## Bava Kamma Daf 6a

###### Bava Kamma 6a:1
[Bava Kamma 6a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/6a:1)

לְאֵתוֹיֵי לִיחֲכָה נִירוֹ וְסִכְסְכָה אֲבָנָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It serves **to add** cases where the fire **scorched** another’s **plowed field and** cases in which **it singed his stones.** Even though the damaged object remains intact and is not consumed by the fire, one is still liable to pay for the damage caused.


###### Bava Kamma 6a:2
[Bava Kamma 6a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/6a:2)

הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן. לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְאֵתוֹיֵי אַבְנוֹ סַכִּינוֹ וּמַשָּׂאוֹ שֶׁהִנִּיחָן בְּרֹאשׁ גַּגּוֹ, וְנָפְלוּ בְּרוּחַ מְצוּיָה וְהִזִּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **The common denominator of** the components in all these categories is that it is their typical manner to cause damage. The Gemara asks: In order **to add what** *halakha* is this statement cited in the mishna? **Abaye said:** The stating of the common denominator in the mishna serves **to add** that one is liable in a case of **his stone, his knife, or his load, where he placed them on top of his roof, and they fell** off the roof **by means of a common wind and caused damage.**


###### Bava Kamma 6a:3
[Bava Kamma 6a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/6a:3)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי בַּהֲדֵי דְּקָא אָזְלִי קָא מַזְּקִי – הַיְינוּ אֵשׁ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** in which one would be liable for the damage that was caused? **If** it is a case **where** those items **cause damage as they are moving** through the air propelled by the wind, **that is** a subcategory of **Fire.**


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

מַאי שְׁנָא אֵשׁ – דְּכֹחַ אַחֵר מְעוֹרָב בּוֹ, וּמָמוֹנְךָ וּשְׁמִירָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ; הָנֵי נָמֵי, כֹּחַ אַחֵר מְעוֹרָב בָּהֶן, וּמָמוֹנְךָ וּשְׁמִירָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, one could claim: If so, **what is different** about **Fire** that defines it as a unique category? It is **that another force is involved with it** in causing damage, as it is the wind that causes the fire to spread and cause damage; **and** the entity propelled by the wind is **your property, and** responsibility for **its safeguarding,** to prevent it from causing damage, is incumbent **upon you.** In **these** cases, **too, another force is involved with them** in causing damage; **and** the objects are **your property, and** responsibility for **their safeguarding,** to prevent them from causing damage, is incumbent **upon you.** Perforce, there is no need for the common denominator in the mishna to teach the case of an object that causes damage when propelled off a roof by the wind. That case is included in the primary category of Fire that is explicitly mentioned in the mishna.


###### Bava Kamma 6a:5
[Bava Kamma 6a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/6a:5)

וְאֶלָּא בָּתַר דְּנָיְיחִי. אִי דְּאַפְקְרִינְהוּ – בֵּין לְרַב בֵּין לִשְׁמוּאֵל, הַיְינוּ בּוֹר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** perhaps the common denominator serves to teach the *halakha* that one is liable when **after** those objects fall from the roof **they come to rest** on the ground, and they cause damage as an obstacle on which a person or an animal stumbles. The mishna teaches that the one who placed them on the roof is liable. The Gemara questions this explanation: What are the circumstances in which one is liable? **If** it is a case **where one declared them ownerless, both according to Rav and according to Shmuel, this is** a subcategory of **Pit.**


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

מַאי שְׁנָא בּוֹר – שֶׁכֵּן תְּחִילַּת עֲשִׂיָּיתוֹ לְנֵזֶק, וּמָמוֹנְךָ וּשְׁמִירָתָן עָלֶיךָ; הָנֵי נָמֵי, תְּחִילַּת עֲשִׂיָּיתָן לְנֵזֶק, וּמָמוֹנְךָ וּשְׁמִירָתָן עָלֶיךָ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, one could claim: **What is different** about **Pit** that defines it as a unique category? It is **that its initial formation,** i.e., the digging of the pit, **is** done in a manner that can **result in damage, and** it is **your property, and** responsibility for **its safeguarding,** to prevent it from causing damage to others, is incumbent **upon you.** With regard to **these** items he had placed on the roof, **too, their initial formation,** i.e., when they are placed in the public domain, **is** done in a manner that can **result in damage, and** they are **your property, and** responsibility for **their safeguarding,** to prevent them from causing damage, is incumbent **upon you.** Perforce, there is no need for the common denominator in the mishna to teach the case where the objects fell from the roof, came to rest in the public domain, and were declared ownerless. That case is included in the primary category of Pit that is explicitly mentioned in the mishna.


