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื—ืžืฉ ืืžื•ืช ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืขื“ ืืจื‘ืข ืืžื•ืช ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืชื ื ื‘ืจื ืžืœืžื˜ื” ืœืžืขืœื” ืงื ื—ืฉื™ื‘ ืฉืชื™ ืืžื•ืช ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืฉืœืฉ ืืžื•ืช ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขื“ ืืจื‘ืข ืืžื•ืช ื—ื™ื™ื‘


Rav Pappa said: There is no dispute between the tanna of the mishna and the tanna of the baraita; there is merely a difference of how they stated their rulings. The tanna of our mishna counts downward from above to below. In other words, if the fire crossed a fence six cubits high, the one who kindled the fire is exempt; if it crossed a fence five cubits high, he is exempt; and this is the halakha until the fire crosses a fence of a minimum of four cubits high, where the one who kindled the fire is still exempt. Conversely, the tanna of the baraita counts up from below to above. The meaning is that if the fire crossed a fence two cubits high, the one who kindled the fire is liable; if the fire crossed a fence three cubits high, he is liable; and this is the halakha until the fire crosses a fence of a maximum of four cubits high, where the one who kindled the fire is still liable. Accordingly, there is no contradiction between the mishna and the baraita.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืืจื‘ืข ืืžื•ืช ืฉืืžืจื• ื“ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืฉื“ื” ืงื•ืฆื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื•ืžืฉืคืช ืงื•ืฆื™ื ื•ืœืžืขืœื” ืืจื‘ืข ืืžื•ืช


ยง Rava says: When they said in the mishna with regard to a fire crossing a fence four cubits high that the one who kindled the fire is exempt, this is even in a field of thorns. Rav Pappa says: And Ravaโ€™s statement is referring to a case where the height of the fence is four cubits counting from above the upper limit of the thorns.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ื‘ืงื•ืœื—ืช ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื ื›ืคืคืช ืืคื™ืœื• ืขื“ ืžืื” ืืžื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื‘ื ื›ืคืคืช ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืงื•ืœื—ืช ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ืคื˜ื•ืจ


Rav says: They taught in the mishna that one is exempt from liability if the fire crosses a public thoroughfare only in a case where the flame blazes high [bekolaแธฅat]. But in a case where the flame blazes low [benikhpefet] and therefore spreads easily along the ground, the one who kindled the fire is liable even if the space that the fire crossed was up to one hundred cubits. And Shmuel said: The mishna exempts one from liability if the fire crosses a public thoroughfare in a case where the flame blazes low, but in a case where the flame blazes high, even any minimal gap between where the fire was kindled and where it caused damage renders the one who kindled the fire exempt.


ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืงื•ืœื—ืช ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื ื›ืคืคืช ื•ืขืฆื™ื ืžืฆื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืœื” ืืคื™ืœื• ืขื“ ืžืื” ืžื™ืœ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขื‘ืจื” ื ื”ืจ ืื• ืฉืœื•ืœื™ืช ืฉื”ื ืจื—ื‘ื™ื ืฉืžื•ื ื” ืืžื•ืช ืคื˜ื•ืจ


It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: In what case is this statement said that one is exempt if the fire crosses a public thoroughfare? It is in a case where the flame blazes high. But in a case where the flame blazes low and there is wood to keep it burning, one is liable even if it causes damage at a distance of up to one hundred mil. If the fire crossed a river or a pool [shelulit] of water that is eight cubits wide, he is exempt from paying for the damage caused, regardless of whether the fire blazed high or low.


ื“ืจืš ื”ืจื‘ื™ื ืžืืŸ ืชื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืฉ ืขืฉืจื” ืืžื•ืช ื›ื“ืจืš ืจืฉื•ืช ื”ืจื‘ื™ื (ืคื˜ื•ืจ)


ยง The mishna teaches: If the fire crossed the public thoroughfare, he is exempt. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who holds this opinion? Rava said: It is Rabbi Eliezer, as we learned in a mishna (61b) that Rabbi Eliezer says: One is liable up to a distance of sixteen cubits, like the width of the public domain. By inference, one is exempt if a fire crosses a greater distance, i.e., across a public thoroughfare.


ืื• ื ื”ืจ ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ื ื”ืจ ืžืžืฉ ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืืจื™ืชื ื“ื“ืœืื™


The mishna teaches: Or if the fire crossed a river, he is exempt. Rav says: The term stream means an actual river. And Shmuel says: This term means a water channel.


ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื ื”ืจ ืžืžืฉ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืœื™ื›ื ืžื™ื ื•ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืืจื™ืชื ื“ื“ืœืื™ ืื™ ืื™ืช ื‘ื™ื” ืžื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืœื™ืช ื‘ื™ื” ืžื™ื ืœื


The Gemara explains their dispute: The one who says that it is referring to an actual river, Rav, deems exempt one whose fire crosses a riverbed even when there is no water in it, since it is sufficiently deep and wide to prevent a typical fire from crossing it. But the one who says that it is referring to a water channel, Shmuel, holds that if the fire crosses a water channel that has water in it, yes, the one who kindled the fire is exempt. But if the fire crosses a water channel that does not have water in it, he is not exempt.


