## Bava Kamma Daf 91b

###### Bava Kamma 91b:1
[Bava Kamma 91b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/91b:1)

וְקָתָנֵי: הַחוֹבֵל בְּעַצְמוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי – פָּטוּר! הָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: לָא מִבַּעְיָא בּוֹשֶׁת, דְּאָדָם רַשַּׁאי לְבַיֵּישׁ אֶת עַצְמוֹ; אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ חֲבָלָה, דְּאֵין אָדָם רַשַּׁאי לְחַבֵּל בְּעַצְמוֹ – אֲחֵרִים שֶׁחָבְלוּ בּוֹ, חַיָּיבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and it teaches:** With regard to **one who injures himself, although it is not permitted for him** to do so, he is nevertheless **exempt** from any sort of penalty, indicating that the prohibition is in effect even with regard to humiliation. The Gemara answers: **This is** what Rabbi Akiva **said to** the man: **It is not necessary** to say with regard to **humiliation, where it is permitted for a person to humiliate himself,** that someone else who humiliated him is liable. **But even** with regard to **injury, where it is not permitted for a person to injure himself, others who injured him are liable.**


###### Bava Kamma 91b:2
[Bava Kamma 91b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/91b:2)

וְאֵין אָדָם רַשַּׁאי לְחַבֵּל בְּעַצְמוֹ? וְהָתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל נִשְׁבַּע לְהָרַע בְּעַצְמוֹ – וְלֹא הֵרַע, יְהֵא פָּטוּר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לְהָרַע אוֹ לְהֵטִיב״ – מָה הֲטָבָה רְשׁוּת, אַף הֲרָעָה רְשׁוּת; אָבִיא נִשְׁבָּע לְהָרַע בְּעַצְמוֹ וְלֹא הֵרַע!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara discusses whether it is permitted to injure oneself. **And is a person not permitted to injure himself? But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: One **might** have thought that if one **takes an oath to do evil to himself and did not do evil he will be exempt** from bringing an offering for having transgressed this oath. Therefore, **the verse states:** “Or if anyone swear clearly with his lips **to do evil or to do good”** (Leviticus 5:4), which teaches that **just as** taking an oath to **do good** for which one is liable is referring to **an optional** activity, as opposed to taking an oath to perform a mitzva, **so too,** taking an oath to **do evil** is referring to **an optional** activity, as opposed to taking an oath to transgress. **I** can therefore **include** within the category of one who is liable if he transgressed his oath the person who **takes an oath to do evil to himself and did not do evil**. It is clear from this *baraita* that doing evil to oneself is permitted.


###### Bava Kamma 91b:3
[Bava Kamma 91b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/91b:3)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּ״אֵשֵׁב בְּתַעֲנִית״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Shmuel says:** The ruling of the *baraita* is not referring to one who takes an oath to injure himself but is stated **with regard to** one who takes an oath stating: **I will sit in** observance of **a fast,** which it is permitted to do.


###### Bava Kamma 91b:4
[Bava Kamma 91b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/91b:4)

דִּכְווֹתַהּ גַּבֵּי הֲרָעַת אֲחֵרִים – לְהֹשִׁיבָם בְּתַעֲנִית; אֲחֵרִים מִי מוֹתֵיב לְהוּ בְּתַעֲנִיתָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Earlier in this same *baraita*, it states that one who takes an oath to do evil to others is not liable for violating his oath if he does not do evil, as it is prohibited to do evil to others. If the *baraita* is referring to one who takes an oath to fast, then **in the corresponding** situation **in the context of doing evil to others,** the *baraita* must also then be referring to one who takes an oath **to have** others **sit in** observance of **a fast.** The Gemara asks: **Can** one compel **others** to **sit in** observance of **a fast?**


###### Bava Kamma 91b:5
[Bava Kamma 91b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/91b:5)

אִין; דִּמְהַדַּק לְהוּ בְּאִנְדְּרוֹנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Yes;** it is possible, as by preventing others from accessing food he can impose a fast on them, e.g., in a situation **where he confined them in a room.**


###### Bava Kamma 91b:6
[Bava Kamma 91b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/91b:6)

וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵיזֶהוּ הֲרָעַת אֲחֵרִים? ״אַכֶּה פְּלוֹנִי וְאֶפְצַע אֶת מוֹחוֹ״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions the assertion that this is the case of the *baraita*: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **What is** considered taking an oath to **do evil** to **others?** It is considered such if one takes an oath stating: **I will strike so-and-so and I will injure his brain.** Accordingly, in the corresponding situation of doing evil to oneself it is necessary to explain that the *baraita* is referring to causing injury as well, and the inference that this is permitted remains.


