POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Bava Kama 9
1) THINGS WORTH MONEY
(a) (Rav Huna): Damages are paid with money or Idis.
2) BEAUTIFYING MITZVOS
(b) Question (Rav Nachman - Beraisa): "He will return" - this
teaches, (anything) worth money may be given, even bran.
(c) Answer: The case is, the damager has no other property.
(d) Question: If he has no other property, of course he may
pay with anything!
(e) Answer: One might have thought, he must sell his things
so he can pay with money - we hear, this is not so.
(f) (Rav Asi): Money is as land.
(g) Question: What did Rav Asi come to teach?
1. Suggestion: If that a damager may pay with money or
Idis - that is what Rav Huna taught!
(h) Answer #1: Rather, 2 brothers divided an inheritance;
Reuven took land, Shimon took money. A creditor (of the
father) took the land - Shimon must compensate him with
money equal to half the value of the land taken.
1. [Version #1 - Objection: This is obvious, both
brothers must pay the debt!]
(i) Answer #2: Rather, 2 brothers divided an inheritance; a
creditor took Reuven's portion. (Shimon may compensate
him with money or land.)
2. [[Version #2 - Objection: Shimon need not compensate
him - he can say, I took money, knowing that you
would not compensate me if it was stolen;
i. Likewise, you knew that if the land is
collected by a creditor, I will not compensate
(j) Objection: Rav Asi already taught this!
1. Two brothers divided an inheritance; a creditor took
(k) Question: But the first answer (that Rav Asi taught that
money may be given in place of Idis) was also difficult,
for that is what Rav Huna taught!
2. (Rav): The division is nullified.
3. (Shmuel): Reuven is not compensated.
4. (Rav Asi): Reuven receives a fourth of the value (of
what he lost) in money, and (or) a fourth in land.
i. Rav says that the division is nullified - he
holds, brothers are as heirs (they make a new
division on what remains).
ii. Shmuel says that Reuven is not compensated - he
holds, brothers are as buyers (without
iii. [Version #1: Rav Asi says that Reuven receives
a fourth in money or a fourth in land - he is
unsure if brothers are as heirs or as buyers
iv. [Version #2: Rav Asi says that Reuven receives
a fourth in money and a fourth in land - he is
unsure if brothers are as heirs or as buyers
(l) Correction: Rather, it should say Rav Asi also taught...
(a) (R. Zeira): One must spend up to a third for Mitzvos.
(b) Question: What does this mean?
3) GENERAL RULES OF DAMAGES
1. Suggestion: One must spend a third of his wealth to
fulfil a Mitzvah.
(c) Correction (R. Zeira): One must spend an extra third to
beautify a Mitzvah.
2. Rejection: It is unreasonable that if he encounters
3 (expensive) Mitzvos, he must exhaust all his
(d) Question (Rav Ashi): Is this a third of what the
unbeautified Mitzvah costs, or a third of the beautified
1. This question is unresolved.
(e) (Chachamim of Eretz Yisrael, citing R. Zeira): Up to an
extra third, a person spends his own money to beautify a
Mitzvah; above a third, Hash-m returns the money to him
(in this world).
(a) (Mishnah): Anything a man must guard, he must pay if it
1. Anything for which he must pay some of the damage it
causes, he is responsible for all the damage.
(b) (There is compensation for the following, if they are
damaged): property to which Me'ilah does not apply;
property of members of the covenant; owned property.
(c) (One must pay for damage) in any place, except for the
premises of the damager, or the joint property of the
damager and damagee.
(d) When 1 damages, he must pay with Idis.
(e) (Gemara - Beraisa): Anything a man must guard, he must
pay if it damages.
1. Reuven handed over an ox or pit to a deaf person,
lunatic or child; the ox or pit damaged - Reuven
must pay; this is not true by fire.
(f) Question: What is the case?
1. Suggestion: The ox is tied up and the pit is
covered; the corresponding case of fire is a coal.
(g) Answer #1: Rather, the ox is loose and the pit is
uncovered; the corresponding case of fire is a flame.
2. Rejection: If so, Reuven should be exempt in all
(h) Rejection: If so, why is Reuven exempt for fire?!
1. (Reish Lakish): (A Mishnah teaches, if Reuven sent a
fire with a deaf person, lunatic or child, and the
fire damaged - Beis Din cannot make Reuven pay) -
this is only if he sent a coal;
(i) Answer #2: Really, the ox is tied up and the pit is
covered; the case of fire is a coal.
2. If he sent a flame, Beis Din forces Reuven to pay,
because a flame is likely to damage.
1. Reuven is obligated if the ox or pit damage, for
oxen break loose on their own, pits become uncovered
by themselves, but a coal dies out if left to
(j) Question: R. Yochanan says, even if Reuven sent a flame
(with a deaf person, lunatic or child) he is exempt - the
corresponding cases of an ox and pit are a loose ox and
an uncovered pit - why is Reuven obligated for the ox and
pit more than the flame?
(k) Answer: By the flame, we attribute the damage to the way
the deaf person (or lunatic or child) held it. (By the ox
or pit, the deaf person did not cause the damage.)