## Bava Kamma Daf 93a

###### Bava Kamma 93a:1
[Bava Kamma 93a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93a:1)

״הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי שֹׁלֵחַ מַלְאָךְ לְפָנֶיךָ, לִשְׁמָרְךָ בַּדָּרֶךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**“Behold, I send an angel before you, to keep you by the way”** (Exodus 23:20), indicating that an angel was sent in place of God to guard the Jewish people.


###### Bava Kamma 93a:2
[Bava Kamma 93a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93a:2)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַבָּה בַּר מָרִי, מְנָא הָא מִילְּתָא דְּאָמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי: בָּתַר מָרֵי נִיכְסֵי – צִיבֵי מְשֹׁךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְגַם לְלוֹט הַהֹלֵךְ אֶת אַבְרָם הָיָה צֹאן וּבָקָר וְאֹהָלִים״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to Rabba bar Mari: From where is this matter** derived **whereby people say: Drag wood after a property owner.** In other words, help out a wealthy man even in a small way, as this may lead to your benefiting from him. Rabba bar Mari **said to him** that the source is **as it is written: “And Lot also, who went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents”** (Genesis 13:5).


###### Bava Kamma 93a:3
[Bava Kamma 93a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93a:3)

אָמַר רַב חָנָן: הַמּוֹסֵר דִּין עַל חֲבֵירוֹ – הוּא נֶעֱנָשׁ תְּחִילָּה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַתֹּאמֶר שָׂרַי אֶל אַבְרָם: חֲמָסִי עָלֶיךָ״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיָּבֹא אַבְרָהָם לִסְפֹּד לְשָׂרָה וְלִבְכֹּתָהּ״. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּאִית לֵיהּ דִּינָא בְּאַרְעָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ In connection with the incident of Abraham and Abimelech mentioned in the mishna, the Gemara quotes a related statement. **Rabbi Ḥanan says: One who passes** the **judgment of another** to Heaven **is punished first, as it is stated: “And Sarai said to Abram: My wrong be upon you,** I gave my handmaid into your bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: The Lord judge between me and you” (Genesis 16:5). Sarai stated that God should judge Abram for his actions. **And it is written: “And Abraham came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her”** (Genesis 23:2), as Sarah died first. The Gemara comments: **And this matter applies** only in a situation **where he has** someone to do **judgment** for him **on earth** and has no need to appeal to the heavenly court.


###### Bava Kamma 93a:4
[Bava Kamma 93a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93a:4)

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: אוֹי לוֹ לַצּוֹעֵק יוֹתֵר מִן הַנִּצְעָק. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: אֶחָד הַצּוֹעֵק וְאֶחָד הַנִּצְעָק בַּמַּשְׁמָע, אֶלָּא שֶׁמְּמַהֲרִין לַצּוֹעֵק יוֹתֵר מִן הַנִּצְעָק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Concerning this, **Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Woe to he who cries** out to Heaven **more than the one about whom** he is **crying** out. The Gemara comments: **This** concept **is also taught** in a *baraita*: Both the **one who cries** out **and the one about whom** he is **crying** out **are included** in the verse discussing the cries of an orphan who is mistreated: “If you afflict them, for if they cry at all to Me, I will surely hear their cry. My wrath shall wax hot, and I will kill you with the sword” (Exodus 22:22–23). **But they are quicker** to punish **the one who cries** out **than the one about whom** he is **crying** out, as in the incident with Sarai.


###### Bava Kamma 93a:5
[Bava Kamma 93a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93a:5)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: לְעוֹלָם אַל תְּהִי קִלְלַת הֶדְיוֹט קַלָּה בְּעֵינֶיךָ. שֶׁהֲרֵי אֲבִימֶלֶךְ קִלֵּל אֶת שָׂרָה, וְנִתְקַיֵּים בְּזַרְעָהּ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הִנֵּה הוּא לָךְ כְּסוּת עֵינַיִם״ – אָמַר לָהּ: הוֹאִיל וְכִסִּית מִמֶּנִּי וְלֹא גִּילִּית שֶׁהוּא אִישֵׁךְ, וְגָרַמְתְּ לִי הַצַּעַר הַזֶּה, יְהִי רָצוֹן שֶׁיְּהוּ לָךְ בָּנִים כְּסוּיֵי עֵינַיִם. וְנִתְקַיֵּים בְּזַרְעָהּ – דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי כִּי זָקֵן יִצְחָק, וַתִּכְהֶיןָ עֵינָיו מֵרְאֹת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara provides another lesson from the story of Abraham and Abimelech. **And Rabbi Yitzḥak says: The curse of an ordinary person should never be** regarded as **light in your eyes, for Abimelech cursed Sarah and it was fulfilled in her descendant.** The curse on Sarah is **as it is stated: “Behold, it is to you a covering of the eyes”** (Genesis 20:16), meaning that **he said to her: Since you concealed** your status **from me and you did not reveal that** Abraham **is your husband, and you caused me this suffering, may it be** God’s **will that you should have children with covered eyes. And** this curse **was fulfilled in her descendant, as it is written: “And it came to pass, that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim, so that he could not see”** (Genesis 27:1).


