Commentary page

Bava Kamma 61a

This page gathers the commentary on one source unit: the classic commentaries as they are printed, the sources the text cites, the sages named in it and direct links back to the text.

Read the full text in the reader

Babylonian Talmud · folio map

Bava Kamma 61a

Bava Kamma 61a. The full printed text of this folio side — 16 numbered segments, about 358 words — with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Original text

Segment 1

אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טָמוּן בָּאֵשׁ קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ, מַאי אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ קְרָאֵי? אָמַר לָךְ: טָמוּן וַחֲדָא מֵהָנָךְ קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ.

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

Segment 2

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלֹא אָבָה (דָּוִד) לִשְׁתוֹתָם״ – אֲמַר: כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא אִיסּוּרָא, לָא נִיחָא לִי. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טָמוּן בָּאֵשׁ קָא מִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ – מִכְּדִי גְּמָרָא הוּא דִּשְׁלַחוּ לֵיהּ, מַאי ״לֹא אָבָה (דָּוִד) לִשְׁתוֹתָם״?

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: “But he would not drink it” (II 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: “But he would not drink it”?

Segment 3

דְּלָא אַמְרִינְהוּ מִשְּׁמַיְיהוּ. אָמַר, כָּךְ מְקוּבְּלַנִי מִבֵּית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל שְׁמוּאֵל הָרָמָתִי: כׇּל הַמּוֹסֵר עַצְמוֹ לָמוּת עַל דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה – אֵין אוֹמְרִים דְּבַר הֲלָכָה מִשְּׁמוֹ.

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.

Segment 4

״וַיַּסֵּךְ אֹתָם לַה׳״ – בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי, מִשּׁוּם דַּעֲבַד לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טָמוּן בָּאֵשׁ, מַאי ״וַיַּסֵּךְ אֹתָם לַה׳״? דְּאַמְרִינְהוּ מִשְּׁמָא דִגְמָרָא.

The Gemara asks another question: The verse states: “He poured it out to the Lord” (II 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.

Segment 5

מַתְנִי׳ עָבְרָה גָּדֵר שֶׁהוּא גָּבוֹהַּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, אוֹ דֶרֶךְ הָרַבִּים, אוֹ נָהָר – פָּטוּר.

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.

Segment 6

גְּמָ׳ וְהָתַנְיָא: עָבְרָה גָּדֵר שֶׁהוּא גָּבוֹהַּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת – חַיָּיב!

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that if a fire crossed a fence that is four cubits in height, the one who kindled the fire is liable? This appears to contradict the mishna.

Segment 7

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: תַּנָּא דִּידַן קָא חָשֵׁיב מִלְּמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה: שֵׁשׁ אַמּוֹת – פָּטוּר, חָמֵשׁ אַמּוֹת – פָּטוּר, עַד אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת – פָּטוּר. תַּנָּא בָּרָא מִלְּמַטָּה לְמַעְלָה קָא חָשֵׁיב: שְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת – חַיָּיב, שָׁלֹשׁ אַמּוֹת – חַיָּיב, עַד אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת – חַיָּיב.

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 .

Segment 8

אָמַר רָבָא: אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁאָמְרוּ דְּפָטוּר – אֲפִילּוּ בִּשְׂדֵה קוֹצִים. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: וּמִשְּׂפַת קוֹצִים וּלְמַעְלָה אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת.

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

Segment 9

אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּקוֹלַחַת, אֲבָל בְּנִכְפֶּפֶת – אֲפִילּוּ עַד מֵאָה אַמָּה חַיָּיב. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מַתְנִיתִין בְּנִכְפֶּפֶת, אֲבָל בְּקוֹלַחַת – אֲפִילּוּ כׇּל שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר.

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 [ bekolaḥat ]. 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.

Segment 10

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּקוֹלַחַת, אֲבָל בְּנִכְפֶּפֶת וְעֵצִים מְצוּיִין לָהּ – אֲפִילּוּ עַד מֵאָה מִיל חַיָּיב. עָבְרָה נָהָר אוֹ שְׁלוּלִית שֶׁהֵם רְחָבִים שְׁמוֹנֶה אַמּוֹת – פָּטוּר.

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.

Segment 11

דֶּרֶךְ הָרַבִּים. מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רָבָא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא – דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמּוֹת כְּדֶרֶךְ רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים (פָּטוּר).

§ 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.

Segment 12

אוֹ נָהָר. רַב אָמַר: נָהָר מַמָּשׁ, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֲרִיתָּא דְּדַלָּאֵי.

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.

Segment 13

מַאן דְּאָמַר נְהַר מַמָּשׁ, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵיכָּא מַיָּא; וּמַאן דְּאָמַר אֲרִיתָּא דְּדַלָּאֵי, אִי אִית בֵּיהּ מַיָּא – אִין, אֲבָל לֵית בֵּיהּ מַיָּא – לָא.

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.

Segment 14

תְּנַן הָתָם: וְאֵלּוּ מַפְסִיקִין לַפֵּאָה – הַנַּחַל, וְהַשְּׁלוּלִית, וְדֶרֶךְ הַיָּחִיד, וְדֶרֶךְ הָרַבִּים.

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

Segment 15

מַאי שְׁלוּלִית? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מְקוֹם שֶׁמֵּי גְשָׁמִים שׁוֹלְלִין שָׁם. רַב בִּיבִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַמַּת הַמַּיִם שֶׁמְּחַלֶּקֶת שָׁלָל לַאֲגַפֶּיהָ.

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

Segment 16

מַאן דְּאָמַר מְקוֹם שֶׁמֵּי גְשָׁמִים שׁוֹלְלִין שָׁם – כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן אַמַּת הַמַּיִם; וּמַאן דְּאָמַר אַמַּת הַמַּיִם – אֲבָל מְקוֹם שֶׁמֵּי גְשָׁמִים שׁוֹלְלִין שָׁם לָא מַפְסְקִי, דְּהָנְהוּ

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 Yoḥanan, he holds that only that divides a field, but a place where rainwater gathers does not divide the field, since these

Bava Kamma 61a

Bava Kamma 61a

Rashi

Tosafot

Rashba

Maharsha (Chidushei Halachot)

Maharam

Shita Mekubetzet

Penei Yehoshua

Ben Yehoyada

What this page contains

Continue the sequence

Parallel sources

Lessons and study tools

Sages named on this page

Original text