Commentary page

Bava Kamma 62b

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 62b

Bava Kamma 62b. The full printed text of this folio side — 17 numbered segments, about 428 words — with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Original text

Segment 1

מַתְנִי׳ גֵּץ שֶׁיָּצָא מִתַּחַת הַפַּטִּישׁ וְהִזִּיק – חַיָּיב.

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.

Segment 2

גָּמָל שֶׁהָיָה טָעוּן פִּשְׁתָּן, וְעָבַר בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְנִכְנְסָה פִּשְׁתָּנוֹ לְתוֹךְ הַחֲנוּת וְדָלְקָה בְּנֵרוֹ שֶׁל חֶנְוָנִי, וְהִדְלִיק אֶת הַבִּירָה – בַּעַל גָּמָל חַיָּיב. הִנִּיחַ חֶנְוָנִי נֵרוֹ מִבַּחוּץ – הַחֶנְוָנִי חַיָּיב. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּנֵר חֲנוּכָּה – פָּטוּר.

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.

Segment 3

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רָבִינָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, נֵר חֲנוּכָּה – מִצְוָה לְהַנִּיחָהּ בְּתוֹךְ עֲשָׂרָה. דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה, אַמַּאי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: נֵר חֲנוּכָּה פָּטוּר? לֵימָא לֵיהּ: הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְאַנּוֹחַהּ לְמַעְלָה מִגָּמָל וְרוֹכְבוֹ! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מִצְוָה לְהַנִּיחָהּ בְּתוֹךְ עֲשָׂרָה?

GEMARA: Ravina said in the name of Rava: Conclude from Rabbi Yehuda’s 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’s opinion is that the mitzva is to place it within ten handbreadths of the ground and not higher?

Segment 4

אָמְרִי: לָא; לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ אֲפִילּוּ לְמַעְלָה מֵעֲשָׂרָה, מַאי אָמְרַתְּ – אִבְּעִי לָךְ לְאַנּוֹחַהּ לְמַעְלָה מִגָּמָל וְרוֹכְבוֹ? כֵּיוָן דִּבְמִצְוָה קָא עָסֵיק, כּוּלֵּי הַאי לָא אַטְרְחוּהּ רַבָּנַן.

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.

Segment 5

אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא, דָּרֵשׁ רַב נָתָן בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי תַּנְחוּם: נֵר חֲנוּכָּה שֶׁהִנִּיחָהּ לְמַעְלָה מֵעֶשְׂרִים אַמָּה – פְּסוּלָה, כְּסוּכָּה וּכְמָבוֹי.

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 Tanḥum: 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.

Segment 6

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַכּוֹנֵס.

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: “If 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” (Exodus 21:37).

Segment 7

מַתְנִי׳ מְרוּבָּה מִדַּת תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל מִמִּדַּת תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. שֶׁמִּדַּת תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל נוֹהֶגֶת בֵּין בְּדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים וּבֵין בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים, וּמִדַּת תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה אֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת אֶלָּא בְּשׁוֹר וָשֶׂה בִּלְבַד – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי יִגְנֹב אִישׁ שׁוֹר אוֹ שֶׂה וּטְבָחוֹ אוֹ מְכָרוֹ וְגוֹ׳״.

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.

Segment 8

אֵין הַגּוֹנֵב אַחַר הַגַּנָּב מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל, וְלֹא הַטּוֹבֵחַ וְלֹא הַמּוֹכֵר אַחַר הַגַּנָּב מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה.

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.

Segment 9

גְּמָ׳ וְאִילּוּ ״מִדַּת תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל נוֹהֶגֶת בֵּין בְּגַנָּב בֵּין בְּטוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב, וּמִדַּת תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה אֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת אֶלָּא בְּגַנָּב בִּלְבַד״ – לָא קָתָנֵי.

The fact that the mishna does not teach the latter distinction supports the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Ḥiyya bar Abba, there is no difference between the applications of double payment and fourfold or fivefold payment in this case.

Segment 10

מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַטּוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב בְּפִקָּדוֹן – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. טָבַח וּמָכַר – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה.

There are those who say a different version of this discussion: Let us say that the mishna supports the opinion of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.

Segment 11

אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא – דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַטּוֹעֵן טַעֲנַת גַּנָּב בְּפִקָּדוֹן – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל. טָבַח וּמָכַר – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה?

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.

Segment 12

מִי קָתָנֵי: ״אֵין בֵּין״?! ״מְרוּבָּה״ קָתָנֵי – תְּנָא וְשַׁיַּיר.

§ 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: “For 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” (Exodus 22:8). “For any matter of trespass” is a generalization; “whether it be for an ox, for a donkey, for a sheep, for a garment” is a detail. And when the verse states: “Or for any manner of lost thing,” it then generalizes again.

Segment 13

שֶׁמִּדַּת תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל נוֹהֶגֶת כּוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״עַל כׇּל דְּבַר פֶּשַׁע״ – כָּלַל, ״עַל שׁוֹר, עַל חֲמוֹר, עַל שֶׂה וְעַל שַׂלְמָה״ – פָּרַט, ״עַל כׇּל אֲבֵדָה״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל;

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.

Segment 14

כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל – אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט; מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן, אַף כֹּל דָּבָר הַמִּטַּלְטֵל וְגוּפוֹ מָמוֹן.

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 “his neighbor,” i.e., to another person, rather than to the Temple treasury.

Segment 15

יָצְאוּ קַרְקָעוֹת – שֶׁאֵינָן מִטַּלְטְלִין; יָצְאוּ עֲבָדִים – שֶׁהוּקְּשׁוּ לְקַרְקָעוֹת; יָצְאוּ שְׁטָרוֹת – שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּטַּלְטְלִין, אֵין גּוּפָן מָמוֹן; יָצָא הֶקְדֵּשׁ – ״רֵעֵהוּ״ כְּתִיב.

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.

Segment 16

אִי, מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – דָּבָר שֶׁנִּבְלָתוֹ מְטַמְּאָ[ה] בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא, אַף כֹּל דָּבָר שֶׁנִּבְלָתוֹ מְטַמְּאָ[ה] בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא, אֲבָל עוֹפוֹת לָא!

The Gemara objects to the question: But how can you say this? But isn’t “garment” 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?

Segment 17

וּמִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ הָכִי? וְהָא ״שַׂלְמָה״ כְּתִיב! אָמְרִי: אֲנַן בְּבַעֲלֵי חַיִּים קָאָמְרִינַן; אֵימָא בְּבַעֲלֵי חַיִּים, דָּבָר שֶׁנִּבְלָתוֹ מְטַמְּאָ[ה] בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא – אִין, דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין נִבְלָתוֹ מְטַמְּאָ[ה] בְּמַגָּע וּבְמַשָּׂא – לָא,

Bava Kamma 62b

Bava Kamma 62b

Rashi

Tosafot

Rashba

Meiri

Maharsha (Chidushei Halachot)

Shita Mekubetzet

Penei Yehoshua

Gilyon HaShas

What this page contains

Continue the sequence

Parallel sources

Lessons and study tools

Sages named on this page

Original text