אלא אמר רבא הכי קאמר מי שהיה כותלו כולי—Rather, said Rovoh; this is what he said; he whose wall was, etc. Overview¹ רבא explained that the משנה is teaching us that if a person had a wall which was distanced four אמות from his friend’s wall, and his wall collapsed, the new wall needs also to be distanced ד' אמות from his friend’s wall, תוספות questions the necessity of teaching this rule in this manner.

תוספות asks: הקשה רבינו יצחק בן מרדכי דלמה ליה למינקט בכי האי גוונא – The ריב"ם asked; why did the תנא of the משנה find it necessary to mention this ruling, in such an awkward manner; meaning – שהיה לו כותל ברחוק ארבע אמות ונפל – That he already had a wall a distance of ד' אמות from his neighbor’s wall, and it collapsed, so the new wall must also be distanced ד' אמות; why mention all this – ליתני שלא יסמוך כותלו לכותל חבירו אלא אם כן הרחיק ארבע אמות² – The משנה should have taught instead, that one should not put his wall near his friend’s wall unless he distanced his wall ד' אמות from his friend’s wall?! תוספות anticipates (and rejects) a possible answer: וליכא למימר דדוקא בכי האי גוונא – And we cannot say that it is only when it specifically occurred in this manner – שהיה רחוק כבר ארבע אמות והרחיק הראשון קאמר דלא יסמוך³ – Where it was already distanced ד' אמות, for he distanced the first wall, it is only in this case that the משנה rules that he cannot be סומך; however if he never distanced himself, he need not distance himself now – תוספות rejects this proposed answer:

For if indeed this is so why does the גמרא shortly challenge this ruling by saying; ‘the reason he must distance**** from a window is because he should not darken it,⁴ or the reason he must distance is because of the ladder,⁵ but not on account of דוושא’, when in those cases (one can say) he was never מרחיק previously so therefore there is no הרחקה for דוושא, since according to this proposed answer, הרחקה for דוושא is only required when he was already מרחיק previously. Therefore, according to the proposed answer, the questions on רבא are not understood. However, since the גמרא did ask these questions, this proves that the הרחקה of דוושא is even by the initial wall, so why did the משנה have to state its ruling in a case where the initial wall collapsed?!**** תוספות does not answer his question.⁶

SUMMARY It is not understood why the משנה had to give a case where there was an initial wall; the same rule applies even if this was the first wall.

THINKING IT OVER How can we explain why תוספות did not accept the answer⁷ of the רשב"א and רא"ש?

footnotes: ¹ See ‘Overview’ to previous תוס' ד"ה וקמא ² Why mention that there was a previous wall (distanced ד' אמות) which collapsed; what does that add?! ³ The reason why we should make this distinction is because if initially the first wall was distanced ד' אמות, one can argue that perhaps the neighbor paid him to distance himself ד' אמות or they came to a mutual agreement (with a קנין) to distance ד' אמות, therefore now this same agreement is binding, but if there was never a wall, one may argue that דוושא is not a sufficient reason to distance one wall from the other (see the end of the previous תוס' ד"ה וקמא that דוושא is less of a reason to distance than other הרחקות נזיקין). ⁴ The גמרא later on this עמוד challenges רבא, who maintains that the reason for the הרחקה in our משנה is because of דוושא, from another משנה which states that when erecting a wall near the neighbors existing wall which has windows, one must distance the new wall from the windows ד' אמות in order not to darken the windows. The גמרא infers that the only reason for the הרחקה is שלא יאפיל, but otherwise there would be no need to be מרחיק on account of דוושא. ⁵ The גמרא asked an additional question from the משנה which states that one must distance a wall from a rain gutter ד' אמות in order that there be room to place a ladder to clean out the gutter. The same question arises that the only reason we need to distance the wall is because of the ladder, but if not for that concern we would not need to distance for we are not concerned for דוושא. ⁶ The רשב"א and the רא"ש answer that there is a novelty that one must distance even if there was a prior wall which was distanced ד' אמות. We might have thought the since there already were two walls with a ד' אמות separation, so there was sufficient דוושא to strengthen the ground and the walls, therefore now when there is a new wall, there is no longer a need for דוושא, therefore the משנה teaches that even in this case there is still a need for דוושא (and הרחקה). See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁷ See footnote # 6.

