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


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 21

1) MUST ONE PAY FOR BENEFIT DERIVED FROM ANOTHER'S PROPERTY?

(a) Question (R. Aba bar Zavda): Levi lived in Yehudah's yard without Yehudah's knowledge - must he pay him rent?
(b) Answer (Rabah bar Rav Huna, citing Rav): No; and one who rents a house from Reuven must pay to Shimon.
(c) Question: How is Shimon involved?!
(d) Correction: One who rents a house from Reuven, and it is found to be Shimon's, he pays rent to Shimon.
(e) Question: This contradicts the first answer he gave!
(f) Answer: When it is not standing to be rented, he is exempt; when it stands to be rented, he must pay.
(g) (R, Chiya bar Avin): Levi lived in Yehudah's yard without Yehudah's knowledge, he need not pay; one who rents a house from people of the city, he pays rent to the owner.
(h) Question: What owner is he talking about?!
(i) Correction: If it is found to have an owner, he pays rent to the owner.
(j) Question: This contradicts the first law he said!
(k) Answer: When it is not standing to be rented, he is exempt; when it stands to be rented, he must pay.
(l) (Rav Sechorah): Levi lived in Yehudah's yard without Yehudah's knowledge, he need not pay - we learn from "Desolation (breeds Shedim, which) break the gates" (Yehudah benefits from having someone there).
(m) (Rav Yosef): A settled house will last.
(n) Question: What difference is between Rav Sechorah and Rav Yosef?
(o) Answer: Yehudah was storing wood and straw in the house. According to Rav Sechorah, the house would have lasted anyway, Levi must pay; according to Rav Yosef, Levi gave benefit to Yehudah, he is exempt.
(p) A man built a house on wasteland of orphans; Rav Nachman forced him to pay them rent for the time he lived in the house.
1. Suggestion: He holds, one who lives in Reuven's yard without Reuven's knowledge must pay Reuven.
(q) Rejection: No - originally, other people were living there and paying a modest rent to the orphans.
1. Rav Nachman told the man to appease the orphans; he didn't, so Rav Nachman made him pay full rent.
2) STRETCHING FROM RESHUS HA'RABIM TO EAT FROM RESHUS HA'YACHID
(a) [Version #1 (Mishnah): It pays for the benefit...(from the side of the street, it pays the damage (Rashi - half-damage)).
(b) (Rav): The case is, it stretched its neck to eat from the side of the street.
(c) (Shmuel): Even that case is exempt (only pays for the benefit).
1. Question: According to Shmuel, when does the Mishnah say he pays the damage?
2. Answer: When the animal left the street and went to the side.]
(d) [Version #2 (Rav): An animal stretched its neck to eat from the side of the street - it pays full damage;
(e) (Shmuel): It is exempt.
1. Question: According to Shmuel, when does the Mishnah say that Shen pays the damage?
2. Answer: When the animal left the street and went to the side.]
(f) Question (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak - Mishnah): If it ate from the entrance to a store, it pays what it benefited.
1. Suggestion: Isn't the case when it stretched its neck!
(g) Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): No - the case is, the store is on a corner (of the alley; the animal can eat without stretching its neck).
(h) [Version #3 (Rav and Shmuel): An animal stretched its neck to eat food from the side of the street - it pays the damage.
(i) (Rav): But if a person allowed people to walk on the part of his property adjacent to the street, and an animal ate there, the owner is exempt.
(j) (Shmuel): Here also, he pays the damage.
(k) Suggestion: They argue regarding a pit (obstacle) on private property (when one made his property Hefker).
1. Rav says that one is liable for such a pit, i.e. this is forbidden - therefore, his food (which is an obstacle) is Hefker;
2. Shmuel says that one may make such a pit, so his food is not Hefker;
(l) Rejection #1: Rav could (theoretically) hold, normally one may make such a pit - here is different, for his food was too close to the public domain.
21b---------------------------------------21b

(m) Rejection #2: Shmuel can hold, normally one is liable for such a pit, for animals (which may walk there) do not see it - but animals see food, he is not liable for this.
(n) Suggestion: Tana'im argue regarding stretching to eat.
1. (Beraisa - R. Meir and R. Yehudah): If an animal ate from the street, it pays what it benefited; from the side of the street, it pays the damage;
2. R. Yosi and R. Elazar say, it is not normal to eat, only to walk.
3. Question: The first Tana'im agree (that one is liable for the side of the street)!
4. Answer: They argue regarding stretching to eat - the first Tana'im say it only pays the benefit, the latter Tana'im say it pays the damage.
(o) Rejection #1: No - all agree regarding stretching (as Rav or Shmuel); they argue regarding "It will consume in another's field".
1. The first Tana'im hold, "In another's field" - and not in the public domain;
2. The latter Tana'im hold, "In another's field" - and not in the damager's domain;
3. Question: Of course he is exempt in the damager's domain - he had no right to bring his food in!
(p) Rejection #2: Rather, they (agree regarding stretching to eat from the side of the street, but) argue regarding Ilfa and R. Oshiyah (stretching to eat from another animal's load, and jumping).
3) DAMAGE CAUSED BY JUMPING
(a) (Mishnah): A dog or kid jumped from the roof and broke vessels - they pay full damage, because they are Mu'adim.
(b) A dog took a cake (with a coal inside) to a pile of grain. It ate the cake and burned the grain - it pays full damage for the cake and half-damage for the grain.
(c) (Gemara - Inference): They are liable only because they jumped- had they fallen, they would be exempt;
1. The Tana must hold, one who was negligent at the beginning and Ones (blameless) at the end, he is exempt!
2. Support (Beraisa): A dog or kid jumped from the roof and broke vessels - they pay full damage; if they fell, they are exempt.
(d) This fits the opinion that one who was negligent at the beginning and Ones at the end, he is exempt;
(e) Question: But according to the opinion that he is liable - how can we explain the Mishnah?
(f) Answer: The vessels are close to the wall, so if the dog or kid jumps, they will not break them - therefore, it was not negligent to allow them on the roof.
(g) (Rav Zvid): Sometimes they are liable even for falling (according to both opinions), e.g. if the Ma'akeh (a wall around a roof so people will not fall) is weak.
(h) Rhetorical question: Why does this obligate the owner - because he should have realized, the Ma'akeh might break?
1. But it didn't break - only the beginning was negligence, the end was Ones (unrelated to the negligence)!
(i) Answer: The Ma'akeh is narrow (some explain - sloped - either way, animals are prone to jump on it and fall off).
(j) (Beraisa #1): A dog or kid jumped up (and damaged) - they are exempt; for jumping down, they are liable;
1. People and chickens are liable for jumping up or down.
(k) [Version #1 - Contradiction (Beraisa #2): A dog or kid is exempt for jumping up or down.
(l) Answer (Rav Papa): They acted abnormally - the dog jumped, the kid dug its hooves in the wall.
(m) Question: If so, why are they exempt (this is Keren)!
(n) Answer: They are exempt from full damage, but pay half-damage. (Also in Beraisa #1, for jumping up they are exempt from full damage, but pay half damage.)]
(o) [Version #2 (Rif, Rambam) Contradiction (Beraisa #2): A dog or kid is liable for jumping up or down.
(p) Answer (Rav Papa): In Beraisa #1, they acted abnormally - the dog jumped, the kid dug its hooves in the wall.
(q) Question: If so, why are they exempt (this is Keren)!
(r) Answer: They are exempt from full damage, but pay half-damage.]
Next daf

Index


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,
daf@shemayisrael.co.il