(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 Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

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 Yahrzeit. T'N'TZ'B'H.


(a) What does Rebbi Yochanan mean when he says 'Isho Mishum Chitzav'?

(b) Resh Lakish says 'Isho Mishum Mamono'.
On what grounds does ...

  1. ... Resh Lakish disagree with Rebbi Yochanan?
  2. ... Rebbi Yochanan disagree with Resh Lakish?
(c) Our Mishnah obligates the owner of the dog Chatzi Nezek if it set fire to a haystack.
What is the problem with this according to Resh Lakish?

(d) How does Resh Lakish answer this Kashya?

(a) The Mishnah in 'ha'Kones' obligates the owner of the camel to pay for the damage, if his camel is walking down the street, and the bail of flax that it is carrying enters a store, catches fire on a burning candle, and sets fire to the entire building.
What will be the Din if the store-keeper placed his candle outside the store, according to ...
  1. ... the Tana Kama?
  2. 2. ... Rebbi Yehudah?
(b) According to Resh Lakish, seeing as the fire belongs to the owner of the store, why is the owner of the camel liable?

(c) Initially, we ascribe the reason that the store-keeper is liable in the Seifa, to the fact that the animal stood still.
Considering that we are speaking by Mesachseches, what sort of explanation is this? What did Rav Huna bar Mano'ach in the name of Rav Ika really mean when he said 'ke'she'Amdah'?

(d) So in the final analysis, why is ...

  1. ... the owner of the camel Chayav in the Reisha?
  2. ... the store-keeper Chayav in the Seifa?
Answers to questions



(a) The Mishnah in 'ha'Kones' states that if someone sets fire to a haystack next to which a kid-goat is tied and an Eved is standing, he is liable. What is he liable for? How much does he pay for the Eved?

(b) Why, in the reverse case (if the Eved is tied and the kid is standing beside the haystack), is he Patur?

(a) What is the problem with the Seifa of the previous Beraisa, according to Resh Lakish (who holds 'Isho Mishum Mamono')?

(b) How does Resh Lakish therefore establish the Mishnah?

(c) Then why does the Tana find it necessary to teach us this? Do we not already know the principle of 'Kam Leih be'Derabah Mineih'?

(a) The Mishnah in 'ha'Kones' states 'ha'Shole'ach es ha'Be'eiroh be'Yad Chashu', Patur be'Dinei Adam, ve'Chayav be'Dinei Shamayim'. How does Resh Lakish quoting Chizkiyah, establish the Mishnah, in order to differentiate between this case and that of someone who gives his ox to a 'Chashu' to look after (in which case, we have already learned, one retains the liability)? When ...
  1. ... does the Tana say Patur?
  2. ... does he concede that he will be liable?
(b) On what grounds does Rebbi Yochanan maintain that, even if he hands the 'Chashu' a flaming coal, he is Patur?

(c) In which case will he agree that the owner retains the liability?

(a) How does Rava prove Rebbi Yochanan right from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Ki Seitzei Eish ... ha'Mav'ir es ha'Be'eiroh"?

(b) Which other proof does he cite?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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