## Bava Kamma Daf 4b

###### Bava Kamma 4b:1
[Bava Kamma 4b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/4b:1)

הָכָא נָמֵי, תְּנִי: אָדָם – שְׁמִירַת גּוּפוֹ עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**here too, teach** the mishna: And with regard to **man,** responsibility for **safeguarding his body is** incumbent **upon him.**


###### Bava Kamma 4b:2
[Bava Kamma 4b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/4b:2)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב מָרִי, וְאֵימָא ״מַבְעֶה״ זֶה הַמַּיִם, כְּדִכְתִיב: ״כִּקְדֹחַ אֵשׁ הֲמָסִים, מַיִם תִּבְעֶה אֵשׁ״! מִי כְּתִיב ״מַיִם נִבְעוּ״?! ״תִּבְעֶה אֵשׁ״ כְּתִיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Mari objects to** the Gemara’s initial suggestion that the dispute between Rav and Shmuel with regard to the meaning of *Maveh* is based on biblical terms with similar etymology. He suggests: **But** why not **say** that ***Maveh*, this** is **the** primary category of damage caused by **water, as it is written: “As when fire ignites brushwood; fire boils [*tiveh*] water”** (Isaiah 64:1). The terms *tiveh* and *maveh* share a common root, and the reference is to water. The Gemara rejects this: **Is it written** in the verse: **Water boils [*nivu*]** from fire, with water, a plural noun in Hebrew, the subject of the intransitive plural verb, *nivu*? No, **“fire boils [*tiveh*] water” is written,** and since *tiveh* is a transitive singular verb, the subject is fire, which is a singular noun. Therefore, no proof can be adduced from this verse that *Maveh* refers to an action performed with water.


###### Bava Kamma 4b:3
[Bava Kamma 4b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/4b:3)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב זְבִיד: וְאֵימָא ״מַבְעֶה״ זֶה הָאֵשׁ, דְּכִי כְּתִיב ״תִּבְעֶה״ – בְּאֵשׁ הוּא דִּכְתִיב! אִי הָכִי, מַאי ״הַמַּבְעֶה וְהַהֶבְעֵר״? וְכִי תֵּימָא פָּרוֹשֵׁי קָמְפָרֵשׁ; אִי הָכִי, אַרְבָּעָה?! שְׁלֹשָׁה הָווּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Zevid objects to** the Gemara’s initial suggestion that the dispute between Rav and Shmuel with regard to the meaning of *Maveh* is based on biblical terms with similar etymology. He suggests: **But** why not **say** that ***Maveh*, this is the** primary category of **Fire, as when** the term **“*tiveh*” is written** in the verse cited by Rav Mari, **it is written with regard to Fire.** The Gemara rejects this: **If so, what** is the meaning when the mishna enumerates the primary categories of damage: **The** category of ***Maveh* and the** category of **Fire,** indicating that they are two distinct categories? **And if you would say** that these are not two distinct categories but rather the mishna **is explaining** the meaning of *Maveh*, **if so,** why does the mishna say: There are **four** primary categories of damage? **There are** only **three.**


###### Bava Kamma 4b:4
[Bava Kamma 4b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/4b:4)

וְכִי תֵּימָא, תְּנָא שׁוֹר דְּאִית בֵּיהּ תַּרְתֵּי; אִי הָכִי, ״לָא זֶה וְזֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן רוּחַ חַיִּים״ – אֵשׁ מַאי רוּחַ חַיִּים אִית בֵּיהּ? וְתוּ, מַאי ״כַּהֲרֵי הָאֵשׁ״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that *Maveh* is Fire, and there are four categories in the mishna, as the mishna **teaches** the primary category of **Ox, in which there are two** primary categories of damage, Eating and Trampling, the mishna remains difficult. **If** it is **so** that *Maveh* in the mishna is referring to Fire, what is the meaning of that which the mishna states with regard to the common denominator of *Maveh* and Ox: **And** the defining characteristics of **this** category of Ox **and that** category of *Maveh*, **in which there is a living spirit,** are **not** similar to the defining characteristic of the next category in the mishna, in which there is no living spirit. Accordingly, how can *Maveh* mean Fire; **what living spirit is there in Fire? And furthermore,** if *Maveh* is Fire, what is the meaning of the next phrase in the mishna: They **are not similar to** the defining characteristic of **the** category of **Fire,** in which there is no living spirit. Clearly, *Maveh* is not Fire.


