## Bava Kamma Daf 9b

###### Bava Kamma 9b:1
[Bava Kamma 9b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9b:1)

אִילֵּימָא שְׁלִישׁ בֵּיתוֹ, אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, אִי אִיתְרְמִי לֵיהּ תְּלָתָא מִצְוָתָא – לִיתֵּיב לְכוּלֵּיהּ בֵּיתֵיהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If we say** it means that one should spend up to **one-third of his estate** to perform a mitzva, **but if that is so,** and **if it happened to him** that he became obligated in **three mitzvot** at the same time, **should he give his entire estate** away in order to fulfill those mitzvot? One is certainly not required to do so.


###### Bava Kamma 9b:2
[Bava Kamma 9b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9b:2)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: בְּהִידּוּר מִצְוָה – עַד שְׁלִישׁ בְּמִצְוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** what **Rabbi Zeira said** is that **for** the **embellishment** of the performance **of a mitzva,** e.g., to purchase a more beautiful item used in the performance of a mitzva, one should spend **up to one-third** more than the cost **of** the standard item used to perform **the mitzva.**


###### Bava Kamma 9b:3
[Bava Kamma 9b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9b:3)

בָּעֵי רַב אָשֵׁי: שְׁלִישׁ מִלְּגָיו, אוֹ שְׁלִישׁ מִלְּבַר? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi raises a dilemma:** How is this one-third calculated? Is it **one-third from within,** i.e., he calculates the cost of a standard item, adds one-third of that value, and spends the total on purchasing a more beautiful item; **or** is it **one-third from without,** i.e., one-third of the sum he ultimately spends should be the additional sum added in order to purchase a more beautiful item? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Bava Kamma 9b:4
[Bava Kamma 9b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9b:4)

בְּמַעְרְבָא אָמְרִי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא: עַד שְׁלִישׁ – מִשֶּׁלּוֹ. מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ – מִשֶּׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In the West,** Eretz Yisrael, **they say in the name of Rabbi Zeira:** Of the money one spends on purchasing a more beautiful item to perform a mitzva, **up to one-third** more than the cost of a standard item comes **from his own** finances, but **from this** point **forward,** any additional sum spent on purchasing a more beautiful item comes **from** the largesse of **the Holy One, Blessed be He,** i.e., God will reimburse him for spending that additional sum.


###### Bava Kamma 9b:5
[Bava Kamma 9b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9b:5)

**מַתְנִי׳** כֹּל שֶׁחַבְתִּי בִּשְׁמִירָתוֹ – הִכְשַׁרְתִּי אֶת נִזְקוֹ. הִכְשַׁרְתִּי בְּמִקְצָת נִזְקוֹ – חַבְתִּי בְּתַשְׁלוּמֵי נִזְקוֹ כְּהֶכְשֵׁר כׇּל נִזְקוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **anything** for **which I became responsible for safeguarding it** to prevent it from causing damage, if it in fact causes damage, it is considered as if **I** actively **facilitated that damage,** and accordingly I must pay for it. In any case in which **I facilitated part of the damage it** caused, **I am liable for payments** of restitution **for damage it** caused, **as** if I were the **one who facilitated the entire damage it** caused.


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

נְכָסִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן מְעִילָה, נְכָסִים שֶׁהֵן שֶׁל בְּנֵי בְּרִית, נְכָסִים הַמְיוּחָדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One is liable only with regard to damage caused to **property** for **which,** were he to use it for a non-sacred purpose, he **would not be** liable **for** the **misuse** of consecrated property; with regard to damage caused to **property that belongs to members of the covenant,** i.e., Jews; and with regard to **assigned property,** the meaning of which the Gemara will explain.


###### Bava Kamma 9b:7
[Bava Kamma 9b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9b:7)

וּבְכׇל מָקוֹם, חוּץ מֵרְשׁוּת הַמְיוּחֶדֶת לַמַּזִּיק,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** one is liable for damage caused **in any place except for a domain designated** exclusively **for** the use of **the one responsible for the damage.**


###### Bava Kamma 9b:8
[Bava Kamma 9b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9b:8)

וּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק וְהַמַּזִּיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** one is liable for damage caused in **a domain** designated for the joint use **of the injured** party **and the one liable for the damage.**


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

כְּשֶׁהִזִּיק חָב הַמַּזִּיק לְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי נֶזֶק בְּמֵיטַב הָאָרֶץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When** an animal or item one is responsible to safeguard **causes damage, the one liable for the damage** caused by insufficiently safeguarding it **is obligated to pay payments** of restitution **for damage with** his best-quality **land.**


