ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 30
(a) In a case where Reuven ...
1. ... pours water into the street and Shimon is damaged by them - our
Mishnah considers Reuven liable.
(b) Rav limits the damage in the first case to his clothes. Reuven will not
be liable for injuries that Shimon himself sustains, because it is obviously
not the water that injured him, but the ground, and the ground is public
2. ... hides a thorn or a piece of broken glass in the street, places a
fence of thorns alongside the street or if his stone wall falls into the
street and Simon gets hurt on any of them - our Mishnah considers him
(c) If Shimon sullied himself on the waste that Reuven threw into the
street, Reuven would be liable (assuming that he did not declare it Hefker).
(d) Nevertheless, he is not liable in this case (not because Reuven declared
it Hefker - otherwise he wouldn't be liable for Shimon's clothes either,
but) because the Tana is speaking when most of the water has drained, and
although Shimon slipped in the little that remained, the earth on which he
fell and was injured, was predominantly public ground.
(a) The Tana needs to present us with two Mishnahs to teach us that Reuven
is liable for the damage done to Shimon's clothes - one for the summer and
one for the winter.
(b) The Din of winter is a bigger Chidush than that of summer - because
Reuven is liable, even though he threw his water into the street with
permission (as we learned in the first Perek).
(c) When Rebbi Yochanan confines the Din of 'ha'Goder es Gidro be'Kotzim' in
our Mishnah to Mafri'ach (to preclude Metzamtzem), he means - that Reuven is
only liable if the thorns that injured Shimon protruded into the street, but
not if they were all contained in his own domain.
(d) Rav Acha Brei de'Rav Ika ascribes this to the fact - that it is not the
way of people to walk so close to the wall that they actually scrape along
(a) The Beraisa says that if Reuven hides his thorns and pieces of broken
glass in Shimon's wall, which fly into the street and injure Levi when
Shimon demolishes his wall - Reuven is liable.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan confines this Din to a rickety wall - where Reuven should
have realized that Shimon is likely to demolish it in the immediate future,
but not in the case of a solid one - where the onus is on the owner to
check, and to place whatever he finds in it out of harm's way before
(c) Ravina extrapolates from our Mishnah (where the owner of the thorn and
the glass is liable) that, if Shimon retrieves his bucket, which Reuven
'borrowed' to cover his pit - Reuven is liable for any subsequent damage
caused by the pit (because he should have known that Shimon is likely to
come and take his bucket).
(d) This inference needs to be taught to us by Ravina and is not
self-understood - because we would otherwise have thought that the reason
that Reuven is Chayav and not Shimon is because the latter had no way of
knowing to whom the thorns and glass belonged; whereas here, where the owner
of the bucket recognizes the owner of the pit, he will be liable for not
informing him before retrieving his bucket.
(a) The early Chasidim - used to bury their thorns and pieces of broken
glass three Tefachim deep in the ground, so that they should not interfere
with the plowshare.
(b) Rav Sheishes would burn them - Rava would throw them into the River
Diglas (the Chidekel).
(c) Rav Yehudah suggests that to become a Chasid, one should fulfill the
laws of Nezikin (between man and man). Rava (or Ravina) suggests - that one
should carry out the thoughts contained in Pirkei Avos (for man's own
(d) Amri Lah adds - that he should recite the B'rachos with care (between
man and Hashem - Agados Maharsha).
(a) The Tana add to the fact that if Reuven takes his straw and stubble into
the street to make manure and Shimon injures himself on it, he is liable -
that whoever wants, may take them for himself.
(b) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says - that anyone who causes damage in the
Reshus ha'Rabim is liable.
(c) He might be coming to add that he is liable even though he acted with
permission. Alternatively - he might be coming to add that one fines the
owner not only to the extent that the damaging object improved, but to the
value of the entire object.
(d) The Mishnah finally says that if someone is turning over manure in the
street - he is liable for any subsequent damage that he causes.
(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa, Yehoshua instituted a Takanah -
that anyone may take one's manure into the street to mature.
(b) This does not however, mean that the author of our Mishnah is not Rebbi
Yehudah - because he is liable in spite of it.
(c) When Rebbi Yehudah in ha'Kones exempts the owner of a Chanukah lamp
which caused damage outside in the street - it is because of the Mitzvah
involved, and not just because the Beis-Din permitted it.