###### Bava Kamma 91b:7
[Bava Kamma 91b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/91b:7)

אֶלָּא תַּנָּאֵי הִיא; דְּאִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: אֵין אָדָם רַשַּׁאי לְחַבֵּל בְּעַצְמוֹ, וְאִיכָּא מַאן דְּאָמַר: אָדָם רַשַּׁאי לְחַבֵּל בְּעַצְמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it must be that this **is** a dispute between ***tanna’im*, as there is** a *tanna* **who says** that **it is not permitted for a person to injure himself, and there is** a *tanna* **who says** that **it is permitted for a person to injure himself.**


###### Bava Kamma 91b:8
[Bava Kamma 91b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/91b:8)

מַאן תַּנָּא דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: אֵין אָדָם רַשַּׁאי לְחַבֵּל בְּעַצְמוֹ? אִילֵּימָא הַאי תַּנָּא הוּא – דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְאַךְ אֶת דִּמְכֶם לְנַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם אֶדְרֹשׁ״ – רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: מִיַּד נַפְשׁוֹתֵיכֶם אֶדְרֹשׁ אֶת דִּמְכֶם;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Who is the *tanna* that you heard that says: It is not permitted for a person to injure himself? If we say** that **it is this *tanna*, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: **“And surely your blood of your souls will I require”** (Genesis 9:5), and **Rabbi Elazar says: From the hand of your souls,** i.e., from yourself, **will I require your blood,** meaning one is liable even for taking his own life, that is not a correct inference.


###### Bava Kamma 91b:9
[Bava Kamma 91b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/91b:9)

וְדִלְמָא קְטָלָא שָׁאנֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But perhaps killing is different.** While Rabbi Elazar holds that it is prohibited to take one’s own life, it cannot be inferred from here that he holds that one is liable for injuring himself.


###### Bava Kamma 91b:10
[Bava Kamma 91b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/91b:10)

אֶלָּא הַאי תַּנָּא הוּא – דְּתַנְיָא: מְקָרְעִין עַל הַמֵּת, וְלֹא מִדַּרְכֵי הָאֱמוֹרִי. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁהַמְקָרֵעַ עַל הַמֵּת יוֹתֵר מִדַּאי – לוֹקֶה מִשּׁוּם ״בַּל תַּשְׁחִית״. וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן גּוּפוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Rather, it is** the opinion of **this *tanna*, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **One may rend** garments in anguish **over one who died, and** it is **not** considered **of the ways of the Amorites,** but a Jewish custom. **Rabbi Elazar says: I heard that one who rends** his garments **excessively over one who died is flogged for** having transgressed the prohibition of: **Do not destroy** (see Deuteronomy 20:19). The Gemara suggests: **And all the more so** it is the case that according to Rabbi Elazar one who injures **his body** in anguish transgresses this prohibition.


###### Bava Kamma 91b:11
[Bava Kamma 91b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/91b:11)

וְדִלְמָא בְּגָדִים שָׁאנֵי, דִּפְסֵידָא דְּלָא הָדַר הוּא! כִּי הָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן קָרֵי [לְהוּ] לְמָאנֵי[הּ] ״מְכַבְּדוֹתַי״, וְרַב חִסְדָּא כַּד הֲוָה מְסַגֵּי בֵּינֵי הִיזְמֵי (וְהִגֵּא) [וְהִגֵּי] – מְדַלֵּי לְהוּ לְמָאנֵיהּ, אָמַר: זֶה מַעֲלֶה אֲרוּכָה, וְזֶה אֵינוֹ מַעֲלֶה אֲרוּכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **But perhaps garments are different,** in **that** tearing them **is a loss that is irreversible, like that** practice **of Rabbi Yoḥanan,** who would **refer to his garments as: My honor, and** like that practice of **Rav Ḥisda,** who, **when he would walk among thorns and shrubs,** would **raise his clothing** despite the fact that his skin would get scratched by the thorns. **He said** in explanation of his actions: **This** flesh **will heal** if scratched, **but that** garment **will not heal** if torn. Similarly, perhaps it is prohibited to rend one’s garments, but it is permitted to injure oneself.


