## Bava Kamma Daf 62a

###### Bava Kamma 62a:1
[Bava Kamma 62a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/62a:1)

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּמַדְלִיק בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁלּוֹ וְהָלְכָה וְדָלְקָה בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, אֲבָל מַדְלִיק בְּתוֹךְ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מְשַׁלֵּם כׇּל מַה שֶּׁהָיָה בְּתוֹכוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In what** case **is this statement said?** It is in a case where one **kindled a fire on his** premises **and** the fire **spread and burned** items **in** premises belonging to **another. But** with regard to one who **kindles a fire on** premises belonging to **another** that destroys a stack of wheat, **all agree** that **he pays** compensation for **everything that was inside** the stack.


###### Bava Kamma 62a:2
[Bava Kamma 62a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/62a:2)

וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לַחֲכָמִים בְּמַשְׁאִיל מָקוֹם לַחֲבֵירוֹ לְהַגְדִּישׁ גָּדִישׁ, וְהִגְדִּישׁ וְהִטְמִין, שֶׁאֵין מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא דְּמֵי גָדִישׁ בִּלְבָד. לְהַגְדִּישׁ חִטִּין וְהִגְדִּישׁ שְׂעוֹרִין; שְׂעוֹרִין וְהִגְדִּישׁ חִטִּין; חִטִּין וְחִיפָּן בִּשְׂעוֹרִין; שְׂעוֹרִין וְחִיפָּן בְּחִטִּים – שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא דְּמֵי שְׂעוֹרִין בִּלְבָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yehuda concedes to the Rabbis that in** a case where one **lends space to another** in his field **to stack grain, and** this person **stacked** grain in the field **and concealed** items inside the stack, if the owner of the field causes the stack to be burned down, **he pays compensation for the stack alone,** since the other person did not have permission to conceal items inside his stack. Similarly, if one received permission **to stack wheat** in the field of another **and he stacked barley;** or conversely, if he received permission to stack **barley and he stacked wheat;** or similarly, if he stacked **wheat and covered** the stack **with barley,** or stacked **barley and covered** the stack **with wheat,** in all these cases, Rabbi Yehuda concedes **that he pays compensation for** the **barley alone,** which is less than the value of wheat.


###### Bava Kamma 62a:3
[Bava Kamma 62a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/62a:3)

אָמַר רָבָא: הַנּוֹתֵן דִּינַר זָהָב לְאִשָּׁה, וְאָמַר לָהּ: ״הִזָּהֲרִי בּוֹ, שֶׁל כֶּסֶף הוּא״; הִזִּיקַתּוּ – מְשַׁלֶּמֶת דִּינַר זָהָב, מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמַר לַהּ: מַאי הֲוָה לִיךְ גַּבֵּיהּ דְּאַזַּקְתֵּיהּ. פָּשְׁעָה בּוֹ – מְשַׁלֶּמֶת שֶׁל כֶּסֶף, דְּאָמְרָה לֵיהּ: נְטִירוּתָא דְכַסְפָּא קַבֵּילִי עֲלַי, נְטִירוּתָא דְּדַהֲבָא לָא קַבֵּילִי עֲלַי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava says:** With regard to **one who gives a gold dinar to a woman** for safekeeping **and says to her: Be careful with this** dinar because **it is** made of **silver,** if **she** herself **damaged** the dinar, **she must pay** compensation for the value of **a gold dinar.** This is **because he** can **say to her: What** business **did you have damaging it?** If **she was negligent** and it was lost or stolen, **she pays** as compensation only the value of **a silver** dinar, **since she** can **say to him: I undertook to safeguard only a silver** dinar, **but I did not undertake to safeguard a gold** dinar.


###### Bava Kamma 62a:4
[Bava Kamma 62a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/62a:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב מָרְדֳּכַי לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אַתּוּן – בִּדְרָבָא מַתְנִיתוּ לַהּ; אֲנַן – מִמַּתְנִיתָא פְּשִׁיטָא לַן: חִטִּין וְחִיפָּן בִּשְׂעוֹרִין, שְׂעוֹרִין וְחִיפָּן בְּחִטִּין – אֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא דְּמֵי שְׂעוֹרִין בִּלְבָד. אַלְמָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״נְטִירוּתָא דִשְׂעָרֵי קַבֵּילִי עֲלַי״, הָכָא נָמֵי אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: ״נְטִירוּתָא דְּדַהֲבָא לָא קַבֵּילִי עֲלַי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: You teach this** *halakha* as a statement **of Rava,** but for **us** this *halakha* is **obvious from the *baraita*** that taught: If one stacked **wheat and covered** the stack **with barley,** or stacked **barley and covered** the stack **with wheat,** the one responsible for the fire **pays compensation for the barley alone. Evidently,** the one who kindled the fire can **say to** the owner of the stack: **I undertook to safeguard** a stack of **barley** but not a stack of wheat. **Here too,** in the case of a golden dinar presented as a silver dinar, **the** woman **can say to him: I did not undertake to safeguard a gold** dinar.


