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

Daf Yomi

January 3, 2024 | 讻状讘 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 62

Today’s daf is sponsored by Devorah Zlochower in honor of her talmidim.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Debbie Pine and Mark Orenshein in honor of their new granddaughter, Shalva Tzofia, born to their children Leora and Zachary Orenshein in Jerusalem. “We pray for her good health and safety and that she follows her parents in their commitment to Torah, am Yisrael and Medinat Yisrael.”

If one borrows space in another’s field to put a stack of grains and hid items in the stack, and the field owner burns it, the owner is liable only for the grains and not for the hidden items, even according to Rabbi Yehuda. What if the borrower asked to borrow space for a stack of barley, but instead put a stack of wheat? The braita delineates several different examples similar to this case and explains that in all cases, the owner only needs to pay the value of a stack of barley and no more in the event of a fire. According to Rabbi Yehuda, one is liable for hidden items. Shmuel explains that according to this opinion, the owner of the stack could take an oath regarding what was hidden and would be able to demand that amount from the one who lit the fire, even though there is no proof of this. The basis for this is takanat nigzal, a takana instituted for those who were robbed to be able to take an oath regarding what was stolen from them. Ameimar asked if the same would apply to an informer who turned in another to the authorities who then confiscated items from that person. The question can only be asked if one holds that one is liable for garmi (partially indirect damages), as the damages caused by an informer are considered garmi. One threw another’s safe into a body of water and the owner of the safe claimed there were pearls in there. Was he able to get compensated for them? Was his claim accepted? Why? What is the difference between a gazlan and a chamsan? A gazlan does not pay for the item when stealing while the chamsan聽does. If so, why is it called stealing? Isn’t it true that if one forces another to sell them an item, it is a valid sale (talyuha v’zabin)? One is liable for accidental fires such as a spark coming from the blacksmith as he works or a camel’s burden of flax catching fire from a candle from inside a store. Only if the candle was outside the store, is the camel exempt, except for on Chanuka as the candles are there for a mitzva. Is it possible to infer from the Mishna that one needs to place Chanuka candles within ten handbreadths from the ground? The seventh chapter discusses the laws of theft. If one steals an animal and slaughters and sells it, there is an extra payment, beyond the double payment (kefel) for regular theft of four or five times the value. This is only applicable for bulls and sheep, while double payment is for animals and inanimate objects as well. From where is this derived? On what items is there no double payment? Neither payment is applicable if one steals from one who stole. Is the four or five times payment applicable in a case where one kept the item for oneself and claimed it was stolen?

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 讜讚诇拽讛 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


In what case is this statement said? It is in a case where one kindled a fire on his premises and the fire spread and burned items in premises belonging to another. But with regard to one who kindles a fire on premises belonging to another that destroys a stack of wheat, all agree that he pays compensation for everything that was inside the stack.


讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讘诪砖讗讬诇 诪拽讜诐 诇讞讘讬专讜 诇讛讙讚讬砖 讙讚讬砖 讜讛讙讚讬砖 讜讛讟诪讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪砖诇诐 讗诇讗 讚诪讬 讙讚讬砖 讘诇讘讚 诇讛讙讚讬砖 讞讟讬谉 讜讛讙讚讬砖 砖注讜专讬谉 砖注讜专讬谉 讜讛讙讚讬砖 讞讟讬谉 讞讟讬谉 讜讞讬驻谉 讘砖注讜专讬谉 砖注讜专讬谉 讜讞讬驻谉 讘讞讟讬诐 砖讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗诇讗 讚诪讬 砖注讜专讬谉 讘诇讘讚


And Rabbi Yehuda concedes to the Rabbis that in a case where one lends space to another in his field to stack grain, and this person stacked grain in the field and concealed items inside the stack, if the owner of the field causes the stack to be burned down, he pays compensation for the stack alone, since the other person did not have permission to conceal items inside his stack. Similarly, if one received permission to stack wheat in the field of another and he stacked barley; or conversely, if he received permission to stack barley and he stacked wheat; or similarly, if he stacked wheat and covered the stack with barley, or stacked barley and covered the stack with wheat, in all these cases, Rabbi Yehuda concedes that he pays compensation for the barley alone, which is less than the value of wheat.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讛谞讜转谉 讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 诇讗砖讛 讜讗诪专 诇讛 讛讝讛专讬 讘讜 砖诇 讻住祝 讛讜讗 讛讝讬拽转讜 诪砖诇诪转 讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讱 讙讘讬讛 讚讗讝拽转讬讛 驻砖注讛 讘讜 诪砖诇诪转 砖诇 讻住祝 讚讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讚讻住驻讗 拽讘讬诇讬 注诇讬 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讚讚讛讘讗 诇讗 拽讘讬诇讬 注诇讬


Rava says: With regard to one who gives a gold dinar to a woman for safekeeping and says to her: Be careful with this dinar because it is made of silver, if she herself damaged the dinar, she must pay compensation for the value of a gold dinar. This is because he can say to her: What business did you have damaging it? If she was negligent and it was lost or stolen, she pays as compensation only the value of a silver dinar, since she can say to him: I undertook to safeguard only a silver dinar, but I did not undertake to safeguard a gold dinar.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诪专讚讻讬 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗转讜谉 讘讚专讘讗 诪转谞讬转讜 诇讛 讗谞谉 诪诪转谞讬转讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇谉 讞讟讬谉 讜讞讬驻谉 讘砖注讜专讬谉 砖注讜专讬谉 讜讞讬驻谉 讘讞讟讬谉 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗诇讗 讚诪讬 砖注讜专讬谉 讘诇讘讚 讗诇诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讚砖注专讬 拽讘讬诇讬 注诇讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讚讚讛讘讗 诇讗 拽讘讬诇讬 注诇讬


Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: You teach this halakha as a statement of Rava, but for us this halakha is obvious from the baraita that taught: If one stacked wheat and covered the stack with barley, or stacked barley and covered the stack with wheat, the one responsible for the fire pays compensation for the barley alone. Evidently, the one who kindled the fire can say to the owner of the stack: I undertook to safeguard a stack of barley but not a stack of wheat. Here too, in the case of a golden dinar presented as a silver dinar, the woman can say to him: I did not undertake to safeguard a gold dinar.


