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

Daf Yomi

January 2, 2024 | 讻状讗 讘讟讘转 转砖驻状讚

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

  • 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.”聽

Today’s daf is sponsored by Susan Cashdan in loving memory of her father 讬爪讞拽 讘谉 诪砖讛 讞讜谞讛 讝”诇 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.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟诪讜谉 讘讗砖 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 拽专讗讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讟诪讜谉 讜讞讚讗 诪讛谞讱 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛


But according to Rava, who cited Rav Na岣an, 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 Na岣an could have said to you that David was asking both about concealed articles damaged by a fire and one of these other two dilemmas.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛谞讬 转专转讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇讗 讗讘讛 (讚讜讚) 诇砖转讜转诐 讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟诪讜谉 讘讗砖 拽讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讻讚讬 讙诪专讗 讛讜讗 讚砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 诇讗 讗讘讛 (讚讜讚) 诇砖转讜转诐


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: 鈥淏ut he would not drink it鈥 (II聽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: 鈥淏ut he would not drink it鈥?


讚诇讗 讗诪专讬谞讛讜 诪砖诪讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 讻讱 诪拽讜讘诇谞讬 诪讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 砖诇 砖诪讜讗诇 讛专诪转讬 讻诇 讛诪讜住专 注爪诪讜 诇诪讜转 注诇 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讚讘专 讛诇讻讛 诪砖诪讜


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.


讜讬住讱 讗转诐 诇讛壮 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛谞讬 转专转讬 诪砖讜诐 讚注讘讚 诇砖诐 砖诪讬诐 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟诪讜谉 讘讗砖 诪讗讬 讜讬住讱 讗转诐 诇讛壮 讚讗诪专讬谞讛讜 诪砖诪讗 讚讙诪专讗


The Gemara asks another question: The verse states: 鈥淗e poured it out to the Lord鈥 (II聽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.


诪转谞讬壮 注讘专讛 讙讚专 砖讛讜讗 讙讘讜讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讜 讚专讱 讛专讘讬诐 讗讜 谞讛专 驻讟讜专


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.


讙诪壮 讜讛转谞讬讗 注讘专讛 讙讚专 砖讛讜讗 讙讘讜讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讞讬讬讘


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 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.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 诪诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 砖砖 讗诪讜转 驻讟讜专 讞诪砖 讗诪讜转 驻讟讜专 注讚 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 驻讟讜专 转谞讗 讘专讗 诪诇诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 砖转讬 讗诪讜转 讞讬讬讘 砖诇砖 讗诪讜转 讞讬讬讘 注讚 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讞讬讬讘


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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖讗诪专讜 讚驻讟讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讚讛 拽讜爪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜诪砖驻转 拽讜爪讬诐 讜诇诪注诇讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转


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 Rava鈥檚 statement is referring to a case where the height of the fence is four cubits counting from above the upper limit of the thorns.


讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘拽讜诇讞转 讗讘诇 讘谞讻驻驻转 讗驻讬诇讜 注讚 诪讗讛 讗诪讛 讞讬讬讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘谞讻驻驻转 讗讘诇 讘拽讜诇讞转 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 驻讟讜专


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 [bekola岣t]. 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.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘拽讜诇讞转 讗讘诇 讘谞讻驻驻转 讜注爪讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 注讚 诪讗讛 诪讬诇 讞讬讬讘 注讘专讛 谞讛专 讗讜 砖诇讜诇讬转 砖讛诐 专讞讘讬诐 砖诪讜谞讛 讗诪讜转 驻讟讜专


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.


讚专讱 讛专讘讬诐 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讜转 讻讚专讱 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 (驻讟讜专)


搂 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.


讗讜 谞讛专 专讘 讗诪专 谞讛专 诪诪砖 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗专讬转讗 讚讚诇讗讬


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.


诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讛专 诪诪砖 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬讻讗 诪讬讗 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗专讬转讗 讚讚诇讗讬 讗讬 讗讬转 讘讬讛 诪讬讗 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讬转 讘讬讛 诪讬讗 诇讗


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.


