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 32
1) COLLISIONS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
(a) (Mishnah): Reuven is walking, carrying a jug; Shimon is
walking towards him, carrying a beam. The jug broke upon
colliding with the beam; Shimon is exempt, he has as much
right to walk as Reuven.
2) ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR
(b) If Reuven was walking in back of Shimon, and the jug
broke on the beam, Shimon is exempt;
1. If Shimon stopped, he must pay; if he told Reuven
'Stop!', he is exempt.
(c) If Shimon was walking in back of Reuven, and the beam
broke the jug, Shimon must pay;
1. If Reuven stopped, Shimon is exempt; if he told
Shimon 'Stop!', he must pay.
(d) The same applies if Reuven was carrying a lit lamp, and
Shimon was carrying flax (and it caught fire).
(e) (Gemara - Rabah bar Noson) Question: One who damages his
wife through marital relations - must he pay?
1. Since he is allowed to have relations with her, he
(f) Answer #1 (Rav Huna): We learn from (the first case of)
our Mishnah - since each has permission to walk, the
damager is exempt.
2. Or, perhaps he should have been more careful, and he
(g) Answer #2 (Rava): A Kal va'Chomer shows that he must pay!
1. Everyone is allowed to enter a forest; if one
accidentally kills someone while chopping wood, it
is as if he entered the victim's domain, and he is
(h) Question: But the Mishnah says that if each acts with
permission, the damager is exempt!
2. A man that enters his wife's body during relations -
all the more so, he is obligated!
(i) Answer: In the Mishnah, both men participated in the
damage; in relations, the man acts, the woman is passive.
(j) Question: But it says "Will be punished with excision,
the souls that do (incest)" - the Torah considers her to
do an action as well!
(k) Answer: They are both punished because they both enjoy
the act; but only he does an action.
(a) (Mishnah): Shimon (the one holding the beam) was first...
3) COLLISIONS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
(b) (Reish Lakish): A cow was crouching in a public domain;
another cow was walking. If the walking cow kicked the
crouching cow - it is exempt;
1. If the crouching cow kicked the walking cow - it is
(c) Suggestion: Our Mishnah supports Reish Lakish.
1. (Mishnah): If Shimon was in front, and the jug broke
on the beam, Shimon is exempt;
(d) Question: That part of Reish Lakish's law is obvious -
but the Mishnah opposes what may be inferred from Reish
i. If Shimon stopped, he must pay.
2. This is as a crouching cow kicking a walking cow,
and the damager must pay.
1. Reish Lakish obligated the crouching cow when it
kicked - had it passively damaged, it would be
(e) Answer: The Mishnah is when Shimon's beam blocked the
entire road, making it impossible for Reuven to pass;
2. In the Mishnah, Shimon is liable for passive damage!
1. By the cows, there was room to walk by the side of
the crouching cow.
(f) Rather, the end of the Mishnah supports Reish Lakish.
1. (Mishnah): If Shimon was walking in back of Reuven,
and the beam broke the jug, Shimon must pay;
(g) Rejection: In the Mishnah, Shimon walked normally; in
Reish Lakish's case, the walking cow should not have
i. If Reuven stopped, Shimon is exempt.
2. This is as the walking cow damaging the crouching
cow, and the Mishnah says, he is exempt!
(a) (Mishnah): Reuven was running in a public domain and
Shimon was walking, or both were running, and they
damaged each other - they are exempt.
(b) (Gemara): Our Mishnah is not as Isi ben Yehudah.
1. (Beraisa - Isi ben Yehudah): The one running is
liable, for this is abnormal.
(c) (R. Yochanan): The law is as Isi.
2. Isi admits that Erev Shabbos, Bein ha'Shemashos (the
beginning of Shabbos), he is exempt, for he is
allowed to run.
(d) Question: But R. Yochanan holds, the law is as an
anonymous Mishnah (and our Mishnah is not as Isi)!
(e) Answer: Our Mishnah is as Isi - it is Bein ha'Shemashos
of Erev Shabbos.
(f) Question: How do we know that?
(g) Answer: The end of the Mishnah says if both were running,
they are exempt;
1. Question: Why is this needed? Even if 1 runs and the
other walks, he is exempt - all the more so if both
(h) (Beraisa): Isi admits that Erev Shabbos, Bein
ha'Shemashos (the beginning of Shabbos), he is exempt,
for he is allowed to run.
2. Answer: Rather, the Mishnah teaches: If Reuven runs
and Shimon walks, Reuven is exempt - this is Erev
Shabbos, Bein ha'Shemashos; but any other time,
Reuven is liable;
i. If both were running, even during the week they
(i) Question: Why is he allowed?
(j) Answer: As R. Chanina taught.
1. [Version #1 (R. Chanina): Come, let us go out to
greet the bride, the queen.]