讗诪专 专讘 砖诪注讬转 诪讬诇转讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜诇讗 讬讚注 讗讘讗 诪讗讬 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚诪讞讬讬讘 注诇 谞讝拽讬 讟诪讜谉 讘讗砖 注砖讜 转拽谞转 谞讙讝诇 讘讗砖讜


Rav said: I heard a halakhic matter in connection with Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion in the mishna but I do not know what it is. Shmuel said: And does Abba, which was Rav鈥檚 name, really not know what he heard? This is the statement that he heard: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who deems one liable for concealed articles damaged by a fire, the Sages applied the ordinance of a robbery victim to one whose concealed items are damaged by his fire. Just as the Sages instituted an ordinance that a robbery victim can take an oath as to what was stolen from him and the robber must repay him accordingly, similarly, according to Rabbi Yehuda the owner of the stack can take an oath that certain items were inside the stack, and the one responsible for the fire must pay compensation for them.


讘注讬 讗诪讬诪专 注砖讜 转拽谞转 谞讙讝诇 讘诪住讜专 讗讜 诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讚讬讬谞讬谞谉 讚讬谞讗 讚讙专诪讬 诇讗 转讘注讬 诇讱 讚诪住讜专讜转 谞诪讬 诇讗 讚讬讬谞讬谞谉


Ameimar asks: Did they apply this ordinance of a robbery victim in the case of an informer who causes another person鈥檚 property to be confiscated by the gentile authorities, or not? The question is clarified: According to the opinion of the one who says that we do not judge cases of liability for damage caused by indirect action, do not ask the question, as according to that opinion we also do not judge cases of liability for informers who cause indirect damage.


讗诇讗 讻讬 转讘注讬 诇讱 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讬讬谞讬谞谉 讚讬谞讗 讚讙专诪讬 注砖讜 转拽谞转 谞讙讝诇 讘诪住讜专 讚诪砖转讘注 讜砖拽讬诇 讗讜 诇讗 转讬拽讜


Rather, when you ask this question, it is in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that we judge cases of liability for damage caused by indirect action, and the question is: Did the Sages apply the ordinance of a robbery victim to one whose items were taken due to an informer, meaning that the victim can take an oath to support his claim with regard to what was taken and take this amount in compensation, or not? No conclusion was reached about this, and the dilemma shall stand unresolved.


讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讘讟砖 讘讻住驻转讗 讚讞讘专讬讛 砖讚讬讬讛 讘谞讛专讗 讗转讗 诪专讬讛 讜讗诪专 讛讻讬 讜讛讻讬 讛讜讛 诇讬 讘讙讜讛 讬转讬讘 专讘 讗砖讬 讜拽讗 诪注讬讬谉 讘讬讛 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讗讬


An incident was related about a certain man who kicked a safe belonging to another, sending it flying into the river. The owner of the safe came to court and said: I had such and such inside it. Rav Ashi sat and was investigating the question: In a case like this, what is the halakha? Does the court believe the claimant or not?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚转谞谉 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 砖诪砖诇诐 讻诇 诪讛 砖讘转讜讻讜 砖讻谉 讚专讱 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诇讛谞讬讞 讘讘转讬诐


Ravina said to Rav A岣, son of Rava, and some say that Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: Is this not identical to the case of the mishna, as we learned in the mishna: And 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? Similarly, it is the normal way of people to place money in a safe, and the court should rely on the claim of the victim.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讚拽讗 讟注讬谉 讝讜讝讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚拽讗 讟注讬谉 诪专讙谞讬转讗 诪讗讬 诪讬 诪谞讞讬 讗讬谞砖讬 诪专讙谞讬转讗 讘讻住驻转讗 讗讜 诇讗 转讬拽讜


Rav Ashi said to him: If the claimant were to claim that there were coins in the safe, this ruling would apply here also. But with what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the claimant claims that there was a pearl [marganita] in the safe. What is the halakha? Do people typically place pearls in a safe, in which case he should be believed, or not? The dilemma shall stand unresolved.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讬诪专 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讟注讬谉 讻住讗 讚讻住驻讗 讘讘讬专讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讝讬谞讗 讗讬 讗讬谞讬砖 讗诪讬讚 讛讜讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讻住讗 讚讻住驻讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讬砖 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讛讜讗 讚诪驻拽讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讙讘讬讛 诪砖转讘注 讜砖拽讬诇 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗讜 讻诇 讻诪讬谞讬讛


Rav Yeimar said to Rav Ashi: If the one whose home was burned by the fire were to claim that he had, among other items, a silver goblet in the building, what is the halakha? Is he believed or not? Rav Ashi said to him: We view his situation. If he is a wealthy person, who would typically have a silver goblet, or alternatively, if he is a trustworthy person with whom people entrust valuable items, he can take an oath that this is what he had and take compensation according to his claim. But if he is not such a person, it is not in his power to be believed in such a claim.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讜讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪讛 讘讬谉 讙讝诇谉 诇讞诪住谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诪住谉 讬讛讬讘 讚诪讬 讙讝诇谉 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 讚诪讬