转谞谉 讛转诐 讜讗诇讜 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 诇驻讗讛 讛谞讞诇 讜讛砖诇讜诇讬转 讜讚专讱 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讚专讱 讛专讘讬诐


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


诪讗讬 砖诇讜诇讬转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪拽讜诐 砖诪讬 讙砖诪讬诐 砖讜诇诇讬谉 砖诐 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪转 讛诪讬诐 砖诪讞诇拽转 砖诇诇 诇讗讙驻讬讛


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 Yo岣nan says: It is a water channel that distributes its spoils [shalal] to its banks, since the water spreads to the adjacent cisterns.


诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪拽讜诐 砖诪讬 讙砖诪讬诐 砖讜诇诇讬谉 砖诐 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诪转 讛诪讬诐 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗诪转 讛诪讬诐 讗讘诇 诪拽讜诐 砖诪讬 讙砖诪讬诐 砖讜诇诇讬谉 砖诐 诇讗 诪驻住拽讬 讚讛谞讛讜


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 Yo岣nan, he holds that only that divides a field, but a place where rainwater gathers does not divide the field, since these


讘讗讙谞讬 讚讗专注讗 诪拽专讜


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


诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讚诇讬拽 讘转讜讱 砖诇讜 注讚 讻诪讛 转注讘讜专 讛讚诇讬拽讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讜讗 讘讗诪爪注 讘讬转 讻讜专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讜转 讻讚专讱 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖诇诐 讬砖诇诐 讛诪讘注专 讗转 讛讘注专讛 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 讛讚诇讬拽讛


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: 鈥淭he one who kindled the fire shall pay [shallem yeshallem] compensation鈥 (Exodus 22:5), to teach that everything is according to the fire.


讙诪壮 讜诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讬注讜专讗 讘讚诇讬拽讛


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 isn鈥檛 Rabbi Shimon of the opinion that there is a maximum limit concerning liability for a fire, beyond which one is exempt?


讜讛转谞谉 诇讗 讬注诪讬讚 讗讚诐 转谞讜专 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讬砖 注诇 讙讘讜 讙讜讘讛 讚讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讛讬讛 诪注诪讬讚讜 讘注诇讬讬讛 注讚 砖讬讛讗 转讞转讬讜 诪注讝讬讘讛 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讘讻讬专讛 讟驻讞 讜讗诐 讛讝讬拽 诪砖诇诐 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽


But didn鈥檛 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 [ma鈥檃ziva] 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.


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 谞讗诪专讜 砖讬注讜专讬谉 讛诇诇讜 讗诇讗 砖讗诐 讛讝讬拽 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇诐


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.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 讙讜讘讛 讛讚诇讬拽讛


Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: This is how Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 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.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉


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


诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讚诇讬拽 讗转 讛讙讚讬砖 讜讛讬讜 讘讜 讻诇讬诐 讜讚诇拽讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖诇诐 诪讛 砖讘转讜讻讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗诇讗 讙讚讬砖 砖诇 讞讟讬谉 讗讜 砖诇 砖注讜专讬谉


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.


讛讬讛 讙讚讬 讻驻讜转 诇讜 讜注讘讚 住诪讜讱 诇讜 讜谞砖专祝 注诪讜 讞讬讬讘 注讘讚 讻驻讜转 诇讜 讜讙讚讬 住诪讜讱 诇讜 讜谞砖专祝 注诪讜 驻讟讜专


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.


讜诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘诪讚诇讬拽 讗转 讛讘讬专讛 砖讛讜讗 诪砖诇诐 讻诇 诪讛 砖讘转讜讻讛 砖讻谉 讚专讱 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诇讛谞讬讞 讘讘转讬诐


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.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诪讚诇讬拽 讘转讜讱 砖诇讜 讜讛诇讻讛 讜讗讻诇讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讞讬讬讘 讗谞讝拽讬 讟诪讜谉 讘讗砖 讜专讘谞谉 驻讟专讬 讗讘诇 讘诪讚诇讬拽 讘转讜讱 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪砖诇诐 讻诇 诪讛 砖讘转讜讻讜


