## Bava Kamma Daf 60a

###### Bava Kamma 60a:1
[Bava Kamma 60a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/60a:1)

סִלְתָּא, שְׁרָגָא, דְּהָהוּא וַדַּאי מַעֲשֵׂה דִידֵיהּ גָּרְמוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**of thin wood** and **a candle [*sheraga*], since** in **that** case **his** own **action,** i.e., that of the one who sent the flame, **definitely caused** the fire to spread.


###### Bava Kamma 60a:2
[Bava Kamma 60a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/60a:2)

שִׁלַּח בְּיַד פִּקֵּחַ – הַפִּקֵּחַ חַיָּיב וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מַאן דְּתָנֵי ״לִיבָּה״ לָא מִשְׁתַּבַּשׁ, וּמַאן דְּתָנֵי ״נִיבָּה״ לָא מִשְׁתַּבַּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches that if one **sent** a fire **in the hand of a** halakhically **competent** person, **the** halakhically **competent** person is **liable…**If another came and fanned the flame the one who fanned it is liable. **Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says** with regard to the correct text of the mishna: The **one who teaches** it using the word **fanned [*libba*] is not mistaken, and** the **one who teaches** it using the word **blew [*nibba*] is not mistaken.**


###### Bava Kamma 60a:3
[Bava Kamma 60a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/60a:3)

מַאן דְּתָנֵי ״לִיבָּה״ לָא מִשְׁתַּבַּשׁ – דִּכְתִיב: ״בְּלַבַּת אֵשׁ״. וּמַאן דְּתָנֵי ״נִיבָּה״ לָא מִשְׁתַּבַּשׁ – דִּכְתִיב: ״בּוֹרֵא נִיב שְׂפָתָיִם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Naḥman explained: The **one who teaches** using the word **fanned [*libba*] is not mistaken, as it is written: “With a flame [*belabbat*] of fire”** (Exodus 3:2), **and** the **one who teaches** using the word **blew [*nibba*] is not mistaken, as it is written: “He creates the fruit [*niv*] of the lips”** (Isaiah 57:19), which can be interpreted as referring to the breath of the lips.


###### Bava Kamma 60a:4
[Bava Kamma 60a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/60a:4)

לִבְּתָה הָרוּחַ – כּוּלָּן פְּטוּרִין. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לִיבָּה וְלִבְּתָה הָרוּחַ, אִם יֵשׁ בְּלִבּוּיוֹ כְּדֵי לְלַבּוֹתָהּ – חַיָּיב, וְאִם לָאו – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If **the wind fanned** the flames, **all** the people involved **are exempt,** indicating that even if one fanned the fire at the same time that the wind was blowing he is exempt. The Gemara cites a *baraita* in which **the Sages taught** the same idea explicitly: In a case where **one fanned** the flame **and** at the same time **the wind** fanned it, **if his fanning has** sufficient strength by itself **to fan** the flames, he is **liable** for damage caused by the fire, since even without the wind the fire would have spread. **But if** his fanning alone was **not** sufficient, he is **exempt.**


###### Bava Kamma 60a:5
[Bava Kamma 60a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/60a:5)

אַמַּאי? לֶיהֱוֵי כְּזוֹרֶה וְרוּחַ מְסַיַּיעְתּוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Why** is he exempt if his fanning is not sufficient? **Let it be** the same *halakha* **as** the case of one who **winnows** grain on Shabbat by throwing it into the air, **and the wind assists him** by separating the chaff from the grain. In such a case he is liable for desecrating Shabbat, despite the fact that without the assistance of the wind he would not have been able to winnow the grain.