###### Bava Kamma 62a:5
[Bava Kamma 62a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/62a:5)

אָמַר רַב: שְׁמַעִית מִילְּתָא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, וְלָא יָדַעְנָא מַאי הִיא. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: וְלָא יָדַע אַבָּא מַאי שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ? לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, דִּמְחַיֵּיב עַל נִזְקֵי טָמוּן בָּאֵשׁ – עָשׂוּ תַּקָּנַת נִגְזָל בְּאִשּׁוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav said: I heard** a halakhic **matter** in connection **with Rabbi Yehuda’s** opinion in the mishna **but I do not know what it is. Shmuel said: And does Abba,** which was Rav’s name, really **not know what he heard?** This is the statement that he heard: **According to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, who deems** one **liable for concealed** articles damaged by **a fire,** the Sages **applied the ordinance of a robbery victim to** one whose concealed items are damaged by **his fire.** Just as the Sages instituted an ordinance that a robbery victim can take an oath as to what was stolen from him and the robber must repay him accordingly, similarly, according to Rabbi Yehuda the owner of the stack can take an oath that certain items were inside the stack, and the one responsible for the fire must pay compensation for them.


###### Bava Kamma 62a:6
[Bava Kamma 62a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/62a:6)

בָּעֵי אַמֵּימָר: עָשׂוּ תַּקָּנַת נִגְזָל בְּמָסוֹר, אוֹ לָא? אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר לָא דָּיְינִינַן דִּינָא דִגְרָמֵי – לָא תִּבְּעֵי לָךְ, דְּמָסוֹרוֹת נָמֵי לָא דָּיְינִינַן;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ameimar asks:** Did **they apply** this **ordinance of a robbery victim in** the case of **an informer** who causes another person’s property to be confiscated by the gentile authorities, **or not?** The question is clarified: **According to** the opinion of **the one who says** that **we do not judge** cases of **liability** for damage caused by **indirect** action, **do not ask** the question, **as** according to that opinion **we also do not judge** cases **of** liability for **informers** who cause indirect damage.


###### Bava Kamma 62a:7
[Bava Kamma 62a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/62a:7)

אֶלָּא כִּי תִּבְּעֵי לָךְ, אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר דָּיְינִינַן דִּינָא דִגְרָמֵי – עָשׂוּ תַּקָּנַת נִגְזָל בְּמָסוֹר, דְּמִשְׁתְּבַע וְשָׁקֵיל, אוֹ לָא? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, when you ask** this question, **it is in accordance with** the opinion of **the one who said** that **we judge** cases of **liability** for damage caused by **indirect** action, and the question is: Did the Sages **apply the ordinance of a robbery victim to** one whose items were taken due to an **informer,** meaning **that** the victim **can take an oath** to support his claim with regard to what was taken **and take** this amount in compensation, **or not?** No conclusion was reached about this, and the dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Bava Kamma 62a:8
[Bava Kamma 62a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/62a:8)

הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דִּבְטַשׁ בְּכַסְפְּתָא דְחַבְרֵיהּ, שַׁדְיַיהּ בְּנַהֲרָא. אֲתָא מָרֵיהּ וְאָמַר: הָכִי וְהָכִי הֲוָה לִי בְּגַוַּהּ. יָתֵיב רַב אָשֵׁי וְקָא מְעַיֵּין בֵּיהּ: כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
An incident was related about **a certain man who kicked a safe belonging to another, sending it** flying **into the river. The owner** of the safe **came** to court **and said: I had such and such inside it. Rav Ashi sat and was investigating** the question: **In a case like this, what** is the *halakha*? Does the court believe the claimant or not?