אבל משום דוושא לא—However, not because of the traffic

OVERVIEW The גמרא challenged the view of רבא who taught that the reason the walls need to be separated by ד' אמות is because we want that there should be traffic between the walls (דוושא) which will solidify the ground between the walls and prevent them from collapsing. The גמרא challenged רבא from the סיפא of our משנה which states that when erecting a wall near the neighbor’s existing wall which has windows, one must distance the new wall from the windows ד' אמות (and as the ברייתא explains) in order not to darken the windows. The גמרא infers that the only reason for the הרחקה is שלא יאפיל, but otherwise there would be no need to be מרחיק on account of דוושא. Prior to this question the גמרא surmised that in an old city, a wall of a חצר does not require דוושא,¹ only the wall surrounding a גינה,² however in a new city even the wall of a חצר requires דוושא.³ Based on these qualifiers, תוספות has a question.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר ולימא דאיירי בעיר ישנה⁴ – And if you will say, but let the גמרא answer that the משנה regarding the windows is discussing an old city, when there is no need for דוושא, therefore the only reason to distance ד' אמות from the windows is משום שלא יאפיל! תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו תם דבית הוי כגינה⁵ לפי שנותנין מטה וכלים אצל הכותל – And the ר"ת answers that the wall of a house is like the wall of a garden, people do not walk immediately adjacent to the wall, because they put a bed and utensils near the wall – תוספות offers another distinction between חצר and בית: ועוד יש לומר דבחצר איכא דוושא דרבים מה שאין כן בבית – And furthermore, one can say that by a חצר (which serves many houses) there is much traffic, which is not the case by a house, which only serves a single family. Therefore because of these two reasons, even if it were a עיר ישנה there would still be a need for דוושא and the sגמרא' question would remain. תוספות offers an alternate approach: ולרבינו יצחק נראה דניחא ליה לשנויי בעיר חדשה דומיא דרישא⁶ – And it appears to the ר"י that the גמרא prefers to explain the case of חלונות even by a new city (where דוושא is usually required) for the גמרא prefers that the סיפא of חלונות should be similar to the רישא, which is in a case of עיר חדשה – וכן ההיא⁷ דמרחיקין את הכותל מן המזחילה – And similarly regarding that משנה which requires distancing the wall from the gutter, the גמרא also prefers that it is in an עיר חדשה just like the previous משנה –

Even though that the משנה of מרחיקין את הסולם מן השובך interrupts between our משנה and the משנה of מזחילה, nevertheless the גמרא still prefers that also the משנה of מזחילה is by an עיר חדשה.

SUMMARY We cannot answer that the משנה of חלונות is by an עיר ישנה, for a כותל בית is more like a כותל גינה (than a כותל חצר) because there are items near the כותל which prevent דוושא, or there is not sufficient דוושא by a כותל בית (less people) as there is by a כותל חצר (more people). Alternately we prefer the סיפא (and the subsequent משנה) to be like the רישא by an עיר חדשה.

THINKING IT OVER Why did ר' אושעיא assume that the רישא is discussing an עיר חדשה?⁸

footnotes: ¹ The ground has already been hardened by the many years people have been walking there. ² People do not walk as much in a garden (because of the plants growing there) as they do in a חצר (which is made for general use). ³ See the פ' הרמב"ן that according to רב our משנה is by a עיר ישנה (therefore the distancing is only by כותל גינה) however according to ר' אושעיא the משנה is by עיר חדשה (therefore the distancing is [even] by כותל חצר). The question from חלונות (presumably) is (only) according to ר' אושעיא. ⁴ See ‘Overview’ (and footnote # 1). ⁵ See footnote # 2. People make use of the space near the outside wall of the house, therefore people do not walk adjacent to that wall, so even in an עיר ישנה there is still a need for דוושא by a כותל בית.. ⁶ See footnote # 3. The entire question was only according to ר' אושעיא who maintains that the רישא (and the סיפא) is discussing an עיר חדשה. According to רב there never was a question from חלונות. ⁷ The גמרא shortly asks an additional question on רבא (regarding the requirement for דוושא) from this משנה which states that one must distance a wall from a gutter ד' אמות in order to allow him place for a ladder to clean his gutter. The question is why mention the ladder; he needs to distance ד' אמות because of דוושא. Seemingly here too, the גמרא could have answered (as תוספות asked previously) that we are discussing an עיר ישנה where there is no need for דוושא.According to the ר"י the answer is the same, for the גמרא prefers that this משנה as well should follow the pattern of our משנה, which (according to אושעיא) is in an עיר חדשה. ⁸ See נחלת משה.

וכמה אמר רב ייבא כולי—And how much; Rav Yeyvoh said, etc.