###### Bava Kamma 91b:12
[Bava Kamma 91b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/91b:12)

אֶלָּא הַאי תַּנָּא הוּא – דְּתַנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַקַּפָּר בְּרַבִּי, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו מֵאֲשֶׁר חָטָא עַל הַנָּפֶשׁ״? וְכִי בְּאֵיזֶה נֶפֶשׁ חָטָא זֶה? אֶלָּא שֶׁצִּיעֵר עַצְמוֹ מִן הַיַּיִן. וַהֲלֹא דְּבָרִים קַל וְחוֹמֶר – וּמָה זֶה, שֶׁלֹּא צִיעֵר עַצְמוֹ אֶלָּא מִן הַיַּיִן, נִקְרָא חוֹטֵא; הַמְצַעֵר עַצְמוֹ מִכׇּל דָּבָר, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, it is this *tanna*, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Elazar HaKappar the Distinguished said: What** is the meaning when **the verse states** with regard to a nazirite: **“And he shall atone for him for sinning by the soul”** (Numbers 6:11)? **And with which soul did this** person **sin** by becoming a nazirite? **Rather,** in **that he afflicted himself** by abstaining **from wine** he is considered to have sinned with his own soul, and he must bring a sin-offering for the naziriteship itself, for causing his body to suffer. **And are** these **matters not** inferred ***a fortiori*: And just as this** person **who afflicted himself** by abstaining **only from wine is** nevertheless **called a sinner, one who afflicts himself** by abstaining **from everything,** through fasting or other acts of mortification, **all the more so** is he described as a sinner? Consequently, Rabbi Elazar HaKappar holds that one may not harm himself in any manner.


###### Bava Kamma 91b:13
[Bava Kamma 91b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/91b:13)

הַקּוֹצֵץ נְטִיעוֹתָיו [וְכוּ׳]. תָּנֵי רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חַנָּה קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב: ״שׁוֹרִי הָרַגְתָּ״, ״נְטִיעוֹתַי קָצַצְתָּ״; ״אַתָּה אָמַרְתָּ לִי לְהוֹרְגוֹ״, ״אַתָּה אָמְרַתְּ לִי לְקוֹצְצוֹ״ – פָּטוּר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִם כֵּן, לָא שְׁבַקְתְּ חַיֵּי לְבִרְיָיתָא! כֹּל כְּמִינֵּיהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **One who cuts** down **his** own **saplings,** although it is not permitted for him to do so, is exempt from payment. Nevertheless, others who cut down his saplings are liable. **Rabba bar bar Ḥana taught** the following *baraita* **before Rav:** If one charged another: **You killed my ox,** or: **You cut** down **my saplings,** and you are liable to pay for them, and the other responds: **You told me to kill** the ox, or: **You told me to cut** down the saplings, he is **exempt** from paying. Rav **said to him: If that is so, you let no creature exist. Is it in his** power to assert that because the other instructed him to cause damage he is exempt? With this claim, anyone who causes damage can exempt himself.


###### Bava Kamma 91b:14
[Bava Kamma 91b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/91b:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֶיסְמְיַיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא; תִּתַּרְגַּם מַתְנִיתָךְ בְּשׁוֹר הָעוֹמֵד לַהֲרִיגָה, וּבְאִילָן הָעוֹמֵד לִקְצִיצָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba bar bar Ḥana **said to** Rav: **Shall I erase this** *baraita* from the *baraitot* that I teach? Rav **said to him: No,** just **interpret** that **your *baraita*** is stated **with regard to an ox that is ready to be killed,** e.g., it had gored, and the owner decided to have it killed, **and** it is stated **with regard to a tree that is ready to be cut** down for whatever reason, e.g., it was worshipped as part of an idolatrous rite or it is situated in a manner that poses a danger to the public. In such a case there is reason to believe that he was in fact instructed to cut it down.


###### Bava Kamma 91b:15
[Bava Kamma 91b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/91b:15)

אִי הָכִי, מַאי קָא טָעֵין לֵיהּ? דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא בָּעֵינָא לְמִיעְבַּד הָא מִצְוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** that the owner of the ox or tree acknowledges that it would be killed or cut down in any event, **what claim is he stating to him,** as there was no loss resulting from the action of the other? The Gemara answers: The case is **where he said to him: I desire to perform this mitzva** of removing a danger or destroying idolatry by myself, and therefore I am demanding payment from you for having prevented me from doing so.