###### Bava Kamma 62a:9
[Bava Kamma 62a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/62a:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: לָאו הַיְינוּ מַתְנִיתִין? דִּתְנַן: וּמוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּמַדְלִיק אֶת הַבִּירָה, שֶׁמְּשַׁלֵּם כׇּל מַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹכוֹ; שֶׁכֵּן דֶּרֶךְ בְּנֵי אָדָם לְהַנִּיחַ בַּבָּתִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, and some say** that **Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: Is this not** identical to the case of **the mishna, as we learned** in the mishna: **And the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Yehuda** that if one **sets fire to a building, he pays** compensation **for everything that was** burned **inside it, since it is the** normal **way of people to place** items **in houses?** Similarly, it is the normal way of people to place money in a safe, and the court should rely on the claim of the victim.


###### Bava Kamma 62a:10
[Bava Kamma 62a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/62a:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי דְּקָא טָעֵין זוּזֵי – הָכָא נָמֵי, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּקָא טָעֵין מַרְגָּנִיתָא. מַאי? מִי מַנְּחִי אִינָשֵׁי מַרְגָּנִיתָא בְּכַסְפְּתָא, אוֹ לָא? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi **said to him: If** the claimant **were to claim** that there were **coins** in the safe, this ruling would apply **here also.** But **with what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case **where** the claimant **claims** that there was **a pearl [*marganita*]** in the safe. **What** is the *halakha*? **Do people** typically **place pearls in a safe,** in which case he should be believed, **or not?** The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Bava Kamma 62a:11
[Bava Kamma 62a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/62a:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יֵימַר לְרַב אָשֵׁי: טָעֵין כָּסָא דְכַסְפָּא בְּבִירָה, מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: (חָזֵינָא) [חָזֵינַן], אִי אִינִישׁ אֲמִיד הוּא – דְּאִית לֵיהּ כָּסָא דְכַסְפָּא, אִי נָמֵי אִינִישׁ מְהֵימְנָא הוּא – דְּמַפְקְדִי אִינָשֵׁי גַּבֵּיהּ; מִשְׁתְּבַע וְשָׁקֵיל. וְאִי לָא, לָאו כֹּל כְּמִינֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yeimar said to Rav Ashi:** If the one whose home was burned by the fire were to **claim** that he had, among other items, **a silver goblet in the building, what** is the *halakha*? Is he believed or not? Rav Ashi **said to him: We view** his situation. **If he is a wealthy person, who** would typically **have a silver goblet, or alternatively, if he is a trustworthy person with whom people entrust** valuable items, he **can take an oath** that this is what he had **and take** compensation according to his claim. **But if** he is **not** such a person, it **is not in his** power to be believed in such a claim.


###### Bava Kamma 62a:12
[Bava Kamma 62a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/62a:12)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אַוְיָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מָה בֵּין גַּזְלָן לְחַמְסָן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: חַמְסָן – יָהֵיב דְּמֵי, גַּזְלָן – לָא יָהֵיב דְּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Adda, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi:** Concerning two terms used to describe those who take another’s property against his will, **a *gazlan* and a *ḥamsan*, what** is the difference **between them?** Rav Ashi **said to him: A *ḥamsan* gives money** for the article that he takes from its owner, albeit against the owner’s will, whereas **a *gazlan* does not give money.**


###### Bava Kamma 62a:13
[Bava Kamma 62a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/62a:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי יָהֵיב דְּמֵי – חַמְסָן קָרֵית לֵיהּ?! וְהָאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: תְּלוּהּ וְזַבֵּין – זְבִינֵיהּ זְבִינֵי! לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא דְּאָמַר ״רוֹצֶה אֲנִי״, הָא דְּלָא אָמַר ״רוֹצֶה אֲנִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Adda was puzzled by this response and **said to him: If he gives money, do you** still **call him a *ḥamsan*?** Since he pays money for it, he acquires it lawfully, despite the fact that its owner did not sell it voluntarily. **But doesn’t Rav Huna say:** If one was **strung up** so that another could coerce him to sell a certain item, **and he sold** it, **his sale is** a valid **sale.** This indicates that a sale under duress is considered a valid sale. Rav Ashi answered: This is **not difficult. This** case, where the sale under duress is legally considered to be a sale, is referring to a case **where he** eventually **says: I want** to sell the item, despite having been forced. By contrast, in **that** case, where the sale is invalid, **he did not say: I want** to sell the item.