## Bava Kamma Daf 6b

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

שׁוֹר יוֹכִיחַ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: The primary category of **Ox will prove** that this fact, that the ox, i.e., the cause of the damage, entered the public domain with permission, is not a reason to exempt its owner from payment, as that is the nature of the primary category of Ox, and one is liable for damage caused by his ox.


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

מָה לְשׁוֹר שֶׁכֵּן דַּרְכּוֹ לֵילֵךְ וּלְהַזִּיק.

**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 sewage, 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?


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

בּוֹר תּוֹכִיחַ! וְחָזַר הַדִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: If one attempts to challenge the derivation from Ox 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 the typical manner being 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. The Gemara notes: **And** as Pit and Ox 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 Ox. This is the *halakha* added by the common denominator stated in the mishna.


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

רָבִינָא אָמַר, לְאֵתוֹיֵי הָא דִּתְנַן: הַכּוֹתֶל וְהָאִילָן שֶׁנָּפְלוּ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְהִזִּיקוּ – פָּטוּר מִלְּשַׁלֵּם. נָתְנוּ לוֹ זְמַן לָקוֹץ אֶת הָאִילָן וְלִסְתּוֹר אֶת הַכּוֹתֶל, וְנָפְלוּ בְּתוֹךְ הַזְּמַן וְהִזִּיקוּ – פָּטוּר. לְאַחַר הַזְּמַן – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina 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 we learned** in a mishna (117b): In the case of **a wall or a tree that fell** on its own **into the public domain and caused damage,** the owner of the wall or tree is **exempt from paying** damages because he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control. But if the court had sensed the potential danger and had **allotted him** a certain amount of **time** during which he was obligated **to chop down the tree or to demolish the wall,** and he had not yet done so, **and** the wall or tree **fell** into the public domain **within the** allotted **time and caused damage,** he is **exempt** from paying damages. If he did not do so and it fell **after the** allotted **time** expired, he is **liable** to pay the damages.


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

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּאַפְקְרֵהּ, בֵּין לְרַב בֵּין לִשְׁמוּאֵל – הַיְינוּ בּוֹר; מַאי שְׁנָא בּוֹר – דְּהֶזֵּיקוֹ מָצוּי, וּשְׁמִירָתוֹ עָלֶיךָ; הָנֵי נָמֵי – הֶזֵּיקָן מָצוּי, וּשְׁמִירָתָן עָלֶיךָ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances? If** it is a case **where one declared** the fallen tree or wall **ownerless, both according to Rav and according to Shmuel, this is** a subcategory of **Pit. What is different** about the primary category of **Pit** that it is defined as a unique category? What is different is **that its damage is commonplace, and** it **is your property, and** responsibility for **its safeguarding,** to prevent it from causing damage, is incumbent **upon you.** In **these** cases involving the tree and the wall, **too, their damage is commonplace, and** they are **your property, and** responsibility for **their safeguarding,** to prevent them from causing damage, is incumbent **upon you.**


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

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If** it is a case **where one did not declare them ownerless, according to Shmuel, who says: We learned** that one is liable for damage caused by **all** obstacles that he places in the public domain whether or not he declares them ownerless, **from** the *halakhot* with regard to **one’s pit, this is** a subcategory of **Pit.**


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

לְעוֹלָם דְּאַפְקְרִינְהוּ; וְלָא דָּמֵי לְבוֹר, מָה לְבוֹר – שֶׁכֵּן תְּחִילַּת עֲשִׂיָּיתוֹ לְנֵזֶק; תֹּאמַר בְּהָנֵי – שֶׁאֵין תְּחִילַּת עֲשִׂיָּיתָן לְנֵזֶק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** the mishna teaches one’s liability in a case **where one declared** the tree or wall **ownerless, and** even if he declared them ownerless, they **are not similar to** the primary category of **Pit. What** is notable **about** the primary category of **Pit?** It is notable **in that its initial formation,** i.e., the digging of the pit, **is** done in a manner that can **result in damage. Will you say** the same **with regard to these** cases, **where their initial formation,** i.e., the planting of the tree and the building of the wall, **is not** done in a manner that can **result in damage?**


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

שׁוֹר יוֹכִיחַ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: The primary category of **Ox will prove** that this factor, of not being initially formed in a manner that can result in damage, is not a reason to exempt its owner from payment, as that is the nature of the primary category of Ox, i.e., an ox is not born in a manner that results in damage, and one is liable for damage caused by his ox.


