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 22
BAVA KAMA 22 (29 Av) - "Mechabdo b'Chayav, Mechabdo b'Moso" (Kidushin 31b).
This Daf has been dedicated by Bracha Trebitsch and family l'Iluy Nishmas
her father, Eliezer Shmuel Binyomin ben Mayer Trebitsch, in honor of his
1) WHY ONE PAYS FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY FIRE
(a) (Mishnah): A dog that took...
(b) (R. Yochanan): One is obligated for fire because it is as
if he threw an arrow.
(c) (Reish Lakish): He is obligated because it is his
(d) Question: Why didn't Reish Lakish say as R. Yochanan?
(e) Answer: A person gives impetus to arrows, not to fire.
(f) Question: Why didn't R. Yochanan say as Reish Lakish?
(g) Answer: Property has substance, fire has no substance.
(h) (Mishnah): A dog took a cake (with a coal inside)...
(i) This fits the opinion that he is obligated as for arrows
- this is the dog's arrow.
(j) Question: According to the opinion that it is his
property - the coal is not the property of the dog's
(k) Answer: The case is, the dog threw the coal; it pays full
damage for the cake, half-damage for where the coal was
thrown (as pebbles - some explain, as Keren (for this is
unusual)), and it is exempt for the rest of the grain.
1. R. Yochanan explains, the dog placed the coal down;
it pays full damage for the cake (Shen) and for
where the coal was placed (fire), and half-damage
for the rest (pebbles).
(l) (Mishnah): A camel laden with flax was walking in a
public domain; the flax entered a store, caught fire from
the storeowner's lamp, and burned the building - the
camel's owner is liable;
1. If the storeowner left his lamp outside, he is
2. R. Yehudah says, if it was lit for the Mitzvah of
Chanukah, he is exempt.
3. This fits the opinion that fire is obligated as for
arrows - this is the camel's arrow.
4. Question: According to the opinion that it is his
property - the lamp is not the property of the
5. Answer: The case is, the camel brushed the burning
flax against the entire building.
6. Question: But the end of the Mishnah says, if the
storeowner left his lamp outside, he is liable - if
the camel brushed the burning flax against the
entire building, why is the storeowner liable?
7. Answer: The load of flax was so big that the camel
rubbed the burning flax against the entire building
while standing still.
8. Question: All the more so, the camel's owner should
be liable (for not moving his camel)!
9. Answer (Rav Huna bar Mano'ach): The camel stopped to
2) EXEMPTIONS FROM DAMAGE CAUSED BY FIRE
i. When the flax entered the shop and caught fire
- the camel's owner was at fault for
overloading the camel;
ii. When the lamp was outside, the storeowner was
(a) (Mishnah): Reuven lit a stack of grain; there was a kid
tied to it and a slave nearby, and they were burned -
Reuven is liable;
1. If there was a slave tied to it and a kid nearby,
and they were burned - Reuven is exempt.
(b) (Mishnah): Reuven sent a flame with a deaf person,
lunatic or child (Shimon) - Beis Din cannot force him to
pay, but he is liable at the hands of Heaven.
2. This fits the opinion that fire is obligated as for
arrows (because he is worthy to die for killing the
slave, he does not pay money).
3. Question: According to the opinion that it is his
property, why is he exempt?
i. Why is this different than when his ox gores a
slave (Rashi - he must pay 30 Shekalim for the
slave; Tosfos - he must pay for other damage
done at the same time).
4. Answer: The case is, he directly burned the slave,
because he is worthy to die for killing the slave,
he does not pay.
5. Question: If so, obviously he is exempt!
6. Answer: The Chidush is, even thought the kid and
slave belong to different people, he is exempt for
1. This fits the opinion that fire is obligated as for
arrows - Reuven need not pay for the Shimon's
(c) (Rava): A verse and a Beraisa support R. Yochanan.
2. Question: According to the opinion that it is his
property, he should be liable, just as if he asked
Shimon to guard his ox!
3. Answer (Reish Lakish): Reuven is only exempt if he
gave Shimon a coal, and the Shimon blew on it (and
it flared up)
i. If he gave a flame, Reuven is liable.
4. R. Yochanan holds, even if he gave a flame, Reuven
is liable - Shimon caused the damage by the way he
held the flame.
ii. This is because it is a clear damager.
i. Reuven is only liable for gross negligence,
i.e. he gave, dry wood, (small) kindling wood
and a lamp.
1. A verse - "When fire will go out" - by itself - "the
one who burned will pay" (he is called one who
2. A Beraisa - 'The Torah first mentioned money that
damages, and concludes with a person that damages' -
to teach that fire is liable because it is as his