###### Bava Kamma 60a:6
[Bava Kamma 60a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/60a:6)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁלִּיבָּה מִצַּד אֶחָד, וְלִבַּתּוּ הָרוּחַ מִצַּד אַחֵר. רָבָא אָמַר: כְּגוֹן שֶׁלִּיבָּה בְּרוּחַ מְצוּיָה, וְלִבַּתּוּ הָרוּחַ בְּרוּחַ שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְצוּיָה. רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר: כְּגוֹן דְּצַמְּרַהּ צַמּוֹרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case **where he fanned** the fire **from one side and the wind fanned** it **from the other side,** and the fire was blown in the direction the wind was blowing. Therefore, it is clear that his fanning did not help the fire spread, so he is exempt. **Rava says:** We are dealing with a case **where he fanned** it along **with a typical wind,** and this was not sufficient to cause the fire to spread, **and** suddenly **an atypical wind** came and **fanned it.** Therefore, he is exempt since he could not have anticipated this. **Rabbi Zeira said:** We are dealing with a case **where** he only **heated [*detzamera tzamurei*]** the fire by breathing on it, rather than fanning it properly.


###### Bava Kamma 60a:7
[Bava Kamma 60a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/60a:7)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כִּי אָמְרִינַן זוֹרֶה וְרוּחַ מְסַיַּיעְתּוֹ – הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְעִנְיַן שַׁבָּת, דִּמְלֶאכֶת מַחְשֶׁבֶת אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה; אֲבָל הָכָא – גְּרָמָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא, וּגְרָמָא בִּנְזָקִין פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: When we say** that one is liable in a case where he **winnows and the wind assists him, this statement** applies **with regard to** the *halakhot* of **Shabbat.** With regard to Shabbat, the principle is **that the Torah prohibited planned,** constructive **labor.** The primary consideration is that his objective is accomplished, even if he did not perform the entire act of labor. **But here,** in the context of damages, **he is** considered to have caused damage **merely** through **indirect** action, **and** one who causes **damage** through **indirect** action is **exempt.**


###### Bava Kamma 60a:8
[Bava Kamma 60a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/60a:8)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ אֶת הַבְּעֵרָה, וְאָכְלָה עֵצִים אוֹ אֲבָנִים אוֹ עָפָר – חַיָּיב; שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי תֵצֵא אֵשׁ וּמָצְאָה קֹצִים, וְנֶאֱכַל גָּדִישׁ אוֹ הַקָּמָה אוֹ הַשָּׂדֶה, שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם הַמַּבְעִר אֶת הַבְּעֵרָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If one **sends** forth **a fire,** i.e., allows it to escape, **and it consumes wood, or stones, or earth,** he is **liable, as it is stated: “If a fire breaks out, and catches in thorns, so that a stack of grain, or standing grain, or the field, is consumed, the one who kindled the fire shall pay compensation”** (Exodus 22:5), which teaches that he is liable also for destroying the field itself.


###### Bava Kamma 60a:9
[Bava Kamma 60a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/60a:9)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רָבָא: לְמָה לִי דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״קוֹצִים״, ״גָּדִישׁ״, ״קָמָה״ וְ״שָׂדֶה״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to the verse cited in the mishna, **Rava says: Why do I** need **the Merciful One** to write in the Torah all of these terms: **“Thorns,” “a stack of grain,” “standing grain,” and “field,”** which seem to be redundant?


###### Bava Kamma 60a:10
[Bava Kamma 60a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/60a:10)

צְרִיכִי; דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״קוֹצִים״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: קוֹצִים הוּא דְּחַיַּיב רַחֲמָנָא – מִשּׁוּם דִּשְׁכִיחַ אֵשׁ גַּבַּיְיהוּ, וּשְׁכִיחַ דְּפָשַׁע; אֲבָל גָּדִישׁ – דְּלָא שְׁכִיחַ אֵשׁ גַּבַּיְיהוּ, וְלָא שְׁכִיחַ דְּפָשַׁע, אֵימָא לָא. וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״גָּדִישׁ״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: גָּדִישׁ חַיַּיב רַחֲמָנָא – מִשּׁוּם דְּהֶפְסֵד מְרוּבֶּה הוּא; אֲבָל קוֹצִים – דְּהֶפְסֵד מוּעָט, אֵימָא לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava explains: All the terms **are necessary, because if the Merciful One had written** only **“thorns”** in the Torah, **I would say** that it is specifically **thorns for which the Merciful One renders one liable, because** it is **common** for **fire** to be **near them, and** it **is common that** one is **negligent. But** with regard to **a stack of grain,** with regard to **which it is not common** for **fire** to be **near it,** as grain is valuable, so one keeps it out of harm’s way, and it **is not common that** one is **negligent** in allowing it to catch fire, I would **say** that he should **not** be liable. **And if the Merciful One had written** only: **“A stack of grain,” I would say** that it is specifically for such **a stack** that **the Merciful One renders him liable, because** it involves **a substantial** financial **loss. But** with regard to **thorns,** which involve only **a minimal loss,** I would **say** that he should **not** be liable. Therefore, the verse teaches that he is liable for damage to thorns as well.