Rav Adda, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: Concerning two terms used to describe those who take another鈥檚 property against his will, a gazlan and a 岣msan, what is the difference between them? Rav Ashi said to him: A 岣msan gives money for the article that he takes from its owner, albeit against the owner鈥檚 will, whereas a gazlan does not give money.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讬讛讬讘 讚诪讬 讞诪住谉 拽专讬转 诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 转诇讜讛 讜讝讘讬谉 讝讘讬谞讬讛 讝讘讬谞讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讜爪讛 讗谞讬 讛讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专 专讜爪讛 讗谞讬


Rav Adda was puzzled by this response and said to him: If he gives money, do you still call him a 岣msan? Since he pays money for it, he acquires it lawfully, despite the fact that its owner did not sell it voluntarily. But doesn鈥檛 Rav Huna say: If one was strung up so that another could coerce him to sell a certain item, and he sold it, his sale is a valid sale. This indicates that a sale under duress is considered a valid sale. Rav Ashi answered: This is not difficult. This case, where the sale under duress is legally considered to be a sale, is referring to a case where he eventually says: I want to sell the item, despite having been forced. By contrast, in that case, where the sale is invalid, he did not say: I want to sell the item.


诪转谞讬壮 讙抓 砖讬爪讗 诪转讞转 讛驻讟讬砖 讜讛讝讬拽 讞讬讬讘


MISHNA: In the case of a spark that emerged from under the hammer of a blacksmith and started a fire, causing damage, the blacksmith is liable for the damage caused.


讙诪诇 砖讛讬讛 讟注讜谉 驻砖转谉 讜注讘专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜谞讻谞住 驻砖转谞讜 诇转讜讱 讛讞谞讜转 讜讚诇拽讜 讘谞专讜 砖诇 讞谞讜谞讬 讜讛讚诇讬拽 讗转 讛讘讬专讛 讘注诇 讙诪诇 讞讬讬讘 讛谞讬讞 讞谞讜谞讬 谞专讜 诪讘讞讜抓 讛讞谞讜谞讬 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 驻讟讜专


In the case of a camel that was laden with flax and was passing through the public domain, and its flax extended into a store and the flax caught fire from a lamp in the store belonging to the storekeeper, and as a result of the burning flax the camel set fire to the building together with all its contents, the owner of the camel is liable. But if the storekeeper placed his lamp outside, thereby causing the flax on the camel to catch fire, and consequently the building was set on fire, the storekeeper is liable. Rabbi Yehuda says: In a case where the lamp placed outside was a Hanukkah lamp, the storekeeper is exempt, since it is a mitzva for a Hanukkah lamp to be placed outside.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 诪爪讜讛 诇讛谞讬讞讛 讘转讜讱 注砖专讛 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讗诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 驻讟讜专 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇讗谞讜讞讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讙诪诇 讜专讜讻讘讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪爪讜讛 诇讛谞讬讞讛 讘转讜讱 注砖专讛


GEMARA: Ravina said in the name of Rava: Conclude from Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement that the mitzva is to place the Hanukkah lamp within a height of ten handbreadths from the ground as, if it enters your mind to say that the mitzva can also be fulfilled by placing it above ten handbreadths, why did Rabbi Yehuda say that in the case of a Hanukkah lamp placed outside, the storekeeper is exempt? Let the owner of the camel say to the storekeeper: You should have placed the lamp above the height of a camel and its rider so that the flax would not catch fire. Rather, must one not conclude from here that Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion is that the mitzva is to place it within ten handbreadths of the ground and not higher?


讗诪专讬 诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讘注讬 诇讱 诇讗谞讜讞讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讙诪诇 讜专讜讻讘讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讘诪爪讜讛 拽讗 注住讬拽 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 诇讗 讗讟专讞讜讛 专讘谞谉


The Sages say in response: No, there is no proof from here. Actually, I could say to you that one may place a Hanukkah lamp even above a height of ten handbreadths, and as for what you said, that the owner of the camel can claim: You should have placed the lamp above the height of a camel and its rider, in response to this one can say: Since the store owner is performing a mitzva by placing his Hanukkah lamp outside, the Sages did not trouble him to such an extent to have him place his lamp at a height that would be inconvenient for him to reach.


讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚专砖 专讘 谞转谉 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 转谞讞讜诐 谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 砖讛谞讬讞讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 驻住讜诇讛 讻住讜讻讛 讜讻诪讘讜讬


Further on the subject of the height of a Hanukkah lamp, Rav Kahana says that Rav Natan bar Minyumi taught in the name of Rabbi Tan岣m: A Hanukkah lamp that is placed higher than twenty cubits from the ground is unfit to be used for the mitzva, since people do not generally look up to such a height, and the main purpose of the Hanukkah lamp is for it to be seen by others. In this regard, the halakha of the height of a Hanukkah lamp is like the halakha of the height of a sukka and the halakha of the height of a cross beam at the entrance to an alleyway, which are unfit for their respective purposes if they are higher than twenty cubits.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讻讜谞住



诪转谞讬壮 诪专讜讘讛 诪讚转 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 诪诪讚转 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 砖诪讚转 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 谞讜讛讙转 讘讬谉 讘讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 专讜讞 讞讬讬诐 讜讘讬谉 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 专讜讞 讞讬讬诐 讜诪讚转 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讜讛讙转 讗诇讗 讘砖讜专 讜砖讛 讘诇讘讚 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讬讙谞讘 讗讬砖 砖讜专 讗讜 砖讛 讜讟讘讞讜 讗讜 诪讻专讜 讜讙讜壮


MISHNA: The principle of double payment applies more broadly than the principle of fourfold or fivefold payment, as the principle of double payment applies both to the theft of something that is alive and to the theft of something that is not alive, but the principle of fourfold or fivefold payment applies only to the theft of an ox or a sheep, as it is stated: 鈥淚f a man steal an ox or a sheep, and slaughter it or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep鈥 (Exodus 21:37).


