ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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
(a) When Rebbi Yochanan says 'Isho Mishum Chitzav', he means - that the
Chiyuv of Eish is the same as someone who shoots an arrow (see Tosfos DH
(b) Resh Lakish says 'Isho Mishum Mamono'.
1. Resh Lakish disagrees with Rebbi Yochanan - because when all's said and
done, the fire is not the result of Kocho (the force of the one who lit it),
whereas an arrow is.
(c) Our Mishnah obligates the owner of the dog Chatzi Nezek if it set fire
to a haystack. The problem with this according to Resh Lakish is - that the
fire belongs to the owner of the cake (which the dog took), and not to the
owner of the dog.
2. Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Resh Lakish - because flame which comprises
Eish is not tangible, whereas the Mamon of the Mazik is.
(d) Resh Lakish answers this - by establishing it when the dog actually
threw the coal, and it is for the damage done to the spot where it landed
exclusively, that he is Chayav, either because of Tzeroros, or because of
Keren (since it is unusual). On the remainder of the haystack, he is Patur.
(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. If the store-keeper placed his candle
outside the store, according to ...
1. ... the Tana Kama - the storekeeper will always be liable.
(b) According to Resh Lakish, even though the fire belongs to the owner of
the store, the owner of the camel is liable - because the Tana is speaking
by Mesachseches (when the camel brushed against the entire building, setting
it all on fire [and it is clear from the Sugya that whenever the animal
performs a positive action, the owner adopts liability, even according to
2. ... Rebbi Yehudah - the storekeeper will be liable at all times except
for Chanukah (when it is a Mitzvah to place one's Chanukah candle outside).
(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 Rav Huna bar Mano'ach in the name of Rav Ika
really meant when he said 'ke'she'Amdah' is - 'that the animal stood still
because it needed to urinate (making it an A'nus).
(d) In the final analysis ...
1. ... the owner of the camel is Chayav in the Reisha - because he should
not have laden his animal so heavily.
2. ... the store-keeper is Chayav in the Seifa - because he should not have
placed his candle outside.
(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 - to
pay for the haystack in full, and thirty Shekalim for the Eved.
(b) In the reverse case (if the Eved is tied and the kid is standing beside
the haystack), he is Patur - because he is Chayav Miysah for killing the
Eved, and we have a principle 'Kam Leih bi'de'Rabah Mineih' (any act for
which one earns two punishments, one receives the more stringent punishment,
and is absolved from the second more lenient one).
(a) The problem with the Seifa of the previous Beraisa, according to Resh
Lakish (who holds 'Isho Mishum Mamono') is - why he should be Chayav Miysah
(any more than if his ox killed an Eved).
(b) Resh Lakish therefore establishes the Mishnah - when he actually set
fire to the body of the Eved.
(c) Even though we already know the principle of 'Kam Leih be'Derabah
Mineih' - the Tana found it necessary to repeat it here, because he is
speaking when the owner of the kid-goat is not the same person as the owner
of the Eved; teaching us that even when the person whose money he destroyed
is not the same as the one for whom he is Chayav Miysah, he is still Patur
(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'. 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), Resh Lakish quoting Chizkiyah ...
1. ... establishes the Mishnah - when he gave the 'Chashu' a coal, which the
latter subsequently fanned.
(b) Rebbi Yochanan maintains that, even if he hands the 'Chashu' a flaming
coal, he is Patur - because, based on the fact that he holds 'Isho Mishum
Chitzav', it is the Chitzim of the 'Chashu' that cause the damage.
2. ... concedes that he is liable - if he handed him a coal which is aflame
(which is bound to do damage).
(c) He will agree that the owner retains the liability however - if he
handed the 'Chashu' all the ingredients to make a fire (the various size
twigs and the means to set them alight).
(a) Rava prove Rebbi Yochanan right from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Ki Seitzei
Eish ... ha'Mav'ir es ha'Be'eiroh" - which begins with the fire spreading on
its own, and ends by referring to the owner as the one who burned the fire
(as if he had actually set fire to the haystack).
(b) In addition, he cites a Beraisa which (based on the same Pasuk that he
himself quoted as proof for Rebbi Yochanan) specifically states 'Isho Mishum