## Bava Kamma Daf 61a

###### Bava Kamma 61a:1
[Bava Kamma 61a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/61a:1)

אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טָמוּן בָּאֵשׁ קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ, מַאי אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ קְרָאֵי? אָמַר לָךְ: טָמוּן וַחֲדָא מֵהָנָךְ קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But according to** Rava, who cited Rav Naḥman, **the one who says** that David **asked** with regard to the *halakha* of **a concealed** article damaged by **a fire,** for **what** purpose does **he require the** two **verses** that describe a field of lentils and a field of barley? Rav Naḥman could have **said to you** that David **was asking** both about **concealed** articles damaged by a fire **and one of these** other two dilemmas.


###### Bava Kamma 61a:2
[Bava Kamma 61a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/61a:2)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלֹא אָבָה (דָּוִד) לִשְׁתוֹתָם״ – אֲמַר: כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא אִיסּוּרָא, לָא נִיחָא לִי. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טָמוּן בָּאֵשׁ קָא מִבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ – מִכְּדִי גְּמָרָא הוּא דִּשְׁלַחוּ לֵיהּ, מַאי ״לֹא אָבָה (דָּוִד) לִשְׁתוֹתָם״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Granted, according to the one who says** one of **these two** explanations, that David was asking either about repaying barley with lentils or burning the stacks of barley, **this is as it is written** of David: **“But he would not drink it”** (II Samuel 23:16). David **said** to himself: **Since there is a prohibition** involved in this action, **it is not satisfactory to me** to act in this manner, even though technically it is permitted for a king. **But according to the one who says** that David **was raising a dilemma** with regard to the *halakha* of **a concealed** article damaged by **a fire, since they sent him** an answer that was **a tradition** with regard to the *halakha*, **what** is the meaning of: “But **he would not drink it”?**


###### Bava Kamma 61a:3
[Bava Kamma 61a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/61a:3)

דְּלָא אַמְרִינְהוּ מִשְּׁמַיְיהוּ. אָמַר, כָּךְ מְקוּבְּלַנִי מִבֵּית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל שְׁמוּאֵל הָרָמָתִי: כׇּל הַמּוֹסֵר עַצְמוֹ לָמוּת עַל דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה – אֵין אוֹמְרִים דְּבַר הֲלָכָה מִשְּׁמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This means **that he did not say the *halakha* in their names.** He did not transmit the ruling in the name of those who went in the time of battle to ask the Sages what the *halakha* is. David **said** to himself: **This** is the tradition that **I received from the court of Samuel of Rama:** With regard to **anyone who hands himself** over **to die for** the sake of **words of Torah,** the Sages **do not say a matter of *halakha* in his name,** so that others will not follow this ruling and endanger their lives.


###### Bava Kamma 61a:4
[Bava Kamma 61a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/61a:4)

״וַיַּסֵּךְ אֹתָם לַה׳״ – בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי, מִשּׁוּם דַּעֲבַד לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טָמוּן בָּאֵשׁ, מַאי ״וַיַּסֵּךְ אֹתָם לַה׳״? דְּאַמְרִינְהוּ מִשְּׁמָא דִגְמָרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks another question: The verse states: **“He poured it out to the Lord”** (II Samuel 23:16), which indicates that David acted stringently and did not rely on the lenient ruling that he received. **Granted, according to the one who says** either of **these two** explanations, that David asked either about burning the stacks of barley or about replacing their value with lentils, he poured out the water to God **due to** the fact **that he acted for the sake of Heaven** and did not rely on the lenient ruling he had received. **But according to the one who says** that David asked about **a concealed** article damaged by **a fire, what** is the reason that **he poured out** the water **to the Lord?** The Gemara answers: The reason is **that they said** this *halakha* **in the name of the tradition,** without associating it with any specific individual.


###### Bava Kamma 61a:5
[Bava Kamma 61a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/61a:5)

**מַתְנִי׳** עָבְרָה גָּדֵר שֶׁהוּא גָּבוֹהַּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת, אוֹ דֶרֶךְ הָרַבִּים, אוֹ נָהָר – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If one kindled a fire that **crossed a fence that is four cubits high, or** if the fire crossed **the public thoroughfare, or** if the fire crossed **a river,** and in each case it caused damage on the other side, he is **exempt** from liability.