(d) Assuming the author of our Mishnah to be Rebbi Yehudah (as we just
explained), we reconcile our Mishnah with Rebbi Yehudah in a Beraisa who
absolves anyone with permission from liability, we establish our Mishnah
outside the manure season (when one does not have permission to place one's
manure in the street. Rav Ashi points out that our Mishnah is speaking about
straw and stubble - which are particularly slippery, and for which Chazal
held him liable in spite of the permission.
(a) According to Rav, the Seifa of the Mishnah permits anyone to help
himself to the entire batch of straw, and not only to the value of the
improvement. Ze'iri maintains - that they only fined the improvement, and
not the actual article.
(b) Our Mishnah does not specifically permit anyone to help himself to the
manure that Reuven turned in the street - because, we assume, Chazal only
fined the improvement (like Ze'iri); a Kashya on Rav.
(c) We refute this proof however - by suggesting that when the Tana does
permit it in the end, it refers retroactively to the previous Mishnahs too.
(d) We explain the Beraisa which states, with reference to this Mishnah,
'Asurin Mishum Gezel' - to mean that whoever does acquire it, becomes the
new owner, and one is forbidden to steal it from him.
(a) We reject this explanation however, on the basis of another Beraisa,
which permits 'theft' in the Reisha, but forbids it in the Seifa (in the
case of manure). Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak finally reconciles Rav with the
Beraisa concerning manure - by drawing a distinction between the other cases
and manure, which is already mature and does not stand to be improved.
Consequently, there is no basis for the decree ('the article on account of
the improvement') to take effect.
(b) They ask whether, according to Rav, who holds that they fined the
article because of the improvement - they placed their fine immediately
(even before the improvement took place), or only afterwards.
(c) We refute the proof from the Kashya on Rav from manure (from which it is
clear that Chazal fined the article immediately, even when there is no
improvement) - on the grounds that when we asked that Kashya, believing that
the fine applied even when there was no improvement at all, there was
obviously no room for this She'eilah at all, and it is only after we have
ascertained that there is only a fine when there is improvement, that the
She'eilah becomes relevant.
(a) In a Beraisa in Bava Metzi'a, Rebbi Meir fines a creditor who lent money
on interest both on the interest and on the actual debt. The Chachamim -
restrict the fine to the interest.
(b) Initially - we link Rav with Rebbi Meir, and Ze'iri with the Chachamim.
(c) In fact though ...
1. ... Rav may well hold like the Rabbanan - because whereas there, the loan
itself is permitted, here, the object itself is a Mazik too.
2. ... Ze'iri might hold like Rebbi Meir - because whereas there, Rebbi Meir
invalidates the entire document, due to the fact that the moment they wrote
it, they transgressed "Lo Sasimun Alav Neshech" whereas here, who can say
that the straw will cause damage (until it actually does).
(a) We then try to link the Machlokes between Rav and Ze'iri with the
Machlokes in our Mishnah between Raban Shimon ben Gamliel (regarding the Din
of 'ha'Motzi Tivno ve'Kasho ... '). To resolve the apparent discrepancy in
the words of Tana Kama, we establish 'Kol ha'Kodem Bahen Zachah' - with
regard to the improvement, and 'Asurin Mishum Gezel' - with regard to the
article itself (like Ze'iri).
(b) Whereas according to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - Chazal permitted the
taking of the article itself on account of the improvement (like Rav).
(c) We conclude that Ze'iri definitely holds like the Tana Kama and not like
Raban Shimon ben Gamliel. Assuming on the other hand, that both Tana'im hold
like Rav ('Kansu Gufan Atu Sh'vachan'), the basis of their Machlokes will
be - whether 'Halachah ve'Ein Morin Kein' (meaning that only if the Nizak
actually seized them, may he retain them, but should he ask a She'eilah as
to whether he is permitted to take them, he will receive a negative reply
[the Tana Kama]), or 'Halachah u'Morin Kein' (Raban Shimon ben Gamliel).
(d) Rav Huna Amar Rav holds 'Halachah ve'Ein Morin Kein' (like the Tana
Kama). Rav Ada bar Ahavah says 'Halachah u'Morin Kein' (like Raban Shimon
(a) Rav Huna declared Hefker peeled barley that someone had placed in the
street. In a separate incident, Rav Ada bar Ahavah declared Hefker - waste
of pressed dates that had been used in beer-making (or dried dregs of
(b) Rav Ada bar Ahavah followed his previous ruling. We reconcile Rav Huna's
ruling here with *his* previous ruling - by establishing the latter ruling
when the Mazik had been warned on numerous occasions, but had failed to take
heed to the warning.