讗讬谉 讛讙讜谞讘 讗讞专 讛讙谞讘 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜诇讗 讛讟讜讘讞 讜诇讗 讛诪讜讻专 讗讞专 讛讙谞讘 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛


Having stated a limitation to the halakha of fourfold and fivefold payment, the mishna mentions a further limitation, which applies to all three types of payments. One who steals an item after a thief has already stolen it, i.e., one who steals a stolen item, does not pay the double payment to the thief or to the prior owner, nor does one who slaughters or sells an ox or a sheep after a thief has already stolen it pay the fourfold or fivefold payment. Rather, he pays only the principal, i.e., the value of the item he stole.


讙诪壮 讜讗讬诇讜 诪讚转 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 谞讜讛讙转 讘讬谉 讘讙谞讘 讘讬谉 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讜诪讚转 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讜讛讙转 讗诇讗 讘讙谞讘 讘诇讘讚 诇讗 拽转谞讬


GEMARA: The mishna teaches one particular difference between double payment and fourfold or fivefold payment, while it does not teach this difference between them: The principle of double payment applies both in the case of a thief and in the case of a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit entrusted to him and who takes an oath to that effect. But the principle of fourfold or fivefold payment applies only in the case of a thief, not in the case of one who falsely claims that a deposit was stolen.


诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讘驻拽讚讜谉 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛


The fact that the mishna does not teach the latter distinction supports the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, as Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In the case of one who falsely states the claim that a thief stole a deposit from him, and it is discovered that he himself is the thief, he pays double payment. And if the stolen item is an ox or sheep and he slaughtered or sold it, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. According to Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, there is no difference between the applications of double payment and fourfold or fivefold payment in this case.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讘驻拽讚讜谉 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛


There are those who say a different version of this discussion: Let us say that the mishna supports the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, as Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In the case of one who falsely states the claim that a thief stole a deposit from him, and it is discovered that he himself is the thief, he pays double payment. And if the stolen item is an ox or sheep, and he slaughtered or sold it, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment.


诪讬 拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 诪专讜讘讛 拽转谞讬 转谞讗 讜砖讬讬专


The Gemara rejects the inference: Does the mishna teach that there is no difference between double payment and fourfold or fivefold payment except for the one mentioned in the mishna? It teaches merely that the principle of double payment applies more broadly than the principle of fourfold or fivefold payment, and it provides an example of this statement. This does not mean that this is the only difference, and it is possible that the tanna taught this one case and omitted others.


砖诪讚转 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 谞讜讛讙转 讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注诇 讻诇 讚讘专 驻砖注 讻诇诇 注诇 砖讜专 注诇 讞诪讜专 注诇 砖讛 讜注诇 砖诇诪讛 驻专讟 注诇 讻诇 讗讘讚讛 讞讝专 讜讻诇诇


搂 The mishna teaches that the principle of double payment applies both to the theft of something that is alive and to the theft of something that is not alive. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? It is as the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse that discusses double payment: 鈥淔or any matter of trespass, whether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a garment, or for any manner of lost thing about which one shall say: This is it, the claims of both of them shall come before the judges, the one whom the judges convict shall pay double to his neighbor鈥 (Exodus 22:8). 鈥淔or any matter of trespass鈥 is a generalization; 鈥渨hether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a garment鈥 is a detail. And when the verse states: 鈥淥r for any manner of lost thing,鈥 it then generalizes again.


讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讗讬 讗转讛 讚谉 讗诇讗 讻注讬谉 讛驻专讟 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 讚讘专 讛诪讟诇讟诇 讜讙讜驻讜 诪诪讜谉 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专 讛诪讟诇讟诇 讜讙讜驻讜 诪诪讜谉


Consequently, this verse contains a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, and one of the thirteen rules of exegesis states that in such a case you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Therefore, just as each of the items mentioned in the detail is clearly defined as an item that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value, so too double payment is practiced with regard to any item that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value.


讬爪讗讜 拽专拽注讜转 砖讗讬谞谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讬爪讗讜 注讘讚讬诐 砖讛讜拽砖讜 诇拽专拽注讜转 讬爪讗讜 砖讟专讜转 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讬谉 讙讜驻谉 诪诪讜谉 讬爪讗 讛拽讚砖 专注讛讜 讻转讬讘


Land is excluded, as it is not movable property. Canaanite slaves are excluded, as they are compared to land in many areas of halakha. Financial documents are excluded, as, although they are movable property, they do not have intrinsic monetary value. The value of the material on which the document is written is negligible; documents are valuable only because they serve as proof for monetary claims. Finally, consecrated property is excluded because it is written in the verse that the one found liable shall pay double to 鈥渉is neighbor,鈥 i.e., to another person, rather than to the Temple treasury.


讗讬 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 讚讘专 砖谞讘诇转讜 诪讟诪讗 讘诪讙注 讜讘诪砖讗 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专 砖谞讘诇转讜 诪讟诪讗 讘诪讙注 讜讘诪砖讗 讗讘诇 注讜驻讜转 诇讗


The Gemara asks: If the halakha of double payment is limited to cases similar to the details mentioned in the verse, it should also be derived that just as each of the items mentioned in the detail is clearly defined as an item whose carcass transmits impurity through contact and carrying, so too any item whose carcass transmits impurity through contact and carrying it is subject to double payment. But birds, whose carcasses do not transmit impurity through contact or carrying, should not be subject to double payment.


讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 砖诇诪讛 讻转讬讘 讗诪专讬 讗谞谉 讘讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬诪讗 讘讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讚讘专 砖谞讘诇转讜 诪讟诪讗 讘诪讙注 讜讘诪砖讗 讗讬谉 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 谞讘诇转讜 诪讟诪讗 讘诪讙注 讜讘诪砖讗 诇讗


The Gemara objects to the question: But how can you say this? But isn鈥檛 鈥済arment鈥 written in the list of specified items (Exodus 22:8)? It is impossible to speak of the impurity of carcasses with regard to clothing. The Gemara responds: Say, in response to this objection: We are speaking specifically of animals, and this is the question that was asked: Why not say that with regard to animals, an animal whose carcass transmits impurity through contact and carrying, yes, it is subject to double payment, whereas an animal whose carcass does not transmit impurity through contact and carrying, such as a bird, no, a thief would not pay double payment for stealing it?


  • 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...
din and daf with elana stein hain gemara shiur for women

Din & Daf: Forced Transactions (Episode 2)

Din & Daf: Conceptual Analysis of Halakha Through Case Study with Dr. Elana Stein Hain 转诇讬讜讛讜 讜讝讘讬谉 (讘讘讗 拽诪讗 住讘.)...
talking talmud_square

Bava Kamma 62: Hidden Responsibilities and the Penalties for Theft

The case of one who gives a gold coin to a woman, and tell her that it is silver -...
safe arca

Safekeeping

Where do you keep your valuables? If your answer is a small safe at home, you are in good company....

Bava Kamma 62

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 62

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 讜讚诇拽讛 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


In what case is this statement said? It is in a case where one kindled a fire on his premises and the fire spread and burned items in premises belonging to another. But with regard to one who kindles a fire on premises belonging to another that destroys a stack of wheat, all agree that he pays compensation for everything that was inside the stack.


讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讘诪砖讗讬诇 诪拽讜诐 诇讞讘讬专讜 诇讛讙讚讬砖 讙讚讬砖 讜讛讙讚讬砖 讜讛讟诪讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪砖诇诐 讗诇讗 讚诪讬 讙讚讬砖 讘诇讘讚 诇讛讙讚讬砖 讞讟讬谉 讜讛讙讚讬砖 砖注讜专讬谉 砖注讜专讬谉 讜讛讙讚讬砖 讞讟讬谉 讞讟讬谉 讜讞讬驻谉 讘砖注讜专讬谉 砖注讜专讬谉 讜讞讬驻谉 讘讞讟讬诐 砖讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗诇讗 讚诪讬 砖注讜专讬谉 讘诇讘讚


And Rabbi Yehuda concedes to the Rabbis that in a case where one lends space to another in his field to stack grain, and this person stacked grain in the field and concealed items inside the stack, if the owner of the field causes the stack to be burned down, he pays compensation for the stack alone, since the other person did not have permission to conceal items inside his stack. Similarly, if one received permission to stack wheat in the field of another and he stacked barley; or conversely, if he received permission to stack barley and he stacked wheat; or similarly, if he stacked wheat and covered the stack with barley, or stacked barley and covered the stack with wheat, in all these cases, Rabbi Yehuda concedes that he pays compensation for the barley alone, which is less than the value of wheat.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讛谞讜转谉 讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 诇讗砖讛 讜讗诪专 诇讛 讛讝讛专讬 讘讜 砖诇 讻住祝 讛讜讗 讛讝讬拽转讜 诪砖诇诪转 讚讬谞专 讝讛讘 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讛 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讱 讙讘讬讛 讚讗讝拽转讬讛 驻砖注讛 讘讜 诪砖诇诪转 砖诇 讻住祝 讚讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讚讻住驻讗 拽讘讬诇讬 注诇讬 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讚讚讛讘讗 诇讗 拽讘讬诇讬 注诇讬


Rava says: With regard to one who gives a gold dinar to a woman for safekeeping and says to her: Be careful with this dinar because it is made of silver, if she herself damaged the dinar, she must pay compensation for the value of a gold dinar. This is because he can say to her: What business did you have damaging it? If she was negligent and it was lost or stolen, she pays as compensation only the value of a silver dinar, since she can say to him: I undertook to safeguard only a silver dinar, but I did not undertake to safeguard a gold dinar.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诪专讚讻讬 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗转讜谉 讘讚专讘讗 诪转谞讬转讜 诇讛 讗谞谉 诪诪转谞讬转讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诇谉 讞讟讬谉 讜讞讬驻谉 讘砖注讜专讬谉 砖注讜专讬谉 讜讞讬驻谉 讘讞讟讬谉 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 讗诇讗 讚诪讬 砖注讜专讬谉 讘诇讘讚 讗诇诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讚砖注专讬 拽讘讬诇讬 注诇讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讚讚讛讘讗 诇讗 拽讘讬诇讬 注诇讬


Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: You teach this halakha as a statement of Rava, but for us this halakha is obvious from the baraita that taught: If one stacked wheat and covered the stack with barley, or stacked barley and covered the stack with wheat, the one responsible for the fire pays compensation for the barley alone. Evidently, the one who kindled the fire can say to the owner of the stack: I undertook to safeguard a stack of barley but not a stack of wheat. Here too, in the case of a golden dinar presented as a silver dinar, the woman can say to him: I did not undertake to safeguard a gold dinar.


讗诪专 专讘 砖诪注讬转 诪讬诇转讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜诇讗 讬讚注 讗讘讗 诪讗讬 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚诪讞讬讬讘 注诇 谞讝拽讬 讟诪讜谉 讘讗砖 注砖讜 转拽谞转 谞讙讝诇 讘讗砖讜


Rav said: I heard a halakhic matter in connection with Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion in the mishna but I do not know what it is. Shmuel said: And does Abba, which was Rav鈥檚 name, really not know what he heard? This is the statement that he heard: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who deems one liable for concealed articles damaged by a fire, the Sages applied the ordinance of a robbery victim to one whose concealed items are damaged by his fire. Just as the Sages instituted an ordinance that a robbery victim can take an oath as to what was stolen from him and the robber must repay him accordingly, similarly, according to Rabbi Yehuda the owner of the stack can take an oath that certain items were inside the stack, and the one responsible for the fire must pay compensation for them.