###### Bava Kamma 6a:7
[Bava Kamma 6a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/6a:7)

אֶלָּא דְּלָא אַפְקְרִינְהוּ? לִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר: כּוּלָּם מִבּוֹרוֹ לָמַדְנוּ, הַיְינוּ בּוֹר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** perhaps the common denominator serves to teach the *halakha* that one is liable even in a case **where one did not declare them ownerless.** The Gemara asks: **According to Shmuel, who says: We learned** that one is liable to pay for damage caused by **all** obstacles that one places in a public domain, whether or not he declares them ownerless, **from** the *halakhot* with regard to **one’s pit; this is** a subcategory of **Pit.** The question remains: What *halakha* does the common denominator in the mishna teach?


###### Bava Kamma 6a:8
[Bava Kamma 6a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/6a:8)

לְעוֹלָם דְּאַפְקְרִינְהוּ; וְלָא דָּמוּ לְבוֹר, מָה לְבוֹר – שֶׁכֵּן אֵין כֹּחַ אַחֵר מְעוֹרָב בּוֹ; תֹּאמַר בְּהָנֵי, שֶׁכֹּחַ אַחֵר מְעוֹרָב בָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** the mishna teaches one’s liability in a case **where one declared** the objects **ownerless, and** even if he declared them ownerless, those objects **are not similar to** the primary category of **Pit. What** is notable **about** the primary category of **Pit?** It is notable **in that there is no other force involved with it** in causing the damage. **Will you say** the same **with regard to these** cases, **where** there is **another force involved with it** in causing the damage, i.e., the wind that propelled them from the roof to rest on the ground?


###### Bava Kamma 6a:9
[Bava Kamma 6a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/6a:9)

אֵשׁ תּוֹכִיחַ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: If one attempts to challenge the derivation from Pit in this manner, it is possible to respond: The *halakha* of the primary category of **Fire will prove** that this factor, that there is another force involved with the object in causing the damage, is not a reason to exempt one from paying restitution for the damage, as although there is another force involved in the spreading of a fire, one is liable for the damage the fire causes, so the *halakha* with regard to these objects can be derived from that of Fire.


###### Bava Kamma 6a:10
[Bava Kamma 6a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/6a:10)

מָה לְאֵשׁ – שֶׁכֵּן דַּרְכּוֹ לֵילֵךְ וּלְהַזִּיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions the derivation from Fire: **What** is notable **about Fire?** It is notable **in that its** typical **manner** is **to proceed** from one place to another **and** cause **damage.** Will you say the same with regard to these objects propelled by the wind into the public domain, where it is not their typical manner to proceed and cause damage? Accordingly, how can one learn the *halakha* in this case from that of Fire?


###### Bava Kamma 6a:11
[Bava Kamma 6a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/6a:11)

בּוֹר תּוֹכִיחַ! וְחָזַר הַדִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: If one attempts to challenge the derivation from Fire in this manner, it is possible to respond: The *halakha* of the primary category of **Pit will prove** that the lack of this characteristic, of a typical manner being to proceed and cause damage, is not a reason to exempt the owner of the objects from paying restitution for the damage, as that is the nature of Pit, and one is liable for damage caused by his pit. The Gemara notes: **And** as Pit and Fire each prove that the defining characteristic of the other is not decisive in establishing liability or exemption, **the derivation has reverted** to its starting point, and liability in these cases is derived from the common denominator of Pit and Fire. This is the *halakha* added by the common denominator stated in the mishna.


###### Bava Kamma 6a:12
[Bava Kamma 6a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/6a:12)

רָבָא אָמַר: לְאֵתוֹיֵי בּוֹר הַמִּתְגַּלְגֵּל בְּרַגְלֵי אָדָם וּבְרַגְלֵי בְּהֵמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** The stating of the common denominator in the mishna serves **to add** the *halakha* that one is liable in a case of **Pit where** an object **is rolled by the feet of a person or the hooves of an animal.** This is a case where one placed an obstacle in a public domain and the obstacle caused no damage where it was placed, but subsequently was kicked by passersby to a different location where it caused damage.