###### Bava Kamma 60a:11
[Bava Kamma 60a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/60a:11)

״קָמָה״ לְמָה לִי? מָה קָמָה בְּגָלוּי – אַף כֹּל בְּגָלוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Why do I** need the Torah to state the term **“standing grain”?** It is in order to teach that **just as standing grain is exposed, so too,** one is liable only for damage caused by fire **for all** items that are **exposed.** One is exempt from liability for damage to items that are concealed.


###### Bava Kamma 60a:12
[Bava Kamma 60a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/60a:12)

וּלְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דִּמְחַיֵּיב אַנִּזְקֵי טָמוּן בָּאֵשׁ, ״קָמָה״ לְמָה לִי? לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל בַּעֲלֵי קוֹמָה. וְרַבָּנַן, לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל בַּעֲלֵי קוֹמָה מְנָא לְהוּ? נָפְקָא לְהוּ מֵ״אוֹ הַקָּמָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who deems** one **liable for a concealed** article damaged **by a fire, why do I** need the Torah to state the term: **“Standing grain”?** The Gemara answers: The term serves **to include all** items **that have stature,** i.e., trees and animals, and not only produce. The Gemara asks: **And** according to the opinion of **the Rabbis,** who derive the *halakha* of concealed articles from the term “standing grain,” **from where do they** derive that **all** items **that have stature** are **included?** The Gemara answers: **They derive it from** the term: **“Or standing grain,”** since the additional word “or” is an inclusive term.


###### Bava Kamma 60a:13
[Bava Kamma 60a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/60a:13)

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – ״אוֹ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְחַלֵּק. וְרַבָּנַן לְחַלֵּק מְנָא לְהוּ? נָפְקָא לְהוּ מֵ״אוֹ הַשָּׂדֶה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** what does **Rabbi Yehuda** derive from the additional word “or”? The Gemara answers: **He requires** the word **“or” to divide** the terms, i.e., to teach that one is liable for damage to any one of the items listed, and not only where the fire burned all of them together. The Gemara then asks: **And from where do the Rabbis** derive the *halakha* **to divide** the terms so that one is liable for damage to each one independently? The Gemara answers: **They derive it from** the second instance of the word “or,” as the verse states: **“Or the field.”**


###### Bava Kamma 60a:14
[Bava Kamma 60a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/60a:14)

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – אַיְּידֵי דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״אוֹ הַקָּמָה״, כְּתַב ״אוֹ הַשָּׂדֶה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** what does **Rabbi Yehuda** derive from the phrase “or the field”? The Gemara answers: **Since the Merciful One wrote** in the Torah: **“Or standing grain,” He** also **wrote: “Or the field,”** for stylistic consistency, but no additional *halakha* may be derived from this term.


###### Bava Kamma 60a:15
[Bava Kamma 60a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/60a:15)

״שָׂדֶה״ לְמָה לִי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי לִחֲכָה נִירוֹ וְסִכְסְכָה אֲבָנָיו. וְלִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא ״שָׂדֶה״, וְלָא בָּעֵי הָנָךְ! צְרִיכָא; דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״שָׂדֶה״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מַה שֶּׁבַּשָּׂדֶה – אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא – לָא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava continues to elaborate on the different terms in the verse: And **why do I** need the word **“field”** in the verse? It serves **to include** liability for damage in a case when the flames **licked a plowed field and charred its stones.** The Gemara asks: **But let the Merciful One write** only the term **“field,” and** then it would **not require all these** other terms. If one is liable for damage to a field, which is not totally destroyed by the fire, he is certainly liable for damage to other items that are completely destroyed. The Gemara answers: It is **necessary** to write the other terms as well, **because if the Merciful One** had **written** only **“field,” I would say that** for **what is in the field, yes,** one is liable, but for **anything else, no,** one is not liable. Therefore, it **teaches us** that one is liable for any damage caused by fire.