###### Bava Kamma 91b:16
[Bava Kamma 91b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/91b:16)

דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְשָׁפַךְ וְכִסָּה״ – מִי שֶׁשָּׁפַךְ, יְכַסֶּה. וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁשָּׁחַט, וְקָדַם חֲבֵירוֹ וְכִסָּה, וְחִיְּיבוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לִיתֵּן לוֹ עֲשָׂרָה זְהוּבִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states with regard to one who slaughters an undomesticated animal or a bird: **“He shall pour** out the blood thereof, **and he shall cover** it with dust” (Leviticus 17:13). This teaches that **the one who poured** the blood, i.e., the one who slaughtered, **shall cover** the blood. **An incident** occurred **involving one who slaughtered** an undomesticated animal or bird, **and another preempted** him **and covered** the blood, **and Rabban Gamliel deemed him liable to give ten golden coins to** the one who slaughtered the animal, as he prevented him from performing the mitzva.


###### Bava Kamma 91b:17
[Bava Kamma 91b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/91b:17)

אָמַר רַב: דִּיקְלָא דִּטְעַן קַבָּא – אָסוּר לְמִקְצְצֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ In connection with the prohibition against cutting down trees the Gemara notes: **Rav said** with regard to **a palm tree that** still **produces** fruit in the amount of **a *kav*,** that it is **prohibited to cut it** down due to the prohibition of: “When you shall besiege a city…you shall not destroy the trees” (Deuteronomy 20:19).


###### Bava Kamma 91b:18
[Bava Kamma 91b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/91b:18)

מֵיתִיבִי: כַּמָּה יְהֵא בַּזַּיִת וְלֹא יִקְצְצֶ[נּ]וּ? רוֹבַע! שָׁאנֵי זֵיתִים, דַּחֲשִׁיבִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to the statement of Rav from what was taught in a mishna (*Shevi’it* 4:10): **How much** fruit must **be on an olive tree so** that one may **not cut it** down? **A quarter**-*kav*. Why did Rav say that it must produce a full *kav*? The Gemara answers: **Olive trees are different, since they are significant.** Therefore, even a quarter-*kav* is valuable.


###### Bava Kamma 91b:19
[Bava Kamma 91b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/91b:19)

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: לָא שְׁכֵיב שִׁיבְחַת בְּרִי, אֶלָּא דְּקַץ תְּאֵינְתָּא בְּלָא זִמְנַהּ. אָמַר רָבִינָא: וְאִם הָיָה מְעוּלֶּה בְּדָמִים, מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ḥanina said: My son Shivḥat did not die** for any reason **other** than **that he cut** down **a fig tree before its time. Ravina says: But if** the lumber **was greater in monetary** value than its fruits, it is **permitted** to chop it down, and this does not violate the prohibition against destroying a tree.


###### Bava Kamma 91b:20
[Bava Kamma 91b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/91b:20)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: ״רַק עֵץ אֲשֶׁר תֵּדַע״ – זֶה אִילַן מַאֲכָל, ״כִּי לֹא עֵץ מַאֲכָל הוּא״ – זֶה אִילַן סְרָק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This** *halakha* **is also taught** in a *baraita*. The verse states: “Only the trees of which you know that they are not trees for food, them you may destroy and cut down” (Deuteronomy 20:20). **“Only the trees of which you know”; this** is referring to **a tree** that bears fruit used for **food,** and it is permitted to cut down this type of tree under certain circumstances. **“That they are not trees for food”; this** is referring to **a barren tree.**


###### Bava Kamma 91b:21
[Bava Kamma 91b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/91b:21)

וְכִי מֵאַחַר שֶׁסּוֹפֵ[נ]וּ לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל דָּבָר, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״כִּי לֹא עֵץ מַאֲכָל״? לְהַקְדִּים סְרָק לְמַאֲכָל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And since** the *baraita* **will ultimately include all types** of trees, so that even a tree that produces fruit may be cut down, **what,** then, is the meaning when **the verse states: “That** they are **not trees for food,”** which indicates that it is permitted to cut down only a barren tree? The Gemara answers: It is **to give precedence** to cutting down **a barren** tree **over** a tree whose fruit is used for **food.**