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 another鈥檚 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 another鈥檚 premises, all agree that he pays compensation for everything that is contained within it.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚转谞讬 住讬驻讗 诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘诪讚诇讬拽 讗转 讛讘讬专讛 砖诪砖诇诐 讻诇 诪讛 砖讘转讜讻讛 砖讻谉 讚专讱 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诇讛谞讬讞 讘讘转讬诐 诇驻诇讜讙 讜诇讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪讚诇讬拽 讘转讜讱 砖诇讜 讜讛诇讻讛 讜讗讻诇讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗讘诇 诪讚诇讬拽 讘转讜讱 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪砖诇诐 讻诇 诪讛 砖讛讬讛 讘转讜讻讜


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.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘转专转讬 驻诇讬讙讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪讚诇讬拽 讘转讜讱 砖诇讜 讜讛诇讻讛 讜讗讻诇讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讞讬讬讘 讗讟诪讜谉 讘讗砖 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讜驻诇讬讙讬 谞诪讬 讘诪讚诇讬拽 讘砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诪砖诇诐 讻诇 诪讛 砖讘转讜讻讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讗专谞拽讬 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讻诇讬诐 砖讚专讻谉 诇讛讟诪讬谉 讘讙讚讬砖 讻讙讜谉 诪讜专讬讙讬谉 讜讻诇讬 讘拽专 讛讜讗 讚诪砖诇诐 讻诇讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻谉 诇讛讟诪讬谉 讘讙讚讬砖 诇讗 诪砖诇诐


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.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪讚诇讬拽 讗转 讛讙讚讬砖 讜讛讬讜 讘讜 讻诇讬诐 讜讚诇拽讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖诇诐 讻诇 诪讛 砖讛讬讛 讘转讜讻讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗诇讗 讙讚讬砖 砖诇 讞讟讬谉 讗讜 讙讚讬砖 砖诇 砖注讜专讬谉 讜专讜讗讬谉 诪拽讜诐 讻诇讬诐 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讜讗 诪诇讗 转讘讜讗讛


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.


  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

  • 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

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟诪讜谉 讘讗砖 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 拽专讗讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讟诪讜谉 讜讞讚讗 诪讛谞讱 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛


But according to Rava, who cited Rav Na岣an, 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 Na岣an could have said to you that David was asking both about concealed articles damaged by a fire and one of these other two dilemmas.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛谞讬 转专转讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇讗 讗讘讛 (讚讜讚) 诇砖转讜转诐 讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟诪讜谉 讘讗砖 拽讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讻讚讬 讙诪专讗 讛讜讗 讚砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 诇讗 讗讘讛 (讚讜讚) 诇砖转讜转诐


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: 鈥淏ut he would not drink it鈥 (II聽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: 鈥淏ut he would not drink it鈥?


讚诇讗 讗诪专讬谞讛讜 诪砖诪讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 讻讱 诪拽讜讘诇谞讬 诪讘讬转 讚讬谞讜 砖诇 砖诪讜讗诇 讛专诪转讬 讻诇 讛诪讜住专 注爪诪讜 诇诪讜转 注诇 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讚讘专 讛诇讻讛 诪砖诪讜


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.


讜讬住讱 讗转诐 诇讛壮 讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛谞讬 转专转讬 诪砖讜诐 讚注讘讚 诇砖诐 砖诪讬诐 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讟诪讜谉 讘讗砖 诪讗讬 讜讬住讱 讗转诐 诇讛壮 讚讗诪专讬谞讛讜 诪砖诪讗 讚讙诪专讗


The Gemara asks another question: The verse states: 鈥淗e poured it out to the Lord鈥 (II聽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.


诪转谞讬壮 注讘专讛 讙讚专 砖讛讜讗 讙讘讜讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讗讜 讚专讱 讛专讘讬诐 讗讜 谞讛专 驻讟讜专


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.