ืชื ืŸ ื”ืชื ื•ืืœื• ืžืคืกื™ืงื™ืŸ ืœืคืื” ื”ื ื—ืœ ื•ื”ืฉืœื•ืœื™ืช ื•ื“ืจืš ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ื“ืจืš ื”ืจื‘ื™ื


We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Peโ€™a 2:1): And these, the following list of features, divide a field for the purpose of peโ€™a, i.e., it is no longer considered a single field, but instead peโ€™a must be given from each separate section: A stream, a shelulit, a private road, and a public thoroughfare.


ืžืื™ ืฉืœื•ืœื™ืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉืžื™ ื’ืฉืžื™ื ืฉื•ืœืœื™ืŸ ืฉื ืจื‘ ื‘ื™ื‘ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืช ื”ืžื™ื ืฉืžื—ืœืงืช ืฉืœืœ ืœืื’ืคื™ื”


The Gemara asks: What is a shelulit? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: It is a place where rainwater gathers [sholelin]. Rav Beivai says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: It is a water channel that distributes its spoils [shalal] to its banks, since the water spreads to the adjacent cisterns.


ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืงื•ื ืฉืžื™ ื’ืฉืžื™ื ืฉื•ืœืœื™ืŸ ืฉื ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ืืžืช ื”ืžื™ื ื•ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืืžืช ื”ืžื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉืžื™ ื’ืฉืžื™ื ืฉื•ืœืœื™ืŸ ืฉื ืœื ืžืคืกืงื™ ื“ื”ื ื”ื•


The Gemara points out that according to the one who says that it means a place where rainwater gathers, Shmuel, since gathered rainwater divides a field, all the more so does a water channel, which is both larger and permanent, divide a field. But according to the one who says that only a water channel divides a field, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, he holds that only that divides a field, but a place where rainwater gathers does not divide the field, since these


ื‘ืื’ื ื™ ื“ืืจืขื ืžืงืจื•


are simply called pools of the land, and are not considered significant enough to divide the field.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืžื“ืœื™ืง ื‘ืชื•ืš ืฉืœื• ืขื“ ื›ืžื” ืชืขื‘ื•ืจ ื”ื“ืœื™ืงื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืจื•ืื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื›ืื™ืœื• ื”ื•ื ื‘ืืžืฆืข ื‘ื™ืช ื›ื•ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืฉ ืขืฉืจื” ืืžื•ืช ื›ื“ืจืš ืจืฉื•ืช ื”ืจื‘ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืืžื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœื ื™ืฉืœื ื”ืžื‘ืขืจ ืืช ื”ื‘ืขืจื” ื”ื›ืœ ืœืคื™ ื”ื“ืœื™ืงื”


MISHNA: In a case of one who kindles a fire on his own premises, up to what distance may the fire travel within his property for him to still bear liability for damage caused? Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria says: The court views his location where he kindled the fire as if it were in the center of a beit kor. Therefore, if the fire spreads and causes damage farther away than half a beit kor, the one who kindled the fire is exempt, since he could not anticipate that the fire would spread so far. Rabbi Eliezer says: One is liable up to a distance of sixteen cubits, like the width of a public thoroughfare. Rabbi Akiva says: One is liable up to a distance of fifty cubits. Rabbi Shimon says: The verse states: โ€œThe one who kindled the fire shall pay [shallem yeshallem] compensationโ€ (Exodus 22:5), to teach that everything is according to the fire.


ื’ืžืณ ื•ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืฉื™ืขื•ืจื ื‘ื“ืœื™ืงื”


GEMARA: Rabbi Shimon appears to hold that there is no maximum distance which would exempt one from liability for the spreading of a fire. The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t Rabbi Shimon of the opinion that there is a maximum limit concerning liability for a fire, beyond which one is exempt?


ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ืœื ื™ืขืžื™ื“ ืื“ื ืชื ื•ืจ ื‘ืชื•ืš ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืืœื ืื ื›ืŸ ื™ืฉ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื• ื’ื•ื‘ื” ื“ืืจื‘ืข ืืžื•ืช ื”ื™ื” ืžืขืžื™ื“ื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื™ื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื ืชื—ืชื™ื• ืžืขื–ื™ื‘ื” ืฉืœืฉื” ื˜ืคื—ื™ื ื•ื‘ื›ื™ืจื” ื˜ืคื— ื•ืื ื”ื–ื™ืง ืžืฉืœื ืžื” ืฉื”ื–ื™ืง


But didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (Bava Batra 20b): A person may not stand an oven inside the house unless there is a height of four cubits to the ceiling above it, out of concern that the ceiling might catch fire. Similarly, if he stood it in the attic, he should not do so unless there is plaster [maโ€™aziva] underneath it, above the ceiling of the floor below, three handbreadths in thickness, out of concern that the floor might catch fire. And in the case of a stove, which is smaller and does not reach temperatures as high as those of an oven, a thickness of one handbreadth is sufficient. And even though he may place his oven or stove in this manner, if the fire from the oven or stove causes damage, he must pay for what it damaged.


ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื ืืžืจื• ืฉื™ืขื•ืจื™ืŸ ื”ืœืœื• ืืœื ืฉืื ื”ื–ื™ืง ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืœืฉืœื


The mishna continues: Rabbi Shimon says: These measurements were stated only to teach that if the fire from the oven or stove causes damage after the owner takes these precautions, he is exempt from paying compensation. Evidently, Rabbi Shimon does have a maximum distance beyond which one is not liable for fire.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ื”ื›ืœ ืœืคื™ ื’ื•ื‘ื” ื”ื“ืœื™ืงื”


Rav Naแธฅman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: This is how Rabbi Shimonโ€™s statement in the mishna should be understood: Everything is according to the height of the fire he initially kindled. If it was a small fire he is not liable to pay for damage caused by it if it traveled far, whereas if he started a large fire, he is liable even if it traveled a great distance.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ


Rav Yosef says that Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And so Rav Naแธฅman says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืžื“ืœื™ืง ืืช ื”ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ื•ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื• ื›ืœื™ื ื•ื“ืœืงื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉืœื ืžื” ืฉื‘ืชื•ื›ื• ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ืืœื ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ืฉืœ ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืื• ืฉืœ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ืŸ


MISHNA: With regard to one who kindles a stack of wheat or barley and there were vessels concealed inside the stack and they caught fire and burned together with the stack, Rabbi Yehuda says: The one who kindled the fire also pays compensation for what was inside the stack, but the Rabbis say: He pays compensation only for the stack of wheat or barley, as the case may be, and he is not responsible for that which was concealed within it.


ื”ื™ื” ื’ื“ื™ ื›ืคื•ืช ืœื• ื•ืขื‘ื“ ืกืžื•ืš ืœื• ื•ื ืฉืจืฃ ืขืžื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขื‘ื“ ื›ืคื•ืช ืœื• ื•ื’ื“ื™ ืกืžื•ืš ืœื• ื•ื ืฉืจืฃ ืขืžื• ืคื˜ื•ืจ


If there was a goat tied to the stack of grain, and there was a Canaanite slave nearby who was not tied to it, and both the goat and the slave were burned together with the stack and killed, the one who kindled the fire is liable to pay compensation for both. Conversely, if the slave was tied to the stack and there was a goat nearby that was not tied to it, and they were both burned together with it, the one who kindled the fire is exempt from payment for damage because he is liable to receive capital punishment for murder, and he is punished only for the greater transgression.


ื•ืžื•ื“ื™ื ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืžื“ืœื™ืง ืืช ื”ื‘ื™ืจื” ืฉื”ื•ื ืžืฉืœื ื›ืœ ืžื” ืฉื‘ืชื•ื›ื” ืฉื›ืŸ ื“ืจืš ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ืœื”ื ื™ื— ื‘ื‘ืชื™ื


And the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda and exempt one from payment for vessels concealed inside the stack in the field, concede to Rabbi Yehuda that if one sets fire to a building, he pays compensation for everything that was burned inside it, since it is the normal way of people to place items in houses.


ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ื‘ืžื“ืœื™ืง ื‘ืชื•ืš ืฉืœื• ื•ื”ืœื›ื” ื•ืื›ืœื” ื‘ืชื•ืš ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืื ื–ืงื™ ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืืฉ ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืคื˜ืจื™ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืžื“ืœื™ืง ื‘ืชื•ืš ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ืžืฉืœื ื›ืœ ืžื” ืฉื‘ืชื•ื›ื•


GEMARA: Rav Kahana says: This dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda concerning vessels concealed in a stack is referring specifically to a case where one kindled a fire on his own premises and the fire spread and consumed the stack on anotherโ€™s property. In that case, Rabbi Yehuda deems the one who kindled the fire liable for damage to concealed articles damaged by a fire, but the Rabbis exempt him. But in a case of one who kindles a fire on anotherโ€™s premises, all agree that he pays compensation for everything that is contained within it.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื“ืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ืžื•ื“ื™ื ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืžื“ืœื™ืง ืืช ื”ื‘ื™ืจื” ืฉืžืฉืœื ื›ืœ ืžื” ืฉื‘ืชื•ื›ื” ืฉื›ืŸ ื“ืจืš ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ืœื”ื ื™ื— ื‘ื‘ืชื™ื ืœืคืœื•ื’ ื•ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื‘ื“ื™ื“ื” ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืžื“ืœื™ืง ื‘ืชื•ืš ืฉืœื• ื•ื”ืœื›ื” ื•ืื›ืœื” ื‘ืชื•ืš ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืื‘ืœ ืžื“ืœื™ืง ื‘ืชื•ืš ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ืžืฉืœื ื›ืœ ืžื” ืฉื”ื™ื” ื‘ืชื•ื›ื•


Rava said to him: If so, that the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Yehuda in the case of one who kindles the fire on the premises of another, then rather than teaching the latter clause that states: The Rabbis concede to Rabbi Yehuda that if one sets fire to a building he pays compensation for everything that was burned inside it, since it is the normal way of people to place items in houses, let the tanna instead distinguish and teach the concession of the Rabbis in the context of the same case of one setting fire to a stack: In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where he kindled the fire on his own premises and it spread and consumed a stack on the premises of another. But if he kindled the fire on property belonging to another, all agree that he pays compensation for everything that was contained within it. Since the mishna is not worded in this manner, it seems that this is not the opinion of the Rabbis.


ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื‘ืชืจืชื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ืžื“ืœื™ืง ื‘ืชื•ืš ืฉืœื• ื•ื”ืœื›ื” ื•ืื›ืœื” ื‘ืชื•ืš ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืืฉ ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืกื‘ืจื™ ืœื ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื ืžื™ ื‘ืžื“ืœื™ืง ื‘ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืžืฉืœื ื›ืœ ืžื” ืฉื‘ืชื•ื›ื• ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืืจื ืงื™ ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืกื‘ืจื™ ื›ืœื™ื ืฉื“ืจื›ืŸ ืœื”ื˜ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืžื•ืจื™ื’ื™ืŸ ื•ื›ืœื™ ื‘ืงืจ ื”ื•ื ื“ืžืฉืœื ื›ืœื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื“ืจื›ืŸ ืœื”ื˜ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ืœื ืžืฉืœื


Rather, Rava said that the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda disagree with regard to two issues: They disagree with regard to the case of one who kindles a fire on his own premises and it then spreads and consumes a stack on property belonging to another, as Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable even for a concealed article damaged by a fire, but the Rabbis hold that he is not liable. And they disagree also in the case of one who kindles a fire on premises belonging to another, as Rabbi Yehuda holds that he must pay compensation for everything within it, even a purse of money if it was concealed within the stack, but the Rabbis hold that it is only for vessels that are typically concealed inside a stack, such as threshing tools or yokes for cattle, that he must pay compensation, but for vessels or other items that are not typically concealed inside a stack he is not liable to pay compensation.


ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ืžื“ืœื™ืง ืืช ื”ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ื•ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื• ื›ืœื™ื ื•ื“ืœืงื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉืœื ื›ืœ ืžื” ืฉื”ื™ื” ื‘ืชื•ื›ื• ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ืืœื ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ืฉืœ ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืื• ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ืฉืœ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืจื•ืื™ืŸ ืžืงื•ื ื›ืœื™ื ื›ืื™ืœื• ื”ื•ื ืžืœื ืชื‘ื•ืื”


The Sages taught: With regard to one who kindles a stack and there were vessels inside it that were burned, Rabbi Yehuda says: The one who kindled the fire pays compensation for everything that was inside it, but the Rabbis say: He pays compensation only for the value of a stack of wheat or a stack of barley, and he does not pay compensation for the vessels. And the court views the place where the vessels were as if it were filled with grain, and calculates the amount of compensation accordingly.


  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Bava Kamma 56-62 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about the liability one has to guard his fire. One is liable for anything that...
talking talmud_square

Bava Kamma 61: It’s No Surprise That Buildings Contain Things

Several mishnayot. Beginning with more on fire, if it crossed a public road, a river, a wall - barriers that...

Bava Kamma 61

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 61

ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืืฉ ืงืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ืžืื™ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืงืจืื™ ืืžืจ ืœืš ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื•ื—ื“ื ืžื”ื ืš ืงืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื”


But according to Rava, who cited Rav Naแธฅman, the one who says that David asked with regard to the halakha of a concealed article damaged by a fire, for what purpose does he require the two verses that describe a field of lentils and a field of barley? Rav Naแธฅman could have said to you that David was asking both about concealed articles damaged by a fire and one of these other two dilemmas.


ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ื ื™ ืชืจืชื™ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืœื ืื‘ื” (ื“ื•ื“) ืœืฉืชื•ืชื ืืžืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืœื ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืืฉ ืงื ืžื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื” ืžื›ื“ื™ ื’ืžืจื ื”ื•ื ื“ืฉืœื—ื• ืœื™ื” ืžืื™ ืœื ืื‘ื” (ื“ื•ื“) ืœืฉืชื•ืชื


Granted, according to the one who says one of these two explanations, that David was asking either about repaying barley with lentils or burning the stacks of barley, this is as it is written of David: โ€œBut he would not drink itโ€ (IIย Samuel 23:16). David said to himself: Since there is a prohibition involved in this action, it is not satisfactory to me to act in this manner, even though technically it is permitted for a king. But according to the one who says that David was raising a dilemma with regard to the halakha of a concealed article damaged by a fire, since they sent him an answer that was a tradition with regard to the halakha, what is the meaning of: โ€œBut he would not drink itโ€?


ื“ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ื”ื• ืžืฉืžื™ื™ื”ื• ืืžืจ ื›ืš ืžืงื•ื‘ืœื ื™ ืžื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ื ื• ืฉืœ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืจืžืชื™ ื›ืœ ื”ืžื•ืกืจ ืขืฆืžื• ืœืžื•ืช ืขืœ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืชื•ืจื” ืื™ืŸ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืœื›ื” ืžืฉืžื•


The Gemara answers: This means that he did not say the halakha in their names. He did not transmit the ruling in the name of those who went in the time of battle to ask the Sages what the halakha is. David said to himself: This is the tradition that I received from the court of Samuel of Rama: With regard to anyone who hands himself over to die for the sake of words of Torah, the Sages do not say a matter of halakha in his name, so that others will not follow this ruling and endanger their lives.


ื•ื™ืกืš ืืชื ืœื”ืณ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื”ื ื™ ืชืจืชื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืขื‘ื“ ืœืฉื ืฉืžื™ื ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืืฉ ืžืื™ ื•ื™ืกืš ืืชื ืœื”ืณ ื“ืืžืจื™ื ื”ื• ืžืฉืžื ื“ื’ืžืจื


The Gemara asks another question: The verse states: โ€œHe poured it out to the Lordโ€ (IIย Samuel 23:16), which indicates that David acted stringently and did not rely on the lenient ruling that he received. Granted, according to the one who says either of these two explanations, that David asked either about burning the stacks of barley or about replacing their value with lentils, he poured out the water to God due to the fact that he acted for the sake of Heaven and did not rely on the lenient ruling he had received. But according to the one who says that David asked about a concealed article damaged by a fire, what is the reason that he poured out the water to the Lord? The Gemara answers: The reason is that they said this halakha in the name of the tradition, without associating it with any specific individual.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืขื‘ืจื” ื’ื“ืจ ืฉื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ื•ื” ืืจื‘ืข ืืžื•ืช ืื• ื“ืจืš ื”ืจื‘ื™ื ืื• ื ื”ืจ ืคื˜ื•ืจ


MISHNA: If one kindled a fire that crossed a fence that is four cubits high, or if the fire crossed the public thoroughfare, or if the fire crossed a river, and in each case it caused damage on the other side, he is exempt from liability.


ื’ืžืณ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืขื‘ืจื” ื’ื“ืจ ืฉื”ื•ื ื’ื‘ื•ื” ืืจื‘ืข ืืžื•ืช ื—ื™ื™ื‘


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita that if a fire crossed a fence that is four cubits in height, the one who kindled the fire is liable? This appears to contradict the mishna.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ืชื ื ื“ื™ื“ืŸ ืงื ื—ืฉื™ื‘ ืžืœืžืขืœื” ืœืžื˜ื” ืฉืฉ ืืžื•ืช ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื—ืžืฉ ืืžื•ืช ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืขื“ ืืจื‘ืข ืืžื•ืช ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืชื ื ื‘ืจื ืžืœืžื˜ื” ืœืžืขืœื” ืงื ื—ืฉื™ื‘ ืฉืชื™ ืืžื•ืช ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืฉืœืฉ ืืžื•ืช ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขื“ ืืจื‘ืข ืืžื•ืช ื—ื™ื™ื‘


Rav Pappa said: There is no dispute between the tanna of the mishna and the tanna of the baraita; there is merely a difference of how they stated their rulings. The tanna of our mishna counts downward from above to below. In other words, if the fire crossed a fence six cubits high, the one who kindled the fire is exempt; if it crossed a fence five cubits high, he is exempt; and this is the halakha until the fire crosses a fence of a minimum of four cubits high, where the one who kindled the fire is still exempt. Conversely, the tanna of the baraita counts up from below to above. The meaning is that if the fire crossed a fence two cubits high, the one who kindled the fire is liable; if the fire crossed a fence three cubits high, he is liable; and this is the halakha until the fire crosses a fence of a maximum of four cubits high, where the one who kindled the fire is still liable. Accordingly, there is no contradiction between the mishna and the baraita.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืืจื‘ืข ืืžื•ืช ืฉืืžืจื• ื“ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืฉื“ื” ืงื•ืฆื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื•ืžืฉืคืช ืงื•ืฆื™ื ื•ืœืžืขืœื” ืืจื‘ืข ืืžื•ืช


ยง Rava says: When they said in the mishna with regard to a fire crossing a fence four cubits high that the one who kindled the fire is exempt, this is even in a field of thorns. Rav Pappa says: And Ravaโ€™s statement is referring to a case where the height of the fence is four cubits counting from above the upper limit of the thorns.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ื‘ืงื•ืœื—ืช ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื ื›ืคืคืช ืืคื™ืœื• ืขื“ ืžืื” ืืžื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื‘ื ื›ืคืคืช ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืงื•ืœื—ืช ืืคื™ืœื• ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ืคื˜ื•ืจ


Rav says: They taught in the mishna that one is exempt from liability if the fire crosses a public thoroughfare only in a case where the flame blazes high [bekolaแธฅat]. But in a case where the flame blazes low [benikhpefet] and therefore spreads easily along the ground, the one who kindled the fire is liable even if the space that the fire crossed was up to one hundred cubits. And Shmuel said: The mishna exempts one from liability if the fire crosses a public thoroughfare in a case where the flame blazes low, but in a case where the flame blazes high, even any minimal gap between where the fire was kindled and where it caused damage renders the one who kindled the fire exempt.


ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืงื•ืœื—ืช ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื ื›ืคืคืช ื•ืขืฆื™ื ืžืฆื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืœื” ืืคื™ืœื• ืขื“ ืžืื” ืžื™ืœ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขื‘ืจื” ื ื”ืจ ืื• ืฉืœื•ืœื™ืช ืฉื”ื ืจื—ื‘ื™ื ืฉืžื•ื ื” ืืžื•ืช ืคื˜ื•ืจ


It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: In what case is this statement said that one is exempt if the fire crosses a public thoroughfare? It is in a case where the flame blazes high. But in a case where the flame blazes low and there is wood to keep it burning, one is liable even if it causes damage at a distance of up to one hundred mil. If the fire crossed a river or a pool [shelulit] of water that is eight cubits wide, he is exempt from paying for the damage caused, regardless of whether the fire blazed high or low.


ื“ืจืš ื”ืจื‘ื™ื ืžืืŸ ืชื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืฉ ืขืฉืจื” ืืžื•ืช ื›ื“ืจืš ืจืฉื•ืช ื”ืจื‘ื™ื (ืคื˜ื•ืจ)


ยง The mishna teaches: If the fire crossed the public thoroughfare, he is exempt. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who holds this opinion? Rava said: It is Rabbi Eliezer, as we learned in a mishna (61b) that Rabbi Eliezer says: One is liable up to a distance of sixteen cubits, like the width of the public domain. By inference, one is exempt if a fire crosses a greater distance, i.e., across a public thoroughfare.


ืื• ื ื”ืจ ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ื ื”ืจ ืžืžืฉ ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืืจื™ืชื ื“ื“ืœืื™


The mishna teaches: Or if the fire crossed a river, he is exempt. Rav says: The term stream means an actual river. And Shmuel says: This term means a water channel.


ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื ื”ืจ ืžืžืฉ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืœื™ื›ื ืžื™ื ื•ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืืจื™ืชื ื“ื“ืœืื™ ืื™ ืื™ืช ื‘ื™ื” ืžื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืœื™ืช ื‘ื™ื” ืžื™ื ืœื


The Gemara explains their dispute: The one who says that it is referring to an actual river, Rav, deems exempt one whose fire crosses a riverbed even when there is no water in it, since it is sufficiently deep and wide to prevent a typical fire from crossing it. But the one who says that it is referring to a water channel, Shmuel, holds that if the fire crosses a water channel that has water in it, yes, the one who kindled the fire is exempt. But if the fire crosses a water channel that does not have water in it, he is not exempt.


ืชื ืŸ ื”ืชื ื•ืืœื• ืžืคืกื™ืงื™ืŸ ืœืคืื” ื”ื ื—ืœ ื•ื”ืฉืœื•ืœื™ืช ื•ื“ืจืš ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ื“ืจืš ื”ืจื‘ื™ื


We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Peโ€™a 2:1): And these, the following list of features, divide a field for the purpose of peโ€™a, i.e., it is no longer considered a single field, but instead peโ€™a must be given from each separate section: A stream, a shelulit, a private road, and a public thoroughfare.


ืžืื™ ืฉืœื•ืœื™ืช ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉืžื™ ื’ืฉืžื™ื ืฉื•ืœืœื™ืŸ ืฉื ืจื‘ ื‘ื™ื‘ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืช ื”ืžื™ื ืฉืžื—ืœืงืช ืฉืœืœ ืœืื’ืคื™ื”


The Gemara asks: What is a shelulit? Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: It is a place where rainwater gathers [sholelin]. Rav Beivai says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: It is a water channel that distributes its spoils [shalal] to its banks, since the water spreads to the adjacent cisterns.


ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืงื•ื ืฉืžื™ ื’ืฉืžื™ื ืฉื•ืœืœื™ืŸ ืฉื ื›ืœ ืฉื›ืŸ ืืžืช ื”ืžื™ื ื•ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืืžืช ื”ืžื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉืžื™ ื’ืฉืžื™ื ืฉื•ืœืœื™ืŸ ืฉื ืœื ืžืคืกืงื™ ื“ื”ื ื”ื•


The Gemara points out that according to the one who says that it means a place where rainwater gathers, Shmuel, since gathered rainwater divides a field, all the more so does a water channel, which is both larger and permanent, divide a field. But according to the one who says that only a water channel divides a field, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, he holds that only that divides a field, but a place where rainwater gathers does not divide the field, since these


ื‘ืื’ื ื™ ื“ืืจืขื ืžืงืจื•


are simply called pools of the land, and are not considered significant enough to divide the field.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืžื“ืœื™ืง ื‘ืชื•ืš ืฉืœื• ืขื“ ื›ืžื” ืชืขื‘ื•ืจ ื”ื“ืœื™ืงื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืจื•ืื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื›ืื™ืœื• ื”ื•ื ื‘ืืžืฆืข ื‘ื™ืช ื›ื•ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืฉ ืขืฉืจื” ืืžื•ืช ื›ื“ืจืš ืจืฉื•ืช ื”ืจื‘ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ื—ืžืฉื™ื ืืžื” ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉืœื ื™ืฉืœื ื”ืžื‘ืขืจ ืืช ื”ื‘ืขืจื” ื”ื›ืœ ืœืคื™ ื”ื“ืœื™ืงื”


MISHNA: In a case of one who kindles a fire on his own premises, up to what distance may the fire travel within his property for him to still bear liability for damage caused? Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria says: The court views his location where he kindled the fire as if it were in the center of a beit kor. Therefore, if the fire spreads and causes damage farther away than half a beit kor, the one who kindled the fire is exempt, since he could not anticipate that the fire would spread so far. Rabbi Eliezer says: One is liable up to a distance of sixteen cubits, like the width of a public thoroughfare. Rabbi Akiva says: One is liable up to a distance of fifty cubits. Rabbi Shimon says: The verse states: โ€œThe one who kindled the fire shall pay [shallem yeshallem] compensationโ€ (Exodus 22:5), to teach that everything is according to the fire.