###### Bava Kamma 4b:5
[Bava Kamma 4b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/4b:5)

תָּנֵי רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא, שְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר אֲבוֹת נְזִיקִין: שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל, נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר, וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר; נֶזֶק, צַעַר, וְרִיפּוּי, שֶׁבֶת, וּבוֹשֶׁת; וְאַרְבָּעָה דְמַתְנִיתִין – הָא תְּלֵיסַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Contrary to the mishna, where four primary categories of damage were enumerated, **Rabbi Oshaya taught** (*Tosefta* 9:1) that there are **thirteen primary categories of damage.** The thirteen categories consist of four bailees, five types of indemnity, and the four primary categories listed in the mishna. The four bailees are: The **unpaid bailee,** who is liable for damage caused by his negligence; **and the borrower,** who is liable for all damage; the **paid bailee, and the renter,** who is liable if the object is lost or stolen. The five types of indemnity one is liable to pay for injuring another person are: **Damage,** i.e., the decrease in the injured party’s value; **pain; and medical costs; loss of livelihood; and humiliation** that the injured party suffered from the assault. **And** with **the four** primary categories enumerated in **the mishna, that** is a total of **thirteen.**


###### Bava Kamma 4b:6
[Bava Kamma 4b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/4b:6)

וְתַנָּא דִּידַן – מַאי טַעְמָא לָא תָּנֵי הָנֵי? בִּשְׁלָמָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל – בְּנִזְקֵי מָמוֹן קָמַיְירֵי, בְּנִזְקֵי גוּפוֹ לָא קָמַיְירֵי; אֶלָּא לְרַב, לִיתְנֵי! תַּנָּא אָדָם – וְכׇל מִילֵּי דְאָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is the reason the *tanna* of our** mishna **does not teach these** nine categories and enumerates only four? **Granted, according to** the opinion of **Shmuel,** who says that *Maveh* is Eating, it is **with regard to** the categories of **damage** caused by one’s **property** that the *tanna* of the mishna **speaks. With regard to** categories of **damage** caused by **one’s body,** the *tanna* of the mishna **does not speak,** and the additional categories of Rabbi Oshaya are damage caused by one’s body. **But according to** the opinion of **Rav,** who says that *Maveh* is Man, **let** the *tanna* of the mishna **teach** these nine categories as well. The Gemara answers: According to Rav, the mishna **teaches** the primary category of **Man, and** included in that category are **all matters** of damage that are caused by **man,** among them the categories added by Rabbi Oshaya.


###### Bava Kamma 4b:7
[Bava Kamma 4b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/4b:7)

וּלְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא נָמֵי, הָא תָּנֵי לֵיהּ אָדָם! תְּרֵי גַוְונֵי אָדָם; תְּנָא אָדָם דְּאַזֵּיק אָדָם, וְתַנָּא אָדָם דְּאַזֵּיק שׁוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to Rabbi Oshaya too, doesn’t** the mishna **teach** the primary category of **Man?** Why then did he enumerate the four bailees and the five types of indemnity? The Gemara answers: In his enumeration, Rabbi Oshaya distinguishes between **two types of** damage caused by **a man:** He **teaches** cases involving **a man who injures** another **person, and** he **teaches** the primary category of *Maveh*, which involves the cases of **a man who damages an ox** or damages other property belonging to another person.


###### Bava Kamma 4b:8
[Bava Kamma 4b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/4b:8)

אִי הָכִי, שׁוֹר נָמֵי, לִיתְנֵי תְּרֵי גַוְונֵי שׁוֹר – לִיתְנֵי שׁוֹר דְּאַזֵּיק שׁוֹר, וְלִיתְנֵי שׁוֹר דְּאַזֵּיק אָדָם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** with regard to **Ox as well, let him teach two categories of Ox. Let him teach** the case of **an ox that damages an ox** or other property belonging to another person, **and let him teach** the case of **an ox that injures a person.**


###### Bava Kamma 4b:9
[Bava Kamma 4b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/4b:9)

הַאי מַאי? בִּשְׁלָמָא אָדָם דְּאַזֵּיק שׁוֹר – נֵזֶק הוּא דִּמְשַׁלֵּם, אָדָם דְּאַזֵּיק אָדָם – מְשַׁלֵּם אַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים; אֶלָּא שׁוֹר, מָה לִי שׁוֹר דְּאַזֵּיק שׁוֹר, מָה לִי שׁוֹר דְּאַזֵּיק אָדָם; אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי נֶזֶק הוּא דִּמְשַׁלֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **What is this** comparison? **Granted,** in the case of **a man who damages** another’s **ox** or other property, **he pays** merely for the **damage;** in the case of **a man who injures** another **person, he pays** an additional **four types** of indemnity payments: Pain, medical costs, loss of livelihood, and humiliation. **But** with regard to damage caused by **an ox, what** difference is there **to me** if it is **an ox that damages an ox** or other property belonging to another person and **what** difference is there **to me** if it is **an ox that injures a person?** In both **this** case **and that** case the owner of the ox **pays** merely for the **damage.** Therefore, unlike a case where a person causes the damage, there is no reason to distinguish between cases where an ox causes damage based on the victim of that damage.


###### Bava Kamma 4b:10
[Bava Kamma 4b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/4b:10)

וְהָא שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר, דְּאָדָם דְּאַזֵּיק שׁוֹר הוּא, וְקָתָנֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the assertion that Rabbi Oshaya added only cases involving a man who injures another person, the Gemara asks: **But aren’t** there the categories of the **unpaid bailee and the borrower,** the **paid bailee and the renter, which are** categories that describe **a man who damages** another’s **ox** or other property, as the cases referred to by Rabbi Oshaya are those where the bailee fails to return the deposit that he was entrusted to safeguard? **And** yet Rabbi Oshaya **teaches** each type of bailee as distinct categories and does not include them under the rubric of Man, one of the four categories enumerated in the mishna.