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

מָה לְשׁוֹר – שֶׁכֵּן דַּרְכּוֹ לֵילֵךְ וּלְהַזִּיק.

**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 tree and wall, it is not their typical manner to proceed and cause damage. Accordingly, how can one learn the *halakha* in these cases from the primary category of Ox?


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

בּוֹר תּוֹכִיחַ! וְחָזַר הַדִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: If one attempts to challenge the derivation from Ox 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 the typical manner being 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. The Gemara notes: **And** as Pit and Ox 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 the cases of the tree and the wall 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 6b:11
[Bava Kamma 6b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/6b:11)

כְּשֶׁהִזִּיק חָב הַמַּזִּיק. ״חָב הַמַּזִּיק״?! ״חַיָּיב הַמַּזִּיק״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: הַאי תַּנָּא יְרוּשַׁלְמִי הוּא, דְּתָנֵי לִישָּׁנָא קַלִּילָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states: And **when** a component of any of these categories **causes damage, the** owner or generator of the component that **caused damage is obligated [*ḥav*]** to pay restitution with best-quality land. The Gemara asks: Why does the *tanna* of the mishna use the unusual expression: **The one liable for the damage is *ḥav*** to pay? He should have used the more standard expression for liability: **The one liable for the damage is *ḥayyav*** to pay. The Gemara explains: **Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav said: This *tanna* is a Jerusalemite, who teaches** using **a light** and concise **formulation,** as *ḥav* is more concise than *ḥayyav*.


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

לְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי נֶזֶק. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם״ – מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ שֶׁל נִיזָּק, וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ שֶׁל נִיזָּק, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna continues: The owner or generator of the component that caused damage is obligated **to pay** restitution for damage with best-quality land. The one liable for the damage is indebted **to pay payments** of restitution **for damage** with his superior-quality land. **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The Torah states with regard to paying damages: **“Of the best of his field, and of the best of his vineyard he shall pay”** (Exodus 22:4). What is the meaning of “his field” and “his vineyard”? It refers to that property of the injured party; the one liable for the damage pays from land of a quality that is commensurate to **the best**-quality **field of** the **injured** party **and** to **the best**-quality **vineyard of** the **injured** party, even if the property he damaged was of a lesser quality; this is **the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.**


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

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לֹא בָּא הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא לִגְבּוֹת לַנִּזָּקִין מִן הָעִידִּית. וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Akiva says** that **the verse comes only to** allow **injured** parties **to collect** compensation **from superior-quality** land belonging to the one liable for the damage, in the event that he has no money or movable property. **And** by means of **an *a fortiori*** inference one can derive that the Temple treasury of **consecrated** property collects from superior-quality land.


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

וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אָכַל שְׁמֵינָה – מְשַׁלֵּם שְׁמֵינָה; אָכַל כְּחוּשָׁה – מְשַׁלֵּם שְׁמֵינָה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael,** if one’s animal **ate** from **a rich** garden bed, it is understandable that he **must pay** the injured party the value of **a rich** garden bed. But if it **ate** from **a poor** garden bed, is it reasonable that he **pays** the value of **a rich** garden bed? While this is the straightforward meaning of his statement, it is untenable, as he would be paying more than the value of the damage he caused.