###### Bava Kamma 6a:13
[Bava Kamma 6a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/6a:13)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דְּאַפְקְרִינְהוּ – בֵּין לְרַב בֵּין לִשְׁמוּאֵל, הַיְינוּ בּוֹר;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** in which one is liable for damage in that case? **If** it is a case **where one declared** the objects **ownerless, both according to Rav and according to Shmuel this is** a subcategory of **Pit.**


###### Bava Kamma 6a:14
[Bava Kamma 6a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/6a:14)

מַאי שְׁנָא בּוֹר – שֶׁכֵּן תְּחִילַּת עֲשִׂיָּיתוֹ לְנֵזֶק, וּשְׁמִירָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ; הָנֵי נָמֵי – תְּחִילַּת עֲשִׂיָּיתָן לְנֵזֶק, וּשְׁמִירָתָן עָלֶיךָ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, one could claim: **What is different** about **Pit** that it is defined as a unique category? It is **that its initial formation,** i.e., the digging of the pit, **is** done in a manner that can **result in damage, and** responsibility for **its safeguarding,** to prevent it from causing damage to others, is incumbent **upon you.** With regard to **these** objects, **too, their initial formation,** i.e., when the obstacle reaches the in the public domain, **is** done in a manner that can **result in damage, and** responsibility for **their safeguarding,** to prevent them from causing damage, is incumbent **upon you.** Perforce, there is no need for the mishna to state their common denominator to teach the *halakha* in the case where the objects came to rest and are declared ownerless. That case is included in the primary category of Pit that is explicitly mentioned in the mishna.


###### Bava Kamma 6a:15
[Bava Kamma 6a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/6a:15)

אֶלָּא דְּלָא אַפְקְרִינְהוּ? לִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר כּוּלָּם מִבּוֹרוֹ לָמַדְנוּ – הַיְינוּ בּוֹר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** perhaps the common denominator serves to teach the *halakha* that one is liable even in a case **where one did not declare** the objects **ownerless.** The Gemara asks: **According to Shmuel, who says: We learned** that one is liable for damage caused by **all** obstacles that one places in a public domain, whether or not he declares them ownerless, **from** the *halakhot* with regard to **one’s pit, this is** a subcategory of **Pit.** What *halakha* does the common denominator in the mishna teach?


###### Bava Kamma 6a:16
[Bava Kamma 6a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/6a:16)

לְעוֹלָם דְּאַפְקְרִינְהוּ; וְלָא דָּמֵי לְבוֹר – מָה לְבוֹר, שֶׁכֵּן מַעֲשָׂיו גָּרְמוּ לוֹ; תֹּאמַר בְּהָנֵי, שֶׁאֵין מַעֲשָׂיו גָּרְמוּ לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** the mishna teaches one’s liability in a case **where one declared** the objects **ownerless, and** even if he declared them ownerless, those objects **are not similar to** the primary category of **Pit. What** is notable **about** the primary category of **Pit?** It is notable **in that one’s actions,** the digging of the pit, **cause** the damage. **Will you say** the same **with regard to these** cases, **where one’s actions do not cause** damage? Rather, it is the feet of the passersby that caused the damage, by rolling the object to a different location where it caused damage.


###### Bava Kamma 6a:17
[Bava Kamma 6a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/6a:17)

שׁוֹר יוֹכִיחַ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: If one attempts to challenge the derivation from Pit in this manner, it is possible to respond: The *halakha* of the primary category of **Ox will prove** that this fact, that one’s actions do not cause the damage, is not a reason to exempt one from paying restitution for the damage, as although the owner’s actions do not cause the ox to cause damage, one is liable for the damage caused by his ox.


###### Bava Kamma 6a:18
[Bava Kamma 6a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/6a:18)

מָה לְשׁוֹר, שֶׁכֵּן דַּרְכּוֹ לֵילֵךְ וּלְהַזִּיק. בּוֹר תּוֹכִיחַ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions the derivation from Ox: **What** is notable **about Ox?** It is notable **in that** it is the typical **manner** of the animals in these categories **to proceed** from one place to another **and** cause **damage.** By contrast, in the case of the obstacle kicked by passersby to a different location where it caused damage, it is not its typical manner to proceed and cause damage. Accordingly, how can one learn the *halakha* in this case from the primary category of Ox? The Gemara suggests: The primary category of **Pit will prove** that this fact, that the typical manner of a category’s components is not to proceed and cause damage, is not a reason to exempt one from paying restitution for the damage, as that is the nature of Pit, and one is liable for damage caused by his pit.


###### Bava Kamma 6a:19
[Bava Kamma 6a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/6a:19)

וְחָזַר הַדִּין, לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִרְאִי זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And** as Pit and Ox each proves that the defining characteristic of the other is not decisive in establishing one’s liability or exemption, **the derivation has reverted** to its starting point, which is that the defining **characteristic** of **this** primary category of Ox **is not similar to** the defining **characteristic** of **that** category of Pit, and liability in these cases is derived from the common denominator of Pit and Ox. This is the *halakha* added by the common denominator stated in the mishna.


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

רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמַר, לְאֵתוֹיֵי הָא דְּתַנְיָא: כׇּל אֵלּוּ שֶׁאָמְרוּ פּוֹתְקִין בִּיבוֹתֵיהֶן וְגוֹרְפִין מְעָרוֹתֵיהֶן; בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה – אֵין לָהֶם רְשׁוּת, בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים – יֵשׁ לָהֶם רְשׁוּת. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁבִּרְשׁוּת, אִם הִזִּיקוּ – חַיָּיבִים לְשַׁלֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Adda bar Ahava said:** The stating of the common denominator in the mishna serves **to add** the *halakha* that one is liable to pay damages in **this** case **that is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **all those** people **who** engage in activities that the Sages **stated** are permitted, i.e., those who **open their gutters** and drain the sewage from their houses into the public domain, **and** those who **flush out** the water from **their caves,** where foul-smelling water was stored, into the public domain, **during the summer they do not have permission** to do so, while **during the rainy season they have permission** to do so, since the street is rained upon in any event and thereby washed. And **although** all these people perform their actions **with permission, if they cause damage they are liable to pay** for it.


###### Bava Kamma 6a:21
[Bava Kamma 6a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/6a:21)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי בַּהֲדֵי דְּקָאָזְלִי מַזְּקִי, כֹּחוֹ הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** in which one is liable for damage caused by the sewage? **If** the sewage **causes damage as it is moving,** after he poured it into the public domain, **it is** damage caused by **his** own direct **action,** and it is no different from any other damage caused by a person. According to Rav, it is under the rubric of *Maveh* in the mishna. According to Shmuel it appears in the next mishna, and it is not derived from the common denominator mentioned in the mishna.


###### Bava Kamma 6a:22
[Bava Kamma 6a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/6a:22)

אֶלָּא בָּתַר דְּנָיַיח. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דְּאַפְקְרִינְהוּ – בֵּין לְרַב בֵּין לִשְׁמוּאֵל הַיְינוּ בּוֹר; מַאי שְׁנָא בּוֹר – דִּתְחִילַּת עֲשִׂיָּיתוֹ לְנֵזֶק, וּמָמוֹנְךָ וּשְׁמִירָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ; הָנֵי נָמֵי – תְּחִילַּת עֲשִׂיָּיתָן לְנֵזֶק, וּמָמוֹנְךָ וּשְׁמִירָתָן עָלֶיךָ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it is in a case where the damage was caused **after** the sewage **came to rest** on the floor, e.g., a passerby slipped on it. The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances? If** it is a case **where one declared** the sewage **ownerless, both according to Rav and according to Shmuel, this is** a subcategory of **Pit. What is different** about **Pit** that it is defined as a unique category? It is **that its initial formation,** i.e., the digging of the pit, **is** done in a manner that can **result in damage, and** it is **your property, and** responsibility for **its safeguarding,** to prevent it from causing damage to others, is incumbent **upon you.** With regard to **this** sewage, **too, its initial formation,** i.e., the placement of the sewage in the public domain, **is** done in a manner that can **result in damage, and** it is **your property, and** responsibility for **its safeguarding,** to prevent it from causing damage, is incumbent **upon you.**


###### Bava Kamma 6a:23
[Bava Kamma 6a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/6a:23)

אֶלָּא דְּלָא אַפְקְרִינְהוּ? לִשְׁמוּאֵל – דְּאָמַר: כּוּלָּם מִבּוֹרוֹ לָמַדְנוּ, הַיְינוּ בּוֹר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** perhaps the common denominator serves to teach the *halakha* that one is liable even in a case **where he did not declare** the sewage **ownerless.** The Gemara asks: **According to Shmuel, who says: We learned** that one is liable for damage caused by **all** obstacles that one places in a public domain, whether or not he declares them ownerless, **from** the *halakhot* with regard to **one’s pit, this is** a subcategory of **Pit.** The question remains: What *halakha* does the common denominator in the mishna teach?


###### Bava Kamma 6a:24
[Bava Kamma 6a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/6a:24)

לְעוֹלָם דְּאַפְקְרִינְהוּ; וְלָא דָּמֵי לְבוֹר – מָה לְבוֹר שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת, תֹּאמַר בְּהָנֵי דְּבִרְשׁוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** the mishna teaches one’s liability in a case **where he declared** the sewage **ownerless, and** even if he declared it ownerless, it **is not similar to** the primary category of **Pit. What** is notable **about** the primary category of **Pit?** It is notable **in that** the pit was dug in the public domain **without permission. Will you say** the same **with regard to these** cases **where** the sewage was channeled into the public domain **with permission?**