###### Bava Kamma 61a:6
[Bava Kamma 61a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/61a:6)

**גְּמָ׳** וְהָתַנְיָא: עָבְרָה גָּדֵר שֶׁהוּא גָּבוֹהַּ אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת – חַיָּיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that if a fire **crossed a fence that is four cubits in height,** the one who kindled the fire is **liable?** This appears to contradict the mishna.


###### Bava Kamma 61a:7
[Bava Kamma 61a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/61a:7)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: תַּנָּא דִּידַן קָא חָשֵׁיב מִלְּמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה: שֵׁשׁ אַמּוֹת – פָּטוּר, חָמֵשׁ אַמּוֹת – פָּטוּר, עַד אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת – פָּטוּר. תַּנָּא בָּרָא מִלְּמַטָּה לְמַעְלָה קָא חָשֵׁיב: שְׁתֵּי אַמּוֹת – חַיָּיב, שָׁלֹשׁ אַמּוֹת – חַיָּיב, עַד אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said:** There is no dispute between the *tanna* of the mishna and the *tanna* of the *baraita*; there is merely a difference of how they stated their rulings. **The *tanna* of our** mishna **counts** downward **from above to below.** In other words, if the fire crossed a fence **six cubits** high, the one who kindled the fire is **exempt;** if it crossed a fence **five cubits** high, he is **exempt;** and this is the *halakha* **until** the fire crosses a fence of a minimum of **four cubits** high, where the one who kindled the fire is still **exempt.** Conversely, **the *tanna* of the *baraita* counts** up **from below to above.** The meaning is that if the fire crossed a fence **two cubits** high, the one who kindled the fire is **liable;** if the fire crossed a fence **three cubits** high, he is **liable;** and this is the *halakha* **until** the fire crosses a fence of a maximum of **four cubits** high, where the one who kindled the fire is still **liable.** Accordingly, there is no contradiction between the mishna and the *baraita*.


###### Bava Kamma 61a:8
[Bava Kamma 61a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/61a:8)

אָמַר רָבָא: אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת שֶׁאָמְרוּ דְּפָטוּר – אֲפִילּוּ בִּשְׂדֵה קוֹצִים. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: וּמִשְּׂפַת קוֹצִים וּלְמַעְלָה אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava says: When they said** in the mishna with regard to a fire crossing a fence **four cubits** high **that** the one who kindled the fire is **exempt,** this is **even in a field of thorns. Rav Pappa says: And** Rava’s statement is referring to a case where the height of the fence **is four cubits** counting **from above the** upper **limit of the thorns.**


###### Bava Kamma 61a:9
[Bava Kamma 61a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/61a:9)

אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּקוֹלַחַת, אֲבָל בְּנִכְפֶּפֶת – אֲפִילּוּ עַד מֵאָה אַמָּה חַיָּיב. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: מַתְנִיתִין בְּנִכְפֶּפֶת, אֲבָל בְּקוֹלַחַת – אֲפִילּוּ כׇּל שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav says: They taught** in the mishna that one is exempt from liability if the fire crosses a public thoroughfare **only in** a case where the flame **blazes high [*bekolaḥat*]. But in** a case where the flame **blazes low [*benikhpefet*]** and therefore spreads easily along the ground, the one who kindled the fire is **liable even** if the space that the fire crossed was **up to one hundred cubits. And Shmuel said: The mishna** exempts one from liability if the fire crosses a public thoroughfare **in** a case where the flame **blazes low, but in** a case where the flame **blazes high, even any** minimal gap between where the fire was kindled and where it caused damage renders the one who kindled the fire **exempt.**


###### Bava Kamma 61a:10
[Bava Kamma 61a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/61a:10)

תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּקוֹלַחַת, אֲבָל בְּנִכְפֶּפֶת וְעֵצִים מְצוּיִין לָהּ – אֲפִילּוּ עַד מֵאָה מִיל חַיָּיב. עָבְרָה נָהָר אוֹ שְׁלוּלִית שֶׁהֵם רְחָבִים שְׁמוֹנֶה אַמּוֹת – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It **is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rav: In what** case **is this statement said** that one is exempt if the fire crosses a public thoroughfare? It is **in** a case where the flame **blazes high. But in** a case where the flame **blazes low and there is wood** to keep **it** burning, one is **liable even** if it causes damage at a distance of **up to one hundred *mil*.** If the fire **crossed a river or a pool [*shelulit*]** of water **that is eight cubits wide,** he is **exempt** from paying for the damage caused, regardless of whether the fire blazed high or low.