###### Bava Kamma 60a:16
[Bava Kamma 60a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/60a:16)

אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: אֵין פּוּרְעָנוּת בָּאָה לָעוֹלָם אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָרְשָׁעִים בָּעוֹלָם, וְאֵינָהּ מַתְחֶלֶת אֶלָּא מִן הַצַּדִּיקִים תְּחִלָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי תֵצֵא אֵשׁ וּמָצְאָה קֹצִים״ – אֵימָתַי אֵשׁ יוֹצְאָה? בִּזְמַן שֶׁקּוֹצִים מְצוּיִין לָהּ. וְאֵינָהּ מַתְחֶלֶת אֶלָּא מִן הַצַּדִּיקִים תְּחִלָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנֶאֱכַל גָּדִישׁ״; ״וְאָכַל גָּדִישׁ״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״וְנֶאֱכַל גָּדִישׁ״ – שֶׁנֶּאֱכַל גָּדִישׁ כְּבָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cites an aggadic midrash based on this verse: **Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says** that **Rabbi Yonatan says: Calamity befalls the world only when wicked** people are **in the world, but** the calamity **begins only with the righteous first, as it is stated** in the verse: **“If a fire breaks out, and catches in thorns,** so that a stack of grain, or standing grain, or the field, is consumed” (Exodus 22:5). **When does the fire,** i.e., calamity, **emerge?** At a time **when the thorns,** i.e., the wicked, **are found with it. But** calamity **begins only from the righteous first, as it is stated** in the continuation of the verse: **“And a stack of grain is consumed [*vene’ekhal*].” It is not stated:** If a fire breaks out, and catches in thorns, **and consumes [*ve’akhal*] the stack of grain; rather,** it states: **“A stack of grain is consumed,”** meaning **that** the **stack,** i.e., the righteous, **has already been consumed** before the thorns.


###### Bava Kamma 60a:17
[Bava Kamma 60a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/60a:17)

תָּאנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאַתֶּם לֹא תֵצְאוּ אִישׁ מִפֶּתַח בֵּיתוֹ עַד בֹּקֶר״? כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּיתַּן רְשׁוּת לַמַּשְׁחִית, אֵינוֹ מַבְחִין בֵּין צַדִּיקִים לִרְשָׁעִים. וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא שֶׁמַּתְחִיל מִן הַצַּדִּיקִים תְּחִלָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהִכְרַתִּי מִמֵּךְ צַדִּיק וְרָשָׁע״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef taught** a *baraita*: **What** is the meaning of that **which is written** with regard to the plague of the firstborn: **“And none of you shall go out of the opening of his house until the morning”** (Exodus 12:22)? If the plague was not decreed upon the Jewish people, why were they not permitted to leave their homes? **Once permission** is granted **to the destroyer** to kill, **it does not distinguish between the righteous and the wicked. And not only** that, **but it begins with the righteous first, as it is stated** in the verse: **“And will cut off from you the righteous and the wicked”** (Ezekiel 21:8), where mention of the righteous precedes the wicked.


###### Bava Kamma 60a:18
[Bava Kamma 60a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/60a:18)

בָּכֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: כּוּלֵּי הַאי נָמֵי לְאַיִן דּוֹמִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: טֵיבוּתָא הוּא לְגַבַּיְיהוּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי מִפְּנֵי הָרָעָה נֶאֱסַף הַצַּדִּיק״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef cried** and said: **Are all these** righteous people **also compared to nothing** when calamity strikes? **Abaye said to him: It is goodness for** the righteous that they die first, **as it is written: “The righteous is taken away because of the evil to come”** (Isaiah 57:1), so that he will not have to endure the suffering that will befall the people.


###### Bava Kamma 60a:19
[Bava Kamma 60a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/60a:19)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says:**