讙诪壮 讜讛转谞讬讗 注讘专讛 讙讚专 砖讛讜讗 讙讘讜讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讞讬讬讘


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 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.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 诪诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 砖砖 讗诪讜转 驻讟讜专 讞诪砖 讗诪讜转 驻讟讜专 注讚 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 驻讟讜专 转谞讗 讘专讗 诪诇诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 拽讗 讞砖讬讘 砖转讬 讗诪讜转 讞讬讬讘 砖诇砖 讗诪讜转 讞讬讬讘 注讚 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讞讬讬讘


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.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 砖讗诪专讜 讚驻讟讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讚讛 拽讜爪讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讜诪砖驻转 拽讜爪讬诐 讜诇诪注诇讛 讗专讘注 讗诪讜转


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 Rava鈥檚 statement is referring to a case where the height of the fence is four cubits counting from above the upper limit of the thorns.


讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘拽讜诇讞转 讗讘诇 讘谞讻驻驻转 讗驻讬诇讜 注讚 诪讗讛 讗诪讛 讞讬讬讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘谞讻驻驻转 讗讘诇 讘拽讜诇讞转 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 驻讟讜专


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 [bekola岣t]. 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.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘拽讜诇讞转 讗讘诇 讘谞讻驻驻转 讜注爪讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 诇讛 讗驻讬诇讜 注讚 诪讗讛 诪讬诇 讞讬讬讘 注讘专讛 谞讛专 讗讜 砖诇讜诇讬转 砖讛诐 专讞讘讬诐 砖诪讜谞讛 讗诪讜转 驻讟讜专


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.


讚专讱 讛专讘讬诐 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讜转 讻讚专讱 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 (驻讟讜专)


搂 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.


讗讜 谞讛专 专讘 讗诪专 谞讛专 诪诪砖 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗专讬转讗 讚讚诇讗讬


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.


诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讛专 诪诪砖 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讬讻讗 诪讬讗 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗专讬转讗 讚讚诇讗讬 讗讬 讗讬转 讘讬讛 诪讬讗 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讬转 讘讬讛 诪讬讗 诇讗


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.


转谞谉 讛转诐 讜讗诇讜 诪驻住讬拽讬谉 诇驻讗讛 讛谞讞诇 讜讛砖诇讜诇讬转 讜讚专讱 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讚专讱 讛专讘讬诐


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


诪讗讬 砖诇讜诇讬转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪拽讜诐 砖诪讬 讙砖诪讬诐 砖讜诇诇讬谉 砖诐 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪转 讛诪讬诐 砖诪讞诇拽转 砖诇诇 诇讗讙驻讬讛


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 Yo岣nan says: It is a water channel that distributes its spoils [shalal] to its banks, since the water spreads to the adjacent cisterns.


诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪拽讜诐 砖诪讬 讙砖诪讬诐 砖讜诇诇讬谉 砖诐 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诪转 讛诪讬诐 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗诪转 讛诪讬诐 讗讘诇 诪拽讜诐 砖诪讬 讙砖诪讬诐 砖讜诇诇讬谉 砖诐 诇讗 诪驻住拽讬 讚讛谞讛讜


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 Yo岣nan, he holds that only that divides a field, but a place where rainwater gathers does not divide the field, since these


讘讗讙谞讬 讚讗专注讗 诪拽专讜


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


诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讚诇讬拽 讘转讜讱 砖诇讜 注讚 讻诪讛 转注讘讜专 讛讚诇讬拽讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讜讗 讘讗诪爪注 讘讬转 讻讜专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 砖砖 注砖专讛 讗诪讜转 讻讚专讱 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讞诪砖讬诐 讗诪讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖诇诐 讬砖诇诐 讛诪讘注专 讗转 讛讘注专讛 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 讛讚诇讬拽讛


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: 鈥淭he one who kindled the fire shall pay [shallem yeshallem] compensation鈥 (Exodus 22:5), to teach that everything is according to the fire.


讙诪壮 讜诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖讬注讜专讗 讘讚诇讬拽讛


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 isn鈥檛 Rabbi Shimon of the opinion that there is a maximum limit concerning liability for a fire, beyond which one is exempt?