###### Bava Kamma 61a:11
[Bava Kamma 61a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/61a:11)

דֶּרֶךְ הָרַבִּים. מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רָבָא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא – דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: שֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה אַמּוֹת כְּדֶרֶךְ רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים (פָּטוּר).

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If the fire crossed **the public thoroughfare,** he is exempt. The Gemara asks: **Who is the *tanna*** who holds this opinion? **Rava said: It is Rabbi Eliezer, as we learned** in a mishna (61b) that **Rabbi Eliezer says:** One is liable up to a distance of **sixteen cubits, like** the width of **the public domain.** By inference, one is exempt if a fire crosses a greater distance, i.e., across a public thoroughfare.


###### Bava Kamma 61a:12
[Bava Kamma 61a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/61a:12)

אוֹ נָהָר. רַב אָמַר: נָהָר מַמָּשׁ, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֲרִיתָּא דְּדַלָּאֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: **Or** if the fire crossed **a river,** he is exempt. **Rav says:** The term stream means **an actual river. And Shmuel says:** This term means **a water channel.**


###### Bava Kamma 61a:13
[Bava Kamma 61a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/61a:13)

מַאן דְּאָמַר נְהַר מַמָּשׁ, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלֵיכָּא מַיָּא; וּמַאן דְּאָמַר אֲרִיתָּא דְּדַלָּאֵי, אִי אִית בֵּיהּ מַיָּא – אִין, אֲבָל לֵית בֵּיהּ מַיָּא – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains their dispute: **The one who says** that it is referring to **an actual river,** Rav, deems exempt one whose fire crosses a riverbed **even when there is no water** in it, since it is sufficiently deep and wide to prevent a typical fire from crossing it. **But the one who says** that it is referring to **a water channel,** Shmuel, holds that **if** the fire crosses a water channel that **has water in it, yes,** the one who kindled the fire is exempt. **But if** the fire crosses a water channel that **does not have water in it,** he is **not** exempt.


###### Bava Kamma 61a:14
[Bava Kamma 61a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/61a:14)

תְּנַן הָתָם: וְאֵלּוּ מַפְסִיקִין לַפֵּאָה – הַנַּחַל, וְהַשְּׁלוּלִית, וְדֶרֶךְ הַיָּחִיד, וְדֶרֶךְ הָרַבִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learned** in a mishna **elsewhere** (*Pe’a* 2:1): **And these,** the following list of features, **divide** a field **for the purpose of *pe’a*,** i.e., it is no longer considered a single field, but instead *pe’a* must be given from each separate section: **A stream, a *shelulit*, a private road, and a public thoroughfare.**


###### Bava Kamma 61a:15
[Bava Kamma 61a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/61a:15)

מַאי שְׁלוּלִית? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מְקוֹם שֶׁמֵּי גְשָׁמִים שׁוֹלְלִין שָׁם. רַב בִּיבִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אַמַּת הַמַּיִם שֶׁמְּחַלֶּקֶת שָׁלָל לַאֲגַפֶּיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is **a *shelulit*? Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says:** It is **a place where rainwater gathers [*sholelin*]. Rav Beivai says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan** says: It is **a water channel that distributes** its **spoils [*shalal*] to its banks,** since the water spreads to the adjacent cisterns.


###### Bava Kamma 61a:16
[Bava Kamma 61a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/61a:16)

מַאן דְּאָמַר מְקוֹם שֶׁמֵּי גְשָׁמִים שׁוֹלְלִין שָׁם – כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן אַמַּת הַמַּיִם; וּמַאן דְּאָמַר אַמַּת הַמַּיִם – אֲבָל מְקוֹם שֶׁמֵּי גְשָׁמִים שׁוֹלְלִין שָׁם לָא מַפְסְקִי, דְּהָנְהוּ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara points out that according to the **one who says** that it means **a place where rainwater gathers,** Shmuel, since gathered rainwater divides a field, **all the more so** does **a water channel,** which is both larger and permanent, divide a field. **But** according to the **one who says** that only **a water channel** divides a field, Rabbi Yoḥanan, he holds that only that divides a field, **but a place where rainwater gathers does not divide** the field, **since these**