ื’ืžืณ ื•ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืฉื™ืขื•ืจื ื‘ื“ืœื™ืงื”


GEMARA: Rabbi Shimon appears to hold that there is no maximum distance which would exempt one from liability for the spreading of a fire. The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t Rabbi Shimon of the opinion that there is a maximum limit concerning liability for a fire, beyond which one is exempt?


ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ืœื ื™ืขืžื™ื“ ืื“ื ืชื ื•ืจ ื‘ืชื•ืš ื”ื‘ื™ืช ืืœื ืื ื›ืŸ ื™ืฉ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื• ื’ื•ื‘ื” ื“ืืจื‘ืข ืืžื•ืช ื”ื™ื” ืžืขืžื™ื“ื• ื‘ืขืœื™ื™ื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ื”ื ืชื—ืชื™ื• ืžืขื–ื™ื‘ื” ืฉืœืฉื” ื˜ืคื—ื™ื ื•ื‘ื›ื™ืจื” ื˜ืคื— ื•ืื ื”ื–ื™ืง ืžืฉืœื ืžื” ืฉื”ื–ื™ืง


But didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (Bava Batra 20b): A person may not stand an oven inside the house unless there is a height of four cubits to the ceiling above it, out of concern that the ceiling might catch fire. Similarly, if he stood it in the attic, he should not do so unless there is plaster [maโ€™aziva] underneath it, above the ceiling of the floor below, three handbreadths in thickness, out of concern that the floor might catch fire. And in the case of a stove, which is smaller and does not reach temperatures as high as those of an oven, a thickness of one handbreadth is sufficient. And even though he may place his oven or stove in this manner, if the fire from the oven or stove causes damage, he must pay for what it damaged.


ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื ืืžืจื• ืฉื™ืขื•ืจื™ืŸ ื”ืœืœื• ืืœื ืฉืื ื”ื–ื™ืง ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžืœืฉืœื


The mishna continues: Rabbi Shimon says: These measurements were stated only to teach that if the fire from the oven or stove causes damage after the owner takes these precautions, he is exempt from paying compensation. Evidently, Rabbi Shimon does have a maximum distance beyond which one is not liable for fire.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื” ื”ื›ืœ ืœืคื™ ื’ื•ื‘ื” ื”ื“ืœื™ืงื”


Rav Naแธฅman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: This is how Rabbi Shimonโ€™s statement in the mishna should be understood: Everything is according to the height of the fire he initially kindled. If it was a small fire he is not liable to pay for damage caused by it if it traveled far, whereas if he started a large fire, he is liable even if it traveled a great distance.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ


Rav Yosef says that Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And so Rav Naแธฅman says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืžื“ืœื™ืง ืืช ื”ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ื•ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื• ื›ืœื™ื ื•ื“ืœืงื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉืœื ืžื” ืฉื‘ืชื•ื›ื• ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ืืœื ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ืฉืœ ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืื• ืฉืœ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ืŸ


MISHNA: With regard to one who kindles a stack of wheat or barley and there were vessels concealed inside the stack and they caught fire and burned together with the stack, Rabbi Yehuda says: The one who kindled the fire also pays compensation for what was inside the stack, but the Rabbis say: He pays compensation only for the stack of wheat or barley, as the case may be, and he is not responsible for that which was concealed within it.


ื”ื™ื” ื’ื“ื™ ื›ืคื•ืช ืœื• ื•ืขื‘ื“ ืกืžื•ืš ืœื• ื•ื ืฉืจืฃ ืขืžื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขื‘ื“ ื›ืคื•ืช ืœื• ื•ื’ื“ื™ ืกืžื•ืš ืœื• ื•ื ืฉืจืฃ ืขืžื• ืคื˜ื•ืจ


If there was a goat tied to the stack of grain, and there was a Canaanite slave nearby who was not tied to it, and both the goat and the slave were burned together with the stack and killed, the one who kindled the fire is liable to pay compensation for both. Conversely, if the slave was tied to the stack and there was a goat nearby that was not tied to it, and they were both burned together with it, the one who kindled the fire is exempt from payment for damage because he is liable to receive capital punishment for murder, and he is punished only for the greater transgression.


ื•ืžื•ื“ื™ื ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืžื“ืœื™ืง ืืช ื”ื‘ื™ืจื” ืฉื”ื•ื ืžืฉืœื ื›ืœ ืžื” ืฉื‘ืชื•ื›ื” ืฉื›ืŸ ื“ืจืš ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ืœื”ื ื™ื— ื‘ื‘ืชื™ื


And the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda and exempt one from payment for vessels concealed inside the stack in the field, concede to Rabbi Yehuda that if one sets fire to a building, he pays compensation for everything that was burned inside it, since it is the normal way of people to place items in houses.


ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ื‘ืžื“ืœื™ืง ื‘ืชื•ืš ืฉืœื• ื•ื”ืœื›ื” ื•ืื›ืœื” ื‘ืชื•ืš ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืื ื–ืงื™ ื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืืฉ ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืคื˜ืจื™ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืžื“ืœื™ืง ื‘ืชื•ืš ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ืžืฉืœื ื›ืœ ืžื” ืฉื‘ืชื•ื›ื•


GEMARA: Rav Kahana says: This dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda concerning vessels concealed in a stack is referring specifically to a case where one kindled a fire on his own premises and the fire spread and consumed the stack on anotherโ€™s property. In that case, Rabbi Yehuda deems the one who kindled the fire liable for damage to concealed articles damaged by a fire, but the Rabbis exempt him. But in a case of one who kindles a fire on anotherโ€™s premises, all agree that he pays compensation for everything that is contained within it.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื“ืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ืžื•ื“ื™ื ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืžื“ืœื™ืง ืืช ื”ื‘ื™ืจื” ืฉืžืฉืœื ื›ืœ ืžื” ืฉื‘ืชื•ื›ื” ืฉื›ืŸ ื“ืจืš ื‘ื ื™ ืื“ื ืœื”ื ื™ื— ื‘ื‘ืชื™ื ืœืคืœื•ื’ ื•ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื‘ื“ื™ื“ื” ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืžื“ืœื™ืง ื‘ืชื•ืš ืฉืœื• ื•ื”ืœื›ื” ื•ืื›ืœื” ื‘ืชื•ืš ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืื‘ืœ ืžื“ืœื™ืง ื‘ืชื•ืš ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ืžืฉืœื ื›ืœ ืžื” ืฉื”ื™ื” ื‘ืชื•ื›ื•


Rava said to him: If so, that the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Yehuda in the case of one who kindles the fire on the premises of another, then rather than teaching the latter clause that states: The Rabbis concede to Rabbi Yehuda that if one sets fire to a building he pays compensation for everything that was burned inside it, since it is the normal way of people to place items in houses, let the tanna instead distinguish and teach the concession of the Rabbis in the context of the same case of one setting fire to a stack: In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where he kindled the fire on his own premises and it spread and consumed a stack on the premises of another. But if he kindled the fire on property belonging to another, all agree that he pays compensation for everything that was contained within it. Since the mishna is not worded in this manner, it seems that this is not the opinion of the Rabbis.


ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื‘ืชืจืชื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ืžื“ืœื™ืง ื‘ืชื•ืš ืฉืœื• ื•ื”ืœื›ื” ื•ืื›ืœื” ื‘ืชื•ืš ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืื˜ืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืืฉ ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืกื‘ืจื™ ืœื ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื ืžื™ ื‘ืžื“ืœื™ืง ื‘ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืžืฉืœื ื›ืœ ืžื” ืฉื‘ืชื•ื›ื• ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืืจื ืงื™ ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืกื‘ืจื™ ื›ืœื™ื ืฉื“ืจื›ืŸ ืœื”ื˜ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืžื•ืจื™ื’ื™ืŸ ื•ื›ืœื™ ื‘ืงืจ ื”ื•ื ื“ืžืฉืœื ื›ืœื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื“ืจื›ืŸ ืœื”ื˜ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ืœื ืžืฉืœื


Rather, Rava said that the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda disagree with regard to two issues: They disagree with regard to the case of one who kindles a fire on his own premises and it then spreads and consumes a stack on property belonging to another, as Rabbi Yehuda deems him liable even for a concealed article damaged by a fire, but the Rabbis hold that he is not liable. And they disagree also in the case of one who kindles a fire on premises belonging to another, as Rabbi Yehuda holds that he must pay compensation for everything within it, even a purse of money if it was concealed within the stack, but the Rabbis hold that it is only for vessels that are typically concealed inside a stack, such as threshing tools or yokes for cattle, that he must pay compensation, but for vessels or other items that are not typically concealed inside a stack he is not liable to pay compensation.


ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ืžื“ืœื™ืง ืืช ื”ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ื•ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื• ื›ืœื™ื ื•ื“ืœืงื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉืœื ื›ืœ ืžื” ืฉื”ื™ื” ื‘ืชื•ื›ื• ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ื ื• ืžืฉืœื ืืœื ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ืฉืœ ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืื• ื’ื“ื™ืฉ ืฉืœ ืฉืขื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืจื•ืื™ืŸ ืžืงื•ื ื›ืœื™ื ื›ืื™ืœื• ื”ื•ื ืžืœื ืชื‘ื•ืื”


The Sages taught: With regard to one who kindles a stack and there were vessels inside it that were burned, Rabbi Yehuda says: The one who kindled the fire pays compensation for everything that was inside it, but the Rabbis say: He pays compensation only for the value of a stack of wheat or a stack of barley, and he does not pay compensation for the vessels. And the court views the place where the vessels were as if it were filled with grain, and calculates the amount of compensation accordingly.


Scroll To Top