讘注讬 讗诪讬诪专 注砖讜 转拽谞转 谞讙讝诇 讘诪住讜专 讗讜 诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讚讬讬谞讬谞谉 讚讬谞讗 讚讙专诪讬 诇讗 转讘注讬 诇讱 讚诪住讜专讜转 谞诪讬 诇讗 讚讬讬谞讬谞谉


Ameimar asks: Did they apply this ordinance of a robbery victim in the case of an informer who causes another person鈥檚 property to be confiscated by the gentile authorities, or not? The question is clarified: According to the opinion of the one who says that we do not judge cases of liability for damage caused by indirect action, do not ask the question, as according to that opinion we also do not judge cases of liability for informers who cause indirect damage.


讗诇讗 讻讬 转讘注讬 诇讱 讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讬讬谞讬谞谉 讚讬谞讗 讚讙专诪讬 注砖讜 转拽谞转 谞讙讝诇 讘诪住讜专 讚诪砖转讘注 讜砖拽讬诇 讗讜 诇讗 转讬拽讜


Rather, when you ask this question, it is in accordance with the opinion of the one who said that we judge cases of liability for damage caused by indirect action, and the question is: Did the Sages apply the ordinance of a robbery victim to one whose items were taken due to an informer, meaning that the victim can take an oath to support his claim with regard to what was taken and take this amount in compensation, or not? No conclusion was reached about this, and the dilemma shall stand unresolved.


讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讘讟砖 讘讻住驻转讗 讚讞讘专讬讛 砖讚讬讬讛 讘谞讛专讗 讗转讗 诪专讬讛 讜讗诪专 讛讻讬 讜讛讻讬 讛讜讛 诇讬 讘讙讜讛 讬转讬讘 专讘 讗砖讬 讜拽讗 诪注讬讬谉 讘讬讛 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 诪讗讬


An incident was related about a certain man who kicked a safe belonging to another, sending it flying into the river. The owner of the safe came to court and said: I had such and such inside it. Rav Ashi sat and was investigating the question: In a case like this, what is the halakha? Does the court believe the claimant or not?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚转谞谉 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 砖诪砖诇诐 讻诇 诪讛 砖讘转讜讻讜 砖讻谉 讚专讱 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诇讛谞讬讞 讘讘转讬诐


Ravina said to Rav A岣, son of Rava, and some say that Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: Is this not identical to the case of the mishna, as we learned in the mishna: And 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? Similarly, it is the normal way of people to place money in a safe, and the court should rely on the claim of the victim.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讚拽讗 讟注讬谉 讝讜讝讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚拽讗 讟注讬谉 诪专讙谞讬转讗 诪讗讬 诪讬 诪谞讞讬 讗讬谞砖讬 诪专讙谞讬转讗 讘讻住驻转讗 讗讜 诇讗 转讬拽讜


Rav Ashi said to him: If the claimant were to claim that there were coins in the safe, this ruling would apply here also. But with what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the claimant claims that there was a pearl [marganita] in the safe. What is the halakha? Do people typically place pearls in a safe, in which case he should be believed, or not? The dilemma shall stand unresolved.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讬诪专 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讟注讬谉 讻住讗 讚讻住驻讗 讘讘讬专讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讝讬谞讗 讗讬 讗讬谞讬砖 讗诪讬讚 讛讜讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讻住讗 讚讻住驻讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讬砖 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讛讜讗 讚诪驻拽讚讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讙讘讬讛 诪砖转讘注 讜砖拽讬诇 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗讜 讻诇 讻诪讬谞讬讛


Rav Yeimar said to Rav Ashi: If the one whose home was burned by the fire were to claim that he had, among other items, a silver goblet in the building, what is the halakha? Is he believed or not? Rav Ashi said to him: We view his situation. If he is a wealthy person, who would typically have a silver goblet, or alternatively, if he is a trustworthy person with whom people entrust valuable items, he can take an oath that this is what he had and take compensation according to his claim. But if he is not such a person, it is not in his power to be believed in such a claim.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讜讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪讛 讘讬谉 讙讝诇谉 诇讞诪住谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞诪住谉 讬讛讬讘 讚诪讬 讙讝诇谉 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 讚诪讬


Rav Adda, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: Concerning two terms used to describe those who take another鈥檚 property against his will, a gazlan and a 岣msan, what is the difference between them? Rav Ashi said to him: A 岣msan gives money for the article that he takes from its owner, albeit against the owner鈥檚 will, whereas a gazlan does not give money.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讬讛讬讘 讚诪讬 讞诪住谉 拽专讬转 诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 转诇讜讛 讜讝讘讬谉 讝讘讬谞讬讛 讝讘讬谞讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讜爪讛 讗谞讬 讛讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专 专讜爪讛 讗谞讬


Rav Adda was puzzled by this response and said to him: If he gives money, do you still call him a 岣msan? Since he pays money for it, he acquires it lawfully, despite the fact that its owner did not sell it voluntarily. But doesn鈥檛 Rav Huna say: If one was strung up so that another could coerce him to sell a certain item, and he sold it, his sale is a valid sale. This indicates that a sale under duress is considered a valid sale. Rav Ashi answered: This is not difficult. This case, where the sale under duress is legally considered to be a sale, is referring to a case where he eventually says: I want to sell the item, despite having been forced. By contrast, in that case, where the sale is invalid, he did not say: I want to sell the item.