###### Bava Kamma 9b:10
[Bava Kamma 9b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9b:10)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֹּל שֶׁחַבְתִּי בִּשְׁמִירָתוֹ – הִכְשַׁרְתִּי אֶת נִזְקוֹ. כֵּיצַד? שׁוֹר וּבוֹר שֶׁמְּסָרָן לְחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, וְהִזִּיקוּ – חַיָּיב לְשַׁלֵּם. מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּאֵשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught** a *baraita* that elucidates the mishna’s ruling: With regard to **anything** for **which I became responsible for safeguarding it** to prevent it from causing damage, if it in fact causes damage, it is considered as if **I** actively **facilitated that damage** and accordingly must pay for it. **How so?** In the case of **an ox or a pit that one transferred to** the care of **a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor,** whose presumed limited intellectual capacity means they are deemed incapable of sufficiently safeguarding them from causing damage, **and** the ox or pit **caused damage,** the *halakha* is that since the owner of the ox or pit did not fulfill his duty to safeguard them, he is **liable to pay** for the damage, **which is not so in** a corresponding case where the damage is caused by **a fire.**


###### Bava Kamma 9b:11
[Bava Kamma 9b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9b:11)

בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בְּשׁוֹר קָשׁוּר וּבוֹר מְכוּסֶּה, דִּכְווֹתַהּ גַּבֵּי אֵשׁ – גַּחֶלֶת; מַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elucidates: **With what are we dealing? If we say** that the *baraita* deals with **a tethered ox or a covered pit,** which cannot cause damage in the manner in which the owner left them, then the case **in the corresponding** situation **of fire,** where he is not liable, is where one transferred **an ember** to one of limited halakhic competence, which, had it been left alone, would not have erupted into a fire and caused damage. This cannot be correct, because if so, **what is different here** in the case of an ox and a pit, where one is liable, **and what is different there** in the case of the fire, that exempts him from liability? There seems to be no reason to differentiate between them.


###### Bava Kamma 9b:12
[Bava Kamma 9b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9b:12)

אֶלָּא בְּשׁוֹר מוּתָּר וּבוֹר מְגוּלֶּה, דִּכְווֹתַהּ גַּבֵּי אֵשׁ – שַׁלְהֶבֶת; ״מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּאֵשׁ״ – דְּפָטוּר?! וְהָא אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּחִזְקִיָּה: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁמָּסַר לוֹ גַּחֶלֶת – וְלִיבָּהּ, אֲבָל שַׁלְהֶבֶת – חַיָּיב! מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּהָא בָּרִי הֶזֵּיקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the *baraita* must be dealing with **an untethered ox or an exposed pit,** which can cause damage in the manner in which the owner left them. If so, then the case **in the corresponding** situation **of fire,** where he is not liable, is where one transferred **a flame** to one of limited halakhic competence, which can also cause damage in this form. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: But if so, why does the *baraita* state: **Which is not so** in the case of damage caused **by a fire, as one is exempt** from paying damages? **But** this is untenable, as **didn’t Reish Lakish say in the name of Ḥizkiyya: They taught** that one is exempt from damage caused by a fire **only** in a case where **he transferred an ember to** one of limited halakhic competence **who** then **fanned** it into a flame. **But** if he transferred **a flame** to him, the one who transferred the flame to him **is liable** for any damage caused. **What is the reason?** He is responsible **because the** capacity for it to cause **damage is certain.**


###### Bava Kamma 9b:13
[Bava Kamma 9b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9b:13)

לְעוֹלָם בְּשׁוֹר קָשׁוּר וּבוֹר מְכוּסֶּה, וְדִכְווֹתַהּ גַּבֵּי אֵשׁ – גַּחֶלֶת. וּדְקָא אָמְרַתְּ: מַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to its initial suggestion: **Actually,** the ruling of the *baraita* is stated **with regard to a tethered ox or a covered pit, and** the case **in the corresponding** situation **of fire,** where he is not liable, is where one transferred **an ember** to one of limited halakhic competence. **And** with regard to **that** which **you said** in order to reject this: **What is different here** in the case of an ox and a pit that causes him to be liable **and what is different there** in the case of the fire, that exempts him from liability? Seemingly, in all these cases the item was not able to cause damage in its current form, so he is exempt from liability.


