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 14
1) LIABILITY IN JOINT PROPERTY
(a) Question: What is the case that watchmen are liable?
2) FOUR GENERAL RULINGS REGARDING PAYMENT FOR DAMAGES
1. Suggestion: If the lender's animal damaged the
borrower's animal - the borrower would have had to
pay if it damaged another animal, will the lender
pay him for damage to the borrower's animal?!
(b) Answer #1: Rather, the borrower's animal damaged the
(c) Objection: Had the lender's animal been damaged by
someone else's animal, the borrower would have had to pay
full damage - if the borrower's animal did the damage,
will he only have to pay half-damage?!
(d) Answer #2: Really the lender's animal damaged the
borrower's animal; the case is, the borrower only
accepted to guard the lender's animal from being damaged,
not from damaging.
(e) Question: But the end of the Beraisa says, if the wall
broke down at night, or robbers made an opening and the
animal went out and damaged - the watchman is exempt;
1. (Inference): Had the wall broken down by day, he
would be liable - but he did not accept to guard it
(f) Answer: The Beraisa says: if the watchman accepted to
guard the animal from damaging, he is liable; if the wall
broke down at night, or robbers made an opening and the
animal went out and damaged - the watchman is exempt.
(g) Question: But Rav Yosef's Beraisa says that one is liable
for Shen and Regel in joint property or an inn!
1. This refutes R. Elazar!
(h) Answer: Tana'im argue on this.
1. (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar): There are 4
general rules in damages: in the property of (only)
the damagee - one is liable in all;
(i) Suggestion (R. Acha mi'Difti): Just as the Tana'im don't
argue, let us say also the Amora'im don't argue!
2. In the property of (only) the damager - one is
exempt for everything;
3. In the property of the damagee and damager, such as
a joint yard or a valley - one is exempt for Shen
and Regel, and liable for Keren and its derivatives;
i. A Tam pays half-damage, a Mu'ad pays full
4. In property not of the damagee and damager, such a
yard that is not of both of them or a valley - one
is liable for Shen and Regel;
i. For Keren and its derivatives, a Tam pays
half-damage, a Mu'ad pays full damage.
5. Contradiction: This Beraisa says, in a joint yard or
a valley, one is exempt for Shen and Regel - the
previous Beraisa said, one is liable!
6. (It must be, this Tana holds as R. Elazar.)
7. Answer: This Beraisa is when they both have rights
to use the yard for fruit and animals;
i. Rav Yosef's Beraisa is when they are only
allowed to use it for fruits - regarding Shen,
it is as the premises of the damagee.
8. Support: Presumably, the joint yard is as the case
it is listed with - in Rav Yosef's Beraisa, an inn
(where people do not bring animals); in the latter
Beraisa, a valley (where people bring animals).
9. Question (R. Zeira): If both may put fruit in the
yard, this is not considered "It will consume in
10. Answer (Abaye): Since he may not bring animals
there, it is considered another's field.
(j) (Ravina): Correct!
1. Alternatively, we can say that they argue: R. Elazar
holds as R. Zeira (if the damager can bring fruit
there, it is not called another's field), Rav Chisda
holds as Abaye.
(a) (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Elazar): There are 4 general
rules in damages: in the property of (only) the damagee -
one is liable in all.
1. It says in all, not for all - meaning, full damage.
(b) Question (end of the Beraisa): In property not of the
damagee and damager, such a yard that is not of both of
them, or a valley - one is liable for Shen and Regel.
2. This is as R. Tarfon, who says that Keren pays full
damage in the premises of the damagee.
1. Question: What does it mean 'property not of the
damagee and damager'?
(c) Answer #1 (Shmuel): Yes!
i. Suggestion: If it belongs to someone else - the
Torah only obligated when "It will consume in
another's field", i.e. the fruit of the field's
2. Answer: Rather, it is not of both of them, only of 1
(the damagee) - and it continues, for Keren and its
derivatives, a Tam pays half-damage, a Mu'ad pays
i. This is as Chachamim, who say that Keren pays
half-damage in the premises of the damagee!
3. (Summation of question): Can the beginning of the
Beraisa be as R. Tarfon, and the end as Chachamim?!
(d) Answer #2 (Ravina): The whole Beraisa is as R. Tarfon;
1. The end of the Beraisa says, it is 'property not of
the damagee and damager' (rather, only of the
damagee) regarding fruit;
2. Both are allowed to bring their animals in.
(e) Question: If so, R. Shimon ben Elazar only gave 3 general
rules, not 4 (since the last rule is already known from
the previous rules)!
i. Regarding Shen, it is the property of the
damagee; regarding Keren, it is as a public
(f) Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): He gives 3 rules in 4
3) CONDITIONS TO PAY DAMAGES
(a) (Mishnah): An evaluation of money, something worth money,
in front of Beis Din, and according to witnesses (the
entire Mishnah will be explained below);
(b) Free men, members of the covenant, and women are included
1. The damagee and damager are involved in payments.
(c) (Gemara) Question: What does it mean 'An evaluation of
(d) Answer (Rav Yehudah): The evaluation (of damage) is made
(e) Our Mishnah teaches as the following Beraisa.
1. (Beraisa): A cow damaged and was damaged by a cloak
- we do not say, the cow is taken to compensate for
damage to the cloak - rather, we evaluate the
(f) (Mishnah): Something worth money.
(g) (Beraisa): Something worth money - this teaches that Beis
Din only judges the case if the damager has land
1. If the damagee grabbed Metaltelim, Beis Din collects
the damages from them.
(h) Question: How do we hear from 'Something worth money'
that Beis Din only judges the case if the damager has
(i) Answer #1 (Rabah bar Ula): Something worth all the money
you pay for it, i.e. there is no law of overcharging,
1. Objection: There is no law of overcharging by slaves
and documents also!
(j) Answer #2 (Rabah bar Ula): Rather, something that can be
acquired through money.
1. Objection: Slaves and documents can also be acquired
(k) Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): Something worth money - not money
1. Everything except land is as money, for it can be
taken elsewhere and sold.
(l) Contradiction (Rav Yehudah bar Chinena): Our Mishnah
teaches 'Something worth money' - Beis Din only judges
the case if the damager has land;
1. (Beraisa): "He will return" - this teaches,
(anything) worth money may be given, even bran.
(m) Answer (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): We only collect
from orphans if they inherited land. (From the damager
himself, we collect from anything.)
(n) Question: But the end of the Beraisa says, if the damagee
grabbed Metaltelim, Beis Din collects the damages from
them - if he grabbed from orphans, why does he collect?
(o) Answer: (As Rava said elsewhere -) the case is, he
grabbed Metaltelim in the life of the damager.
(p) (Mishnah): In front of Beis Din...
(q) This excludes one who sold his property before going to
(r) Question: May we infer that if a borrower sold his
property before going to Beis Din, Beis Din will not
collect from the sold property?!
(s) Correction: Rather, the Mishnah comes to say that only a
Beis Din of experts may judge damages.