诪转谞讬壮 讙抓 砖讬爪讗 诪转讞转 讛驻讟讬砖 讜讛讝讬拽 讞讬讬讘


MISHNA: In the case of a spark that emerged from under the hammer of a blacksmith and started a fire, causing damage, the blacksmith is liable for the damage caused.


讙诪诇 砖讛讬讛 讟注讜谉 驻砖转谉 讜注讘专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜谞讻谞住 驻砖转谞讜 诇转讜讱 讛讞谞讜转 讜讚诇拽讜 讘谞专讜 砖诇 讞谞讜谞讬 讜讛讚诇讬拽 讗转 讛讘讬专讛 讘注诇 讙诪诇 讞讬讬讘 讛谞讬讞 讞谞讜谞讬 谞专讜 诪讘讞讜抓 讛讞谞讜谞讬 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 驻讟讜专


In the case of a camel that was laden with flax and was passing through the public domain, and its flax extended into a store and the flax caught fire from a lamp in the store belonging to the storekeeper, and as a result of the burning flax the camel set fire to the building together with all its contents, the owner of the camel is liable. But if the storekeeper placed his lamp outside, thereby causing the flax on the camel to catch fire, and consequently the building was set on fire, the storekeeper is liable. Rabbi Yehuda says: In a case where the lamp placed outside was a Hanukkah lamp, the storekeeper is exempt, since it is a mitzva for a Hanukkah lamp to be placed outside.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 诪爪讜讛 诇讛谞讬讞讛 讘转讜讱 注砖专讛 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 讗诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 驻讟讜专 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇讗谞讜讞讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讙诪诇 讜专讜讻讘讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪爪讜讛 诇讛谞讬讞讛 讘转讜讱 注砖专讛


GEMARA: Ravina said in the name of Rava: Conclude from Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement that the mitzva is to place the Hanukkah lamp within a height of ten handbreadths from the ground as, if it enters your mind to say that the mitzva can also be fulfilled by placing it above ten handbreadths, why did Rabbi Yehuda say that in the case of a Hanukkah lamp placed outside, the storekeeper is exempt? Let the owner of the camel say to the storekeeper: You should have placed the lamp above the height of a camel and its rider so that the flax would not catch fire. Rather, must one not conclude from here that Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion is that the mitzva is to place it within ten handbreadths of the ground and not higher?


讗诪专讬 诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讛 诪讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讘注讬 诇讱 诇讗谞讜讞讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讙诪诇 讜专讜讻讘讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讘诪爪讜讛 拽讗 注住讬拽 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 诇讗 讗讟专讞讜讛 专讘谞谉


The Sages say in response: No, there is no proof from here. Actually, I could say to you that one may place a Hanukkah lamp even above a height of ten handbreadths, and as for what you said, that the owner of the camel can claim: You should have placed the lamp above the height of a camel and its rider, in response to this one can say: Since the store owner is performing a mitzva by placing his Hanukkah lamp outside, the Sages did not trouble him to such an extent to have him place his lamp at a height that would be inconvenient for him to reach.


讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚专砖 专讘 谞转谉 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 转谞讞讜诐 谞专 讞谞讜讻讛 砖讛谞讬讞讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪注砖专讬诐 讗诪讛 驻住讜诇讛 讻住讜讻讛 讜讻诪讘讜讬


Further on the subject of the height of a Hanukkah lamp, Rav Kahana says that Rav Natan bar Minyumi taught in the name of Rabbi Tan岣m: A Hanukkah lamp that is placed higher than twenty cubits from the ground is unfit to be used for the mitzva, since people do not generally look up to such a height, and the main purpose of the Hanukkah lamp is for it to be seen by others. In this regard, the halakha of the height of a Hanukkah lamp is like the halakha of the height of a sukka and the halakha of the height of a cross beam at the entrance to an alleyway, which are unfit for their respective purposes if they are higher than twenty cubits.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛讻讜谞住



诪转谞讬壮 诪专讜讘讛 诪讚转 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 诪诪讚转 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 砖诪讚转 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 谞讜讛讙转 讘讬谉 讘讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 专讜讞 讞讬讬诐 讜讘讬谉 讘讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 专讜讞 讞讬讬诐 讜诪讚转 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讜讛讙转 讗诇讗 讘砖讜专 讜砖讛 讘诇讘讚 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讬讙谞讘 讗讬砖 砖讜专 讗讜 砖讛 讜讟讘讞讜 讗讜 诪讻专讜 讜讙讜壮


MISHNA: The principle of double payment applies more broadly than the principle of fourfold or fivefold payment, as the principle of double payment applies both to the theft of something that is alive and to the theft of something that is not alive, but the principle of fourfold or fivefold payment applies only to the theft of an ox or a sheep, as it is stated: 鈥淚f a man steal an ox or a sheep, and slaughter it or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep鈥 (Exodus 21:37).


讗讬谉 讛讙讜谞讘 讗讞专 讛讙谞讘 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜诇讗 讛讟讜讘讞 讜诇讗 讛诪讜讻专 讗讞专 讛讙谞讘 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛


Having stated a limitation to the halakha of fourfold and fivefold payment, the mishna mentions a further limitation, which applies to all three types of payments. One who steals an item after a thief has already stolen it, i.e., one who steals a stolen item, does not pay the double payment to the thief or to the prior owner, nor does one who slaughters or sells an ox or a sheep after a thief has already stolen it pay the fourfold or fivefold payment. Rather, he pays only the principal, i.e., the value of the item he stole.


