(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


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.


(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?
(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 yard);
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 next yard!
(d) Answer: The opinion that fire is liable because it is as his arrows admits that it is also liable as one's property;
1. The case is, Reuven had time to stop the fire from spreading to the next yard (so he is not considered Ones);
2. This is as one who brings his ox into a stable and does not guard it.
(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?
(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...
(b) Rhetorical question: Who is liable for the fire, the dog's owner?
1. Question: Also the owner of the coal should be liable!
2. Answer: The case is, the coal's owner guarded it properly.
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 another"!
(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 settled!)

1. Question: Is an animal's mouth as the damagee's yard, or as the damager's yard?
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.
(d) (Mishnah): A man incited a dog or snake to bite - he is exempt.
(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.
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.
(k) Question: If an animal's mouth is as the damager's yard, why is the snake killed - Shimon's hand does not belong there!
(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!
2. Answer: We do not say this regarding death.
(o) Some goats were damaging Rav Yosef's property. He suggested that Abaye tell the owners to stop them,
1. Abaye: They will tell you to put up a fence!
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).
(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.
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.
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.
(b) (Gemara) Question: What is R. Yehudah's reason?
(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 full damage).
(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 fourth).
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,