4) DAMAGE IN A DIFFERENT DOMAIN
2. [Version #2 (R. Chanina): Come, let us go out to
greet Shabbos, the bride, the queen.]
3. R. Yanai would cloak himself, stand and say 'Come
bride, come bride'.
(a) (Mishnah): A man was chopping wood in a public domain and
damaged in a private domain, or vice-versa, or was
chopping in a private domain and damaged in a different
private domain - he is liable.
(b) (Gemara): We need to hear all 3 cases.
1. If we only heard when he was in a private domain and
damaged in a public domain, (one might have thought)
only there he is liable, for many people frequent
the public domain;
2. If we only heard when he was in a public domain and
damaged in a private domain, only there he is
liable, for he was not allowed to chop there;
3. If we only heard these cases - in 1, because many
people frequent the public domain; in the other he
was not allowed to chop there;
i. But from a private domain to a private domain,
he would be exempt - we hear, this is not so.
(a) (Beraisa): A man entered Reuven's carpentry shop without
permission; a piece of wood flew off and killed him -
Reuven is exempt;
1. If he had permission to enter, Reuven is liable.
(b) [Version #2 (Rav Papa citing Rava - Beraisa): A man
entered Reuven's carpentry shop without permission; a
piece of wood flew off and killed him - Reuven is exempt;
2. [Version #1 - Question: What is his liability?
3. Answer (R. Yosi bar Chanina): He is liable in the 4
payments, and exempt from exile, for this does not
resemble a forest.
i. In a forest, each enters his own domain - here,
the victim entered Reuven's domain.
4. Question (Rava): In a forest, (the victim did not
ask permission, yet) we consider it as if he had the
damager's permission to enter - here, where he had
explicit permission, all the more so Reuven should
5. Answer (Rava): He is exempt from exile - because he
does not merit refuge;
i. R. Yosi bar Chanina also meant that he is not
exiled because he is too close to intentional
6. Question (Mishnah): Reuven was the appointee of Beis
Din to whip people. He gave an extra lash, killing
the person - Reuven is exiled.
i. This is close to intentional, for he should
realize that an extra lash can kill someone!
7. Answer #1 (Rav Simi of Nehardai): The case is, he
erred in the count.
8. Objection (Rava): The one that whips does not count!
i. (Beraisa): The greatest of the judges reads
(the verses), the second counts, and the third
says 'Strike him'.
9. Answer #2 (Rav Simi of Nehardai): Rather, the judge
erred in the count.
10. Question (Mishnah): Reuven threw a stone to a public
domain and killed someone - he is exiled.
i. This is close to intentional, for he should
realize that many people are in a public
11. Answer (Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak): The case is,
Reuven was destroying his wall.
12. Question: He should look (that no one is coming)!
13. Answer #1: He was destroying it at night.
i. Question: Even at night, he should look!
14. Answer #2: He was destroying it by day into a
15. Question: What sort of wasteheap is this?
i. Suggestion: If people frequent it - he is
(close to) intentional!
16. Answer (Rav Papa): People normally frequent it at
night, occasionally they frequent it by day.]
ii. Suggestion: If people don't frequent it - he is
(close to) Ones!
(c) (R. Yosi bar Chanina): He is exempt from exile, but
liable in the 4 payments.]
1. Version #1 says that he is exempt from exile even
when the victim had permission to enter - all the
more so, Reuven is exempt when the victim had no
(d) Question (Beraisa): A man entered a smith's shop; a spark
flew off and killed him - the smith is exempt, even if
the victim entered with permission.
2. Version #2 says that he is exempt from exile when
the victim had no permission to enter - but if he
had permission, Reuven would be exiled.
(e) Answer: That Beraisa speaks of an apprentice.
(f) Question: Are apprentices standing to be killed?!
(g) Answer: The teacher was asking him to leave; he refused.
(h) Question: Because he refused to leave, he is standing to
(i) Answer: The teacher thought that he had left.
(j) Question: If so, even if he was not an apprentice, the
smith is exempt!
(k) Answer: Other people do not fear the smith, he should
check that they left; an apprentice fears the smith, one
would assume he left.
(l) [Version #3 (Rav Zvid - Beraisa): "And it found" - this
excludes a victim that brings himself to be damaged;
1. R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, this teaches that if
Reuven threw a stone, and Shimon stuck out his head
and was killed, Reuven is exempt.
2. (R. Yosi bar Chanina): He is exempt from exile, but
he is obligated in 4 payments of damage.
3. Version #3 says that he is liable for 4 damages even
when the victim brought himself to be damaged - all
the more so, in the above versions (when the shop
owner knew that someone entered, he is more
4. Versions 1 and 2 say that he is liable in 4 damages
when the shop owner knew he had entered - but if
Shimon brought himself to be damaged, Reuven would
be totally exempt!