讙诪壮 讜讗讬诇讜 诪讚转 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 谞讜讛讙转 讘讬谉 讘讙谞讘 讘讬谉 讘讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讜诪讚转 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讜讛讙转 讗诇讗 讘讙谞讘 讘诇讘讚 诇讗 拽转谞讬


GEMARA: The mishna teaches one particular difference between double payment and fourfold or fivefold payment, while it does not teach this difference between them: The principle of double payment applies both in the case of a thief and in the case of a bailee who falsely states the claim that a thief stole the deposit entrusted to him and who takes an oath to that effect. But the principle of fourfold or fivefold payment applies only in the case of a thief, not in the case of one who falsely claims that a deposit was stolen.


诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讘驻拽讚讜谉 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛


The fact that the mishna does not teach the latter distinction supports the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, as Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In the case of one who falsely states the claim that a thief stole a deposit from him, and it is discovered that he himself is the thief, he pays double payment. And if the stolen item is an ox or sheep and he slaughtered or sold it, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. According to Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, there is no difference between the applications of double payment and fourfold or fivefold payment in this case.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讟讜注谉 讟注谞转 讙谞讘 讘驻拽讚讜谉 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛


There are those who say a different version of this discussion: Let us say that the mishna supports the opinion of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, as Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In the case of one who falsely states the claim that a thief stole a deposit from him, and it is discovered that he himself is the thief, he pays double payment. And if the stolen item is an ox or sheep, and he slaughtered or sold it, he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment.


诪讬 拽转谞讬 讗讬谉 讘讬谉 诪专讜讘讛 拽转谞讬 转谞讗 讜砖讬讬专


The Gemara rejects the inference: Does the mishna teach that there is no difference between double payment and fourfold or fivefold payment except for the one mentioned in the mishna? It teaches merely that the principle of double payment applies more broadly than the principle of fourfold or fivefold payment, and it provides an example of this statement. This does not mean that this is the only difference, and it is possible that the tanna taught this one case and omitted others.


砖诪讚转 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 谞讜讛讙转 讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注诇 讻诇 讚讘专 驻砖注 讻诇诇 注诇 砖讜专 注诇 讞诪讜专 注诇 砖讛 讜注诇 砖诇诪讛 驻专讟 注诇 讻诇 讗讘讚讛 讞讝专 讜讻诇诇


搂 The mishna teaches that the principle of double payment applies both to the theft of something that is alive and to the theft of something that is not alive. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? It is as the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse that discusses double payment: 鈥淔or any matter of trespass, whether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a garment, or for any manner of lost thing about which one shall say: This is it, the claims of both of them shall come before the judges, the one whom the judges convict shall pay double to his neighbor鈥 (Exodus 22:8). 鈥淔or any matter of trespass鈥 is a generalization; 鈥渨hether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a garment鈥 is a detail. And when the verse states: 鈥淥r for any manner of lost thing,鈥 it then generalizes again.


讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讗讬 讗转讛 讚谉 讗诇讗 讻注讬谉 讛驻专讟 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 讚讘专 讛诪讟诇讟诇 讜讙讜驻讜 诪诪讜谉 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专 讛诪讟诇讟诇 讜讙讜驻讜 诪诪讜谉


Consequently, this verse contains a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, and one of the thirteen rules of exegesis states that in such a case you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Therefore, just as each of the items mentioned in the detail is clearly defined as an item that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value, so too double payment is practiced with regard to any item that is movable property and has intrinsic monetary value.


讬爪讗讜 拽专拽注讜转 砖讗讬谞谉 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讬爪讗讜 注讘讚讬诐 砖讛讜拽砖讜 诇拽专拽注讜转 讬爪讗讜 砖讟专讜转 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讬谉 讙讜驻谉 诪诪讜谉 讬爪讗 讛拽讚砖 专注讛讜 讻转讬讘


Land is excluded, as it is not movable property. Canaanite slaves are excluded, as they are compared to land in many areas of halakha. Financial documents are excluded, as, although they are movable property, they do not have intrinsic monetary value. The value of the material on which the document is written is negligible; documents are valuable only because they serve as proof for monetary claims. Finally, consecrated property is excluded because it is written in the verse that the one found liable shall pay double to 鈥渉is neighbor,鈥 i.e., to another person, rather than to the Temple treasury.


讗讬 诪讛 讛驻专讟 诪驻讜专砖 讚讘专 砖谞讘诇转讜 诪讟诪讗 讘诪讙注 讜讘诪砖讗 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专 砖谞讘诇转讜 诪讟诪讗 讘诪讙注 讜讘诪砖讗 讗讘诇 注讜驻讜转 诇讗


The Gemara asks: If the halakha of double payment is limited to cases similar to the details mentioned in the verse, it should also be derived that just as each of the items mentioned in the detail is clearly defined as an item whose carcass transmits impurity through contact and carrying, so too any item whose carcass transmits impurity through contact and carrying it is subject to double payment. But birds, whose carcasses do not transmit impurity through contact or carrying, should not be subject to double payment.


讜诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 砖诇诪讛 讻转讬讘 讗诪专讬 讗谞谉 讘讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬诪讗 讘讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讚讘专 砖谞讘诇转讜 诪讟诪讗 讘诪讙注 讜讘诪砖讗 讗讬谉 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 谞讘诇转讜 诪讟诪讗 讘诪讙注 讜讘诪砖讗 诇讗


The Gemara objects to the question: But how can you say this? But isn鈥檛 鈥済arment鈥 written in the list of specified items (Exodus 22:8)? It is impossible to speak of the impurity of carcasses with regard to clothing. The Gemara responds: Say, in response to this objection: We are speaking specifically of animals, and this is the question that was asked: Why not say that with regard to animals, an animal whose carcass transmits impurity through contact and carrying, yes, it is subject to double payment, whereas an animal whose carcass does not transmit impurity through contact and carrying, such as a bird, no, a thief would not pay double payment for stealing it?


Scroll To Top