###### Bava Kamma 93a:6
[Bava Kamma 93a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93a:6)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: לְעוֹלָם יְהֵא אָדָם מִן הַנִּרְדָּפִין, וְלֹא מִן הָרוֹדְפִין. שֶׁאֵין לְךָ נִרְדׇּף בָּעוֹפוֹת יוֹתֵר מִתּוֹרִים וּבְנֵי יוֹנָה, וְהִכְשִׁירָן הַכָּתוּב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abbahu says: A person should always be among those who are pursued and not among the pursuers.** One can prove that this is so, **as none among birds are pursued more than doves and pigeons,** as all predators hunt them, **and** from all birds **the verse deemed them fit to** be sacrificed on the **altar.**


###### Bava Kamma 93a:7
[Bava Kamma 93a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93a:7)

הָאוֹמֵר ״סַמֵּא אֶת עֵינִי״ כּוּ׳. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַסִּי בַּר חָמָא לְרָבָא: מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא, וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to **one who says** to another: **Blind my eye,** or: Cut off my hand, or: Break my leg, and he does so, the latter is liable to pay for the damage, even if the injured party explicitly instructed him to do so on the condition that he will be exempt from payment. But if one instructs another to damage his property on the condition that he will be exempt from payment, he is exempt. **Rav Asi bar Ḥama said to Rava: What is different** in **the first clause and what is different** in **the latter clause?**


###### Bava Kamma 93a:8
[Bava Kamma 93a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93a:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רֵישָׁא – לְפִי שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מוֹחֵל עַל רָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **said to him:** In the case of **the first clause** he is liable, despite the fact that he was instructed to carry out the injury on the condition that he would be exempt, **because a person does not forgo** compensation **for** damage to his **extremities** such as his eyes, hands, and feet, mentioned in the mishna (92a). Consequently, when he told the assailant that he would be exempt, the presumption is that he was not sincere.


###### Bava Kamma 93a:9
[Bava Kamma 93a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93a:9)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְכִי אָדָם מוֹחֵל עַל צַעֲרוֹ?! דְּתַנְיָא: ״הַכֵּנִי, פְּצָעֵנִי, עַל מְנָת לִפְטוֹר״ – פָּטוּר! אִישְׁתִּיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Asi bar Ḥama **said to him: But does a person forgo** compensation **for his pain** when he doesn’t lose a limb? **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to one who said to another: **Strike me,** or **wound me, on the condition that** you will **be exempt** from payment, he is **exempt.** According to Rava’s reasoning, he should be liable in this case as well, as the presumption should be that he was not sincere. Rava **was silent,** as he did not have a response.


###### Bava Kamma 93a:10
[Bava Kamma 93a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93a:10)

אָמַר: מִידֵּי שְׁמִיעַ לָךְ בְּהָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָכִי אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: מִשּׁוּם פְּגַם מִשְׁפָּחָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava **said** to him: **Have you heard anything with regard to this** matter? Rav Asi bar Ḥama **said to him** that **this is what Rav Sheshet said:** It is **because** loss of a limb may result in **a family flaw,** i.e., it may cause harm to the family name. One who loses a limb not only suffers pain; his family suffers as well. He is not in a position to forgive the assailant for the harm caused to his family, but he may forgo compensation for his own pain. Consequently, if he instructed another merely to injure him, without causing loss of limb, on condition that the assailant will be exempt from payment, the assailant will be exempt.


###### Bava Kamma 93a:11
[Bava Kamma 93a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93a:11)

אִיתְּמַר, רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם פְּגַם מִשְׁפָּחָה. רָבָא אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מוֹחֵל עַל רָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים שֶׁלּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It **was stated** that the *amora’im* disagreed concerning the explanation for the ruling of the first clause of the mishna. **Rabbi Oshaya says:** It is **because** loss of a limb may result in **a family flaw. Rava says:** It is **because a person does not forgo** compensation **for** damage to **his extremities.**


###### Bava Kamma 93a:12
[Bava Kamma 93a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93a:12)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: יֵשׁ ״הֵן״ שֶׁהוּא כְּ״לָאו״, וְיֵשׁ ״לָאו״ שֶׁהוּא כְּ״הֵן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There is a yes that,** based on other factors, **is like a no** and is not viewed as giving consent. **And** conversely, **there is a no that,** based on other factors, **is like a yes,** and although one said no it is as though he gave consent. In this case as well, where he said: On condition to be exempt, he was not sincere.