讜讛转谞谉 诇讗 讬注诪讬讚 讗讚诐 转谞讜专 讘转讜讱 讛讘讬转 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讬砖 注诇 讙讘讜 讙讜讘讛 讚讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讛讬讛 诪注诪讬讚讜 讘注诇讬讬讛 注讚 砖讬讛讗 转讞转讬讜 诪注讝讬讘讛 砖诇砖讛 讟驻讞讬诐 讜讘讻讬专讛 讟驻讞 讜讗诐 讛讝讬拽 诪砖诇诐 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽


But didn鈥檛 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 [ma鈥檃ziva] 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.


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 谞讗诪专讜 砖讬注讜专讬谉 讛诇诇讜 讗诇讗 砖讗诐 讛讝讬拽 驻讟讜专 诪诇砖诇诐


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.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 讙讜讘讛 讛讚诇讬拽讛


Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: This is how Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 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.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉


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


诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讚诇讬拽 讗转 讛讙讚讬砖 讜讛讬讜 讘讜 讻诇讬诐 讜讚诇拽讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖诇诐 诪讛 砖讘转讜讻讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗诇讗 讙讚讬砖 砖诇 讞讟讬谉 讗讜 砖诇 砖注讜专讬谉


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.


讛讬讛 讙讚讬 讻驻讜转 诇讜 讜注讘讚 住诪讜讱 诇讜 讜谞砖专祝 注诪讜 讞讬讬讘 注讘讚 讻驻讜转 诇讜 讜讙讚讬 住诪讜讱 诇讜 讜谞砖专祝 注诪讜 驻讟讜专


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.


讜诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘诪讚诇讬拽 讗转 讛讘讬专讛 砖讛讜讗 诪砖诇诐 讻诇 诪讛 砖讘转讜讻讛 砖讻谉 讚专讱 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诇讛谞讬讞 讘讘转讬诐


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.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诪讚诇讬拽 讘转讜讱 砖诇讜 讜讛诇讻讛 讜讗讻诇讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讞讬讬讘 讗谞讝拽讬 讟诪讜谉 讘讗砖 讜专讘谞谉 驻讟专讬 讗讘诇 讘诪讚诇讬拽 讘转讜讱 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪砖诇诐 讻诇 诪讛 砖讘转讜讻讜


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 another鈥檚 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 another鈥檚 premises, all agree that he pays compensation for everything that is contained within it.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚转谞讬 住讬驻讗 诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘诪讚诇讬拽 讗转 讛讘讬专讛 砖诪砖诇诐 讻诇 诪讛 砖讘转讜讻讛 砖讻谉 讚专讱 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诇讛谞讬讞 讘讘转讬诐 诇驻诇讜讙 讜诇讬转谞讬 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘诪讚诇讬拽 讘转讜讱 砖诇讜 讜讛诇讻讛 讜讗讻诇讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗讘诇 诪讚诇讬拽 讘转讜讱 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪砖诇诐 讻诇 诪讛 砖讛讬讛 讘转讜讻讜


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.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘转专转讬 驻诇讬讙讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪讚诇讬拽 讘转讜讱 砖诇讜 讜讛诇讻讛 讜讗讻诇讛 讘转讜讱 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讞讬讬讘 讗讟诪讜谉 讘讗砖 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗 诪讞讬讬讘 讜驻诇讬讙讬 谞诪讬 讘诪讚诇讬拽 讘砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 诪砖诇诐 讻诇 诪讛 砖讘转讜讻讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讗专谞拽讬 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讻诇讬诐 砖讚专讻谉 诇讛讟诪讬谉 讘讙讚讬砖 讻讙讜谉 诪讜专讬讙讬谉 讜讻诇讬 讘拽专 讛讜讗 讚诪砖诇诐 讻诇讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻谉 诇讛讟诪讬谉 讘讙讚讬砖 诇讗 诪砖诇诐


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.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪讚诇讬拽 讗转 讛讙讚讬砖 讜讛讬讜 讘讜 讻诇讬诐 讜讚诇拽讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖诇诐 讻诇 诪讛 砖讛讬讛 讘转讜讻讜 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗诇讗 讙讚讬砖 砖诇 讞讟讬谉 讗讜 讙讚讬砖 砖诇 砖注讜专讬谉 讜专讜讗讬谉 诪拽讜诐 讻诇讬诐 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讜讗 诪诇讗 转讘讜讗讛


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