###### Bava Kamma 4b:11
[Bava Kamma 4b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/4b:11)

תָּנֵי הֶזֵּיקָא דִבְיָדַיִם, וְקָתָנֵי הֶזֵּיקָא דְמִמֵּילָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that the reason why Rabbi Oshaya enumerates Man separately from the bailees is that he **teaches** one category, Man, referring to **damage that** is engendered **by** direct **action,** e.g., the five types of indemnity payments, **and** he **teaches** the four bailees, referring to **damage that occurs on its own,** e.g., failure of the four bailees to safeguard the deposit.


###### Bava Kamma 4b:12
[Bava Kamma 4b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/4b:12)

תָּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא, עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה אֲבוֹת נְזִיקִין: תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל, וְתַשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה, וְגַנָּב, וְגַזְלָן, וְעֵדִים זוֹמְמִין,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites a third listing of primary categories of damage. **Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches** that there are **twenty-four primary categories of damage: Payment of double** the principal, paid by a thief who is apprehended and convicted based on the testimony of witnesses and who does not admit his crime; **and payment of four or five** times the principal, paid by a thief who steals an ox or sheep, respectively, and then slaughters or sells it; **and** payment of the principal, by **a thief** who admits his crime; **and a robber, who** steals openly and by force or threat of violence; **and conspiring witnesses** who pay the individual against whom they falsely testified with regard to a sum that they conspired to cause him to lose.


###### Bava Kamma 4b:13
[Bava Kamma 4b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/4b:13)

וְהָאוֹנֶס, וְהַמְפַתֶּה, וּמוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע, וְהַמְטַמֵּא, וְהַמְדַמֵּעַ, וְהַמְנַסֵּךְ; וְהָנֵי תְּלֵיסַר – הָא עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבְּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the rapist, and the seducer,** who seduces an unmarried young woman, who pay a fine of fifty *sela*; **and the defamer,** i.e., one who defames his wife by claiming falsely in court that he discovered that she was not a virgin when he consummated the marriage and alleges that she engaged in intercourse with another man while betrothed, who pays a fine of one hundred *sela*; **and one who causes** another’s *teruma* **to become ritually impure,** rendering it prohibited to partake of that *teruma*; **and one who mixes** *teruma* with another’s non-sacred food, rendering it prohibited for any non-priest to partake of it; **and one who pours** another’s wine **as a libation** for idolatry. When one combines the eleven categories enumerated by **Rabbi Ḥiyya and these thirteen** categories enumerated by Rabbi Oshaya, **this** totals **twenty-four** principal categories of damage.


###### Bava Kamma 4b:14
[Bava Kamma 4b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/4b:14)

וְרַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא – מַאי טַעְמָא לָא תָּנֵי הָנֵי? בְּמָמוֹנָא קָמַיְירֵי, בִּקְנָסָא לָא קָמַיְירֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** as for **Rabbi Oshaya, what is the reason** that **he did not teach these** eleven additional categories? The Gemara answers: It is **with regard to** cases where one is liable to pay **monetary restitution** that Rabbi Oshaya **speaks. With regard to** cases where one is liable to pay **a fine,** Rabbi Oshaya **does not speak.**


###### Bava Kamma 4b:15
[Bava Kamma 4b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/4b:15)

גַּנָּב וְגַזְלָן, דְּמָמוֹנָא הוּא, לִיתְנֵי! הָא קָתָנֵי לֵיהּ שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: What of the cases of **a thief and a robber, which** are cases where one is liable to pay **monetary restitution? Let** Rabbi Oshaya also **teach** those cases and include them in his list. The Gemara answers: **Doesn’t he teach** those cases, as he enumerates in his list the **unpaid bailee and the borrower?** An unpaid bailee who takes a false oath that the deposit was stolen, when in fact it remained in his possession, is liable to pay restitution like a thief.


###### Bava Kamma 4b:16
[Bava Kamma 4b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/4b:16)

וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא נָמֵי, הָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל! תָּנֵי מָמוֹנָא דַּאֲתָא לִידֵיהּ בְּהֶיתֵּירָא, וְקָתָנֵי מָמוֹנָא דַּאֲתָא לִידֵיהּ בְּאִיסּוּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** as for **Rabbi Ḥiyya too, doesn’t he teach** those cases; as he enumerates in his list the **unpaid bailee and the borrower?** Why does Rabbi Ḥiyya list them separately? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ḥiyya makes a distinction between different types of theft: He **teaches** cases of theft with regard to **property that came into** one’s **possession in a permitted** manner, e.g., an unpaid bailee who was entrusted with a deposit and later misappropriated it, **and** he **teaches** cases of theft with regard to **property that came into** one’s **possession in a prohibited** manner, e.g., the actions of a thief and a robber.