###### Bava Kamma 93a:13
[Bava Kamma 93a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93a:13)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: ״הַכֵּנִי, פְּצָעֵנִי״, ״עַל מְנָת לִפְטוֹר?״ וְאָמַר לוֹ ״הֵן״ – הֲרֵי יֵשׁ ״הֵן״ שֶׁהוּא כְּ״לָאו״. ״קְרַע אֶת כְּסוּתִי״, ״עַל מְנָת לִפְטוֹר?״ וְאָמַר לוֹ: ״לָאו״ – הֲרֵי ״לָאו״ שֶׁהוּא כְּ״הֵן״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments that **this is also taught** in a *baraita*. With regard to one who said to another: **Strike me,** or **wound me;** and the other asks: Is this **on the condition that** I will **be exempt** from payment? **And** the first one **said to him,** in the tone of a question: **Yes,** this is an example of the principle: **There is a yes that is like a no.** It is as if the victim asked: Even if I give you permission to do it, do you think that I would forgo the compensation? By contrast, if one said: **Tear my garment,** and the other asks: Is this **on the condition that** I will **be exempt** from payment? **And he said to him,** in the tone of a question: **No, this** is an example of **a no that is like a yes,** since he meant to say that if he did not want to exempt him from payment he would not ask him to do it.


###### Bava Kamma 93a:14
[Bava Kamma 93a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93a:14)

״שַׁבֵּר אֶת כַּדִּי״, ״קְרַע אֶת כְּסוּתִי״ – חַיָּיב. וּרְמִינְהִי: ״לִשְׁמוֹר״ – וְלֹא לְאַבֵּד, ״לִשְׁמוֹר״ – וְלֹא לִקְרוֹעַ, ״לִשְׁמוֹר״ – וְלֹא לְחַלֵּק לַעֲנִיִּים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if one instructed another: **Break my jug,** or: **Tear my garment,** and the other did so, he is **liable** to pay for the damage. **And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** from a *baraita*: The verses state with regard to bailees: “If a man delivers to his neighbor money or vessels to safeguard” (Exodus 22:6), and: “If a man delivers to his neighbor an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to safeguard” (Exodus 22:9). The Sages derived from these verses that the bailee is liable if the item was given to him **to safeguard, but not** where it was given to him **to destroy;** if it was given to him **to safeguard, but not** where it was given to him **to tear;** if it was given to him **to safeguard, but not** where it was given to him **to distribute to the poor.** This indicates that a bailee is not liable for damage to an item if he was told to tear it, even if the owner did not state that it is on condition to be exempt.


###### Bava Kamma 93a:15
[Bava Kamma 93a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93a:15)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא דַּאֲתַי לִידֵיהּ, הָא דְּלָא אֲתַי לִידֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna said:** This is **not difficult,** as **this** mishna that obligates him to pay for the damage is dealing with a case **where it came into his possession,** and he was responsible for it before the owner instructed him to tear it. Therefore, even if he was instructed to tear it, he is liable. And **that** *baraita*, which exempts him from paying, is discussing a case **where it did not come into his possession,** but he simply tore it.


###### Bava Kamma 93a:16
[Bava Kamma 93a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93a:16)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה: ״לִשְׁמוֹר״ – דַּאֲתַי לִידֵיהּ מַשְׁמַע!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said to** Rav Huna: But the phrase in the verse **“to safeguard,”** which obligates a bailee, **indicates that it came into his possession** already, and this is the case of the *baraita* that rules he is exempt.


###### Bava Kamma 93a:17
[Bava Kamma 93a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93a:17)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבָּה: הָא וְהָא דַּאֲתָא לִידֵיהּ, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא דַּאֲתָא לִידֵיהּ בְּתוֹרַת שְׁמִירָה, הָא דַּאֲתָא לִידֵיהּ בְּתוֹרַת קְרִיעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rabba said: This and that** are discussing a case **where it came into his possession, and** it is **not difficult. This** mishna is discussing a case **where it came into his possession as** an item given for **safeguarding,** and he is exempt if the owner stated explicitly that this will be the case, and **that** *baraita* is discussing a case **where it came into his possession as** an item given for **tearing.**


###### Bava Kamma 93a:18
[Bava Kamma 93a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93a:18)

הָהוּא אַרְנְקָא דִצְדָקָה דַּאֲתַי לְפוּמְבְּדִיתָא, אַפְקְדַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף גַּבֵּי הָהוּא גַּבְרָא. פְּשַׁע בַּהּ, אֲתוֹ גַּנָּבֵי גַּנְבוּהָ. חַיְּיבֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי, וְהָתַנְיָא: ״לִשְׁמוֹר״ – וְלֹא לְחַלֵּק לַעֲנִיִּים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: There was **a certain purse** full **of charity** money **that came to** the city of **Pumbedita. Rav Yosef deposited it with a certain man.** That man **was negligent in** safeguarding **it** and **thieves came** and **stole it. Rav Yosef deemed** the bailee **liable** to pay compensation. **Abaye said to** Rav Yosef: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **To safeguard, but not** where it was given to him **to distribute to the poor?** This seems to teach that with regard to money that is distributed to the poor, there is no *halakha* of safeguarding.


###### Bava Kamma 93a:19
[Bava Kamma 93a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93a:19)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עַנְיֵי דְפוּמְבְּדִיתָא מִיקָּץ קִיץ לְהוּ, וְ״לִשְׁמוֹר״ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yosef **said to him: The poor of Pumbedita** have an amount that is **set for them** to receive. Each poor person already had a specific sum designated for him, **and** accordingly **is** in the category of: **To safeguard.** Therefore, he is liable.


###### Bava Kamma 93a:20
[Bava Kamma 93a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/93a:20)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַחוֹבֵל**