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 23
BAMA KAMA 23 & 24 - This daf has been dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Esther Chaya
Rayzel bas Gershon Eliezer, upon her Yahrzeit and Yom Kevurah, by her
daughter and son-in-law, Jeri and Eli Turkel. Esther Friedman was a woman of
valor who was devoted to her family and gave of herself unstintingly,
inspiring all those around her.
1) ALL AGREE FIRE IS EQUIVALENT TO ONE'S PROPERTY
(a) Question (Abaye): According to the opinion that fire is
liable because it is as his arrows - why is one exempt
for something concealed that is burned?
2) LIABILITY FOR THE DAMAGED CAUSED BY A SNATCHED COAL
(b) Answer (Abaye): The case is, Reuven is responsible for a
fire in a yard, and the wall to the yard fell, not
because of the fire (so the fire spread to the next
1. The obligation for one's arrows is limited by as far
as they were fit to go, i.e. until the wall.
(c) Question: If so, one should be totally exempt for the
(d) Answer: The opinion that fire is liable because it is as
his arrows admits that it is also liable as one's
1. The case is, Reuven had time to stop the fire from
spreading to the next yard (so he is not considered
(e) Question: Since the opinion that fire is liable as arrows
admits that it is also liable as one's property, on what
do they argue?
2. This is as one who brings his ox into a stable and
does not guard it.
(f) Answer: The opinion that fire is (also) liable as his
arrows obligates one to pay the additional 4 damages to
man (as a man that damages).
(a) (Mishnah): For the cake he pays full damage...
3) "IN ANOTHER'S FIELD"
(b) Rhetorical question: Who is liable for the fire, the
1. Question: Also the owner of the coal should be
2. Answer: The case is, the coal's owner guarded it
3. Question: If so, how did the dog get it?
4. Answer: The dog dug through the ground to get to it.
i. (Inference - Mar brei d'Rav Kahana): We learn
that when a dog digs to cross a wall and
damages, this is considered normal.
(a) Question: Where did the dog eat the cake?
1. Suggestion: If by a stack of grain that was not of
the owner of the cake - this is not "In the field of
(b) Answer: It ate it by a stack of grain belonging to the
owner of the cake.
(c) Suggestion: We may conclude that an animal's mouth is as
the yard of the damagee - if it was as the damager's
premises, the dog's owner could say, what is your cake
doing in my animal's mouth! (But this question was never
4) BECOMING A MU'AD
1. Question: Is an animal's mouth as the damagee's
yard, or as the damager's yard?
(d) (Mishnah): A man incited a dog or snake to bite - he is
i. Question: If it is as the damager's yard - when
is Shen liable?!
ii. Answer (Mar brei d'Rav Kahana): The animal
scratched against a wall for pleasure, or
dirtied fruits for pleasure.
iii. Question: (Mar Zutra): But we require "As the
(tooth) will totally consume"!
iv. Answer #1 (Ravina): By rubbing against the
wall, it rubbed out a picture.
v. Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): It fell on fruits and
irretrievably buried them in mud.
(e) Question: Who is exempt?
(f) Answer #1: The inciter is exempt, but the owner of the
dog or snake is liable.
(g) Objection: If an animal's mouth is as the damager's yard,
why is the owner liable?
(h) Answer #2: Rather, even the inciter is exempt.
(i) Defense of Answer #1: The case (when the owner is liable)
is when the animal stuck out its teeth to bite (the
damage occurred outside its mouth).
(j) (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): Reuven used a snake to bite
Shimon - he is liable;
1. Chachamim say, he is exempt.
(k) Question: If an animal's mouth is as the damager's yard,
why is the snake killed - Shimon's hand does not belong
2. (R. Acha bar Yakov): R. Yehudah holds, a snake's
venom is already in its teeth, so we kill Reuven,
not the snake; Chachamim hold, the snake willingly
injects the venom, so we kill the snake, not Reuven.
(l) Answer: We do not say this regarding death.
(m) Question: From where do we know this?
(n) Answer (Beraisa): Reuven entered Shimon's premises
without permission, and Shimon's ox killed him - we stone
the ox, but Shimon does not pay Kofer.
1. Question: Shimon does not pay Kofer, because Reuven
had no right to be there - for the same reason, we
should not stone the ox!
(o) Some goats were damaging Rav Yosef's property. He
suggested that Abaye tell the owners to stop them,
2. Answer: We do not say this regarding death.
1. Abaye: They will tell you to put up a fence!
(p) Rav Yosef publicized: goats left around to be slaughtered
on the market day, that are damaging - we warn the owners
2 or 3 times.
2. Question: If the damagee must put up a fence - when
is Shen liable?!
3. Answer #1: When the animal dug under the fence.
4. Answer #2: When the fence fell at night (and the
animals damaged before it could be fixed).
1. If they do not listen, we force the owners to
slaughter them immediately.
(a) (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): What is Tam, and what is Mu'ad?
1. Mu'ad is after witnesses testify that it gored on 3
days; after 3 days of not goring (when it could
have), it becomes Tam again.
(b) (Gemara) Question: What is R. Yehudah's reason?
2. R. Meir says, it is Mu'ad after witnesses testify 3
times that it gored (even on 1 day); if it does not
gore when children play with it, it is Tam.
(c) Answer #1 (Abaye): "Temol (yesterday)" - this is 1 day it
gored; "mi'Temol" - this is a second day; "Two days ago"
- this is a third day; "Its owner will not guard it" -
this is the fourth goring (i.e. when it starts to pay
(d) Answer #2 (Rava): "Temol - mi'Temol" - this teaches 1
day; "Two days ago" - this is a second day; "Its owner
will not guard it" - this is the third goring, when it
starts to pay full damage (Rashi; Tosfos - it is Mu'ad
after 3 gorings, but does not pay full damage until the