###### Bava Kamma 9b:14
[Bava Kamma 9b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9b:14)

שׁוֹר – דַּרְכֵּיהּ לְנַתּוֹקֵי; בּוֹר – דַּרְכֵּיהּ לְנַתּוֹרֵי; גַּחֶלֶת – כַּמָּה דְּשָׁבֵיק לַהּ, מִעְמָיא עָמְיָא וְאָזְלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: You could answer as follows: The typical **manner of an ox is to free** itself from being tethered and the typical **manner of a pit is** for its cover **to become dislodged.** Therefore, as it is negligent to transfer an ox or pit to someone who is incapable of sufficiently safeguarding them, the one who transferred the ox or flame to them is liable. By contrast, with regard to **an ember, as long as he leaves it** alone **it progressively dims,** and the only way in which it will cause damage is if someone else actively fans it into a flame; therefore, he is not liable.


###### Bava Kamma 9b:15
[Bava Kamma 9b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9b:15)

וּלְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ מָסַר לוֹ שַׁלְהֶבֶת – נָמֵי פָּטוּר, דִּכְווֹתַהּ הָכָא – בְּשׁוֹר מוּתָּר וּבוֹר מְגוּלֶּה; מַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says: Even** if the *halakha* is that if **one transferred a flame to** one of limited halakhic competence he **is exempt,** it is possible to say that the case **in the corresponding** situation **here** in the first clause of the *baraita* is stated **with regard to an untethered ox or an exposed pit.** The Gemara asks: But if so, **what is different here** in the case of an ox and a pit that causes him to be liable **and what is different there** in the case of the fire that exempts him from liability? Seemingly, in all these cases the item that was transferred is capable of causing damage in its current form, so he would be expected to be liable.


###### Bava Kamma 9b:16
[Bava Kamma 9b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9b:16)

הָתָם – צְבָתָא דְחֵרֵשׁ קָא גָּרֵים, הָכָא – לָא צְבָתָא דְחֵרֵשׁ קָא גָּרֵים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **There,** in the case of fire, ultimately **the deaf-mute’s handling [*tzevata*]** of the flame **causes** the damage, as if it were not for him moving the flame no damage would have been caused. **Here,** in the case of the ox and the pit, **the deaf-mute’s handling** of them **does not cause** the damage. Rather, the damage was caused even though they remained in exactly the same dangerous state in which the one who had transferred them to the deaf-mute did so. Therefore, the damage is a result of that person’s negligence, and he is liable.


###### Bava Kamma 9b:17
[Bava Kamma 9b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9b:17)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חוֹמֶר בְּשׁוֹר מִבְּבוֹר, חוֹמֶר בְּבוֹר מִבְּשׁוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught:** There is **a stringency that applies to** the category of **Ox as opposed to** the category of **Pit,** and conversely, there is **a stringency that applies to Pit as opposed to Ox.**


###### Bava Kamma 9b:18
[Bava Kamma 9b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/9b:18)

חוֹמֶר בְּשׁוֹר מִבְּבוֹר – שֶׁהַשּׁוֹר מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַכּוֹפֶר, וְחַיָּיב בִּשְׁלֹשִׁים שֶׁל עֶבֶד, נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ – אָסוּר בַּהֲנָאָה, וְדַרְכּוֹ לֵילֵךְ וּלְהַזִּיק; מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּבוֹר. חוֹמֶר בְּבוֹר מִבְּשׁוֹר – שֶׁהַבּוֹר תְּחִילַּת עֲשִׂיָּיתוֹ לְנֵזֶק, וּמוּעָד מִתְּחִילָּתוֹ; מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּשׁוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* elucidates: The **stringency that applies to Ox as opposed to Pit** is **that** if **the ox** kills a Jew, the owner is liable to **pay a ransom** to the victim’s heirs. **And for** killing **a slave** the owner of the ox **is liable** to pay **thirty** *sela* to the slave’s master. Furthermore, in such a case, once the court hears the evidence and the **verdict of** the ox **is complete** and the court rules that the ox must be killed, it is **prohibited to derive** any **benefit** from the ox. **And** from then, it is considered that **the** typical **manner** of the ox is **to proceed and cause damage.** All of **this is not so in** the case of **a pit** that caused damage. And the **stringency,** i.e., the reason to be stringent, **that applies to Pit as opposed to Ox** is **that** with regard to **the** primary category of **Pit, its initial formation,** e.g., its digging, **is** done in a manner that can **result in damage, and** the one responsible for it **is** considered **forewarned from its inception. This is not so with regard to Ox.**