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

אָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָכַל עֲרוּגָה בֵּין הָעֲרוּגוֹת, וְלָא יָדְעִינַן אִי כְּחוּשָׁה אֲכַל אִי שְׁמֵינָה אֲכַל; דִּמְשַׁלֵּם שְׁמֵינָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Idi bar Avin said: With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case **where** the animal that caused the damage **ate** from one **garden bed among** other **garden beds, and we do not know whether it ate** from **a poor** one **or it ate** from **a rich** one. In such a case, the *halakha* is **that** the animal’s owner **pays** the injured party the value of **a rich** one.


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

אָמַר רָבָא: וּמָה אִילּוּ יָדְעִינַן דִּכְחוּשָׁה אֲכַל – לָא מְשַׁלֵּם אֶלָּא כְּחוּשָׁה; הַשְׁתָּא, דְּלָא יָדְעִינַן אִי כְּחוּשָׁה אֲכַל אִי שְׁמֵינָה אֲכַל, מְשַׁלֵּם שְׁמֵינָה?! הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava** raised a question and **said: And if we would know that** the animal **ate** from **a poor** garden bed, its owner would have to **pay only** the value of **a poor** garden bed. **Now that we do not know whether** it **ate** from **a poor** garden bed or **if** it **ate** from **a rich** garden bed, is it reasonable that he should have to **pay** the value of **a rich** garden bed? There is a general principle governing monetary disputes that **the burden of proof falls on the claimant.** Therefore, so long as the injured party cannot prove that the animal ate from the rich garden bed, he should not be entitled to collect the value of such a garden bed.


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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה עִידִּית דְּנִיזָּק – כְּזִיבּוּרִית דְּמַזִּיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing with a case **where,** after appraising the damage, the court comes to collect from the one liable for the damage, but he does not have money available to pay for the damage. And the *tanna’im* disagree in a case where **the superior-quality** land **[*iddit*],** i.e., the best land, **of the injured** party **is equal** in quality **to the inferior-quality** land **of the one liable for the damage,** and the one liable for the damage also has land of superior quality.


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

וּבְהָא פְּלִיגִי – רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל סָבַר: בִּדְנִיזָּק שָׁיְימִינַן, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: בִּדְמַזִּיק שָׁיְימִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And they disagree with regard to this: Rabbi Yishmael holds: We appraise** the value of the land **of the injured** party, and therefore the one liable for the damage can pay with his inferior-quality fields, which are equal in quality to the best fields owned by the injured party. **And Rabbi Akiva holds: We appraise** the value of the land **of the one liable for the damage** and have him pay with his fields of superior quality.


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

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל? נֶאֱמַר ״שָׂדֶה״ לְמַטָּה, וְנֶאֱמַר ״שָׂדֶה״ לְמַעְלָה; מָה שָׂדֶה הָאָמוּר לְמַעְלָה – דְּנִיזָּק, אַף שָׂדֶה הָאָמוּר לְמַטָּה – דְּנִיזָּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **What is the reason of Rabbi Yishmael?** The word **“field” is stated below,** toward the end of the verse: “Of the best of his field, and of the best of his vineyard he shall pay” (Exodus 22:4). **And** the word **“field” is** also **stated above,** at the beginning of that same verse: “If a man causes a field or vineyard to be eaten, and he sends forth his animal, and it consumed in the field of another.” **Just as** the **field which is stated above** belongs to **the injured** party, **so too the field stated below** belongs to **the injured** party.


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

וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, ״מֵיטַב שָׂדֵהוּ וּמֵיטַב כַּרְמוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם״ – דְּהַאיְךְ דְּקָא מְשַׁלֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Akiva** holds: When the verse says: **“Of the best of his field and of the best of his vineyard he shall pay,”** it means from the best **of** the one **who is paying,** i.e., from the best fields belonging to the one liable for the damage.


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

וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל – אַהֲנִי גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה, וְאַהְנִי קְרָא; אַהֲנִי גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה – כִּדְקָאָמֵינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** how would **Rabbi Yishmael** respond to this? The **verbal analogy** between the two instances of the word “field” **is effective, and** the straightforward meaning of **the verse** itself **is effective. The verbal analogy is effective, as I stated.** It serves to teach that when it says that he pays from the best of his field, it means from land equal in quality to the best field owned by the injured party.


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

אַהֲנִי קְרָא – כְּגוֹן דְּאִית לֵיהּ לְמַזִּיק עִידִּית וְזִיבּוּרִית, וְעִידִּית לְנִיזָּק; וְזִיבּוּרִית דְּמַזִּיק לָא שַׁוְיָא כְּעִידִּית דְּנִיזָּק, דִּמְשַׁלֵּם לֵיהּ מִמֵּיטַב דִּידֵיהּ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And the straightforward meaning of **the verse** itself **is effective,** as it serves to teach a different *halakha*, in a case **where the one liable for the damage has superior-quality** land **and inferior-quality** land**, and the injured** party **has superior-quality** land**, and the inferior-quality** land **of the one liable for the damage is not as good as the superior-quality** land **of the injured** party. In this case, the *halakha* is **that** the one liable for the damage **pays** the injured party **from his best** land, i.e., from the superior-quality land that he owns.


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

דְּלָא מָצֵי אָמַר לֵיהּ: תָּא אַתְּ גְּבִי מִזִּיבּוּרִית, אֶלָּא גְּבִי מִמֵּיטָב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as** the one liable for the damage **is** legally **unable to say to him: You** should **come** and **collect from** my **inferior-quality** land. He cannot say this because the standard for classifying land as being of superior-quality is set according to the injured party’s superior-quality land, and the inferior-quality land of the one liable for the damage is of a lower quality than that. **Rather,** the injured party **collects** his damages **from** the **best**-quality land of the one liable for the damage.


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

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לֹא בָּא הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא לִגְבּוֹת לַנִּיזָּקִין מִן הָעִידִּית, וְקַל וָחוֹמֶר לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ. מַאי ״קַל וָחוֹמֶר לַהֶקְדֵּשׁ״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The *baraita* cited above teaches: **Rabbi Akiva says** that **the verse comes only to** allow **injured** parties **to collect** compensation **from superior-quality** land belonging to the one liable for the damage, in the event that he has no money or movable property. **And** by means of **an *a fortiori*** inference one can derive that the Temple treasury of **consecrated** property collects from superior-quality land. The Gemara asks: **What** is the ***a fortiori*** inference from ordinary damage **to** damage involving the **consecrated** property? To which case does this refer?


###### Bava Kamma 6b:25
[Bava Kamma 6b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/6b:25)

אִילֵּימָא דִּנְגַח תּוֹרָא דִידַן לְתוֹרָא דְהֶקְדֵּשׁ, ״שׁוֹר רֵעֵהוּ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא – וְלֹא שׁוֹר שֶׁל הֶקְדֵּשׁ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If we say** that **our ox,** i.e., an ox belonging to a Jew, **gored an ox that is consecrated** property, there is a difficulty, as **the Merciful One states:** “And if one man’s ox hurts the **ox of another”** (Exodus 21:35). This teaches that the *halakha* applies only if the ox hurt an ox belonging to another Jew, **but not** if it hurt **an ox that is consecrated** property. In the latter case no damages are collected.


###### Bava Kamma 6b:26
[Bava Kamma 6b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/6b:26)

אֶלָּא לָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי מָנֶה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת״, דְּאָתֵי גִּזְבָּר וְשָׁקֵיל מֵעִידִּית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** we say that the *a fortiori* inference is referring not to a case of damage but **to one who** vows and **says: It is** incumbent **upon me** to donate **one hundred dinars for Temple maintenance.** And the inference teaches that if the one who took the vow has no money, then the Temple **treasurer comes and collects** the hundred dinars **from** his **superior-quality** land.


###### Bava Kamma 6b:27
[Bava Kamma 6b:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/6b:27)

לֹא יְהֵא אֶלָּא בַּעַל חוֹב,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this understanding: The Temple treasurer **should not** be treated any better than an ordinary **creditor,**