OVERVIEW The גמרא established the ברייתא, which required distancing a wall from (a wall with) windows, in a case where the wall was perpendicular to the window wall. The גמרא asked how far must the distance be, and רב ייבא answered, the width of the window. Shortly the גמרא asked again, how can we say that we need to distance the width of the window, but the משנה states that we need to distance ד' אמות from the window. תוספות assumed that these two questions (וכמה, and ד' אמות תנן) were asked by the same מקשן, which leads to תוספות question.

תוספות asks: ותימה דהשתא בעי וכמה ובתר הכי פריך והתנן ארבע אמות¹ – And it is astounding! For now the מקשן asks, and how much must he distance the wall from the windows, and later the מקשן asks, but we learnt that he must distance ד' אמות (so how can ר' ייבא say כמלא רוחב החלון)?! תוספות answers: ויש לומר דרב ייבא גופיה בעי וכמה ולא גמרא² – And one can say that רב ייבא himself asked 'וכמה' and answered, but it was not the מקשן of the גמרא who asked 'וכמה' –

And something similar to this is found in פרק אלו מציאות.

SUMMARY Sometimes the one who answers is the one who asked.

THINKING IT OVER Why would ר' ייבא assume that the ברייתא is independent of the משנה?⁴ And is it?

footnotes: ¹ Since the מקשן knew that the distance is ד' אמות (as he asks later), why did he ask now וכמה?! ² ר' ייבא asked 'וכמה', for he assumed that this ברייתא of כדי שלא יאפיל is independent of our משנה, so he did not assume that the distance of the משנה applies to the ברייתא. The מקשן later, who asked והאנן תנן ד' אמות, was a new מקשן (not ר' ייבא) and he understood that the ברייתא is merely an elaboration of the משנה (not an independent ברייתא), therefore he asked on ר' ייבא. Therefore there is no question since there are two different מקשים. See ‘Thinking it over’. ³ The גמרא there asks on the משנה regarding פירות מפוזרות that one may keep, 'וכמה', and ר' יצחק answers קב בד' אמות. See the תוספות there that it is evident from the continuation of the גמרא that ר' יצחק was the one who asked 'וכמה' and he gave the answer, עיי"ש. ⁴ See footnote # 2.

במדיר את כותלו—Where he slants his wall

OVERVIEW רב זביד explained that there is no concern that the owner of the wall will stand on his wall and look into the windows (of the other person’s house), since he made the top of the wall on a slant, no one can stand there. תוספות clarifies why there is a concern in the first place.

תוספות anticipates a difficulty: ולא מצי לשנויי¹ במגביה כותלו ד' אמות² – But the גמרא could not have answered that since we are discussing a case where he raised his wall ד' אמות, so seemingly how can he see inside the widow?! תוספות replies:

For since the new wall is standing perpendicular to the window, meaning that the length of the wall is facing the width of the window, therefore he is able to stand at the edge of the wall and bend down and peer into the windows.³****

SUMMARY A height of ד' אמות cannot ensure that in a perpendicular wall, the owner will not be able to bend down and look inside, even if the wall is ד' אמות higher than the windows.

THINKING IT OVER Why is there a difference, regarding the ability to bend down and peek into the window,⁴ whether the wall is parallel or perpendicular to the window?⁵

footnotes: ¹ The גמרא asked (on the answer of רב ייבא), ‘but he can still peer’ into the window; to which רב זביד answered במדיר. ² The ברייתא clearly states that the new wall must be ד' אמות above the window, so how can the גמרא ask 'והלא מציץ'?! ³ See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁴ See footnote # 3. ⁵ See נחלת משה.

והא אנן תנן ארבע אמות—But we learnt four Ahmois

OVERVIEW The גמרא asked how can רב ייבא say that distance from the windows is the width of the window, when in our משנה it states that one must distance his wall from the windows ד' אמות. Our תוספות justifies and clarifies this question:

For our משנה is also discussing a case where the new wall is perpendicular to the wall with the windows. We know this to be so, since our משנה is not concerned for דוושא, it is only concerned because of the windows, and nevertheless it requires ד' אמות.

SUMMARY The משנה mentions חלונות, indicating that the distancing is not for דוושא.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות is apparently convinced that the reason of הרחקה in the משנה is not because of דוושא.³ Why then was it necessary for the גמרא to challenge רבא (who offered the reason of דוושא) from a ברייתא, when the גמרא could have asked from our משנה?!⁴

footnotes: ¹ Seemingly what is the sגמרא' question. Perhaps our משנה is discussing parallel walls where ד' אמות is required for דוושא, and the ברייתא (which רב ייבא explains) is regarding perpendicular walls, where there is no דוושא and the only concern is שלא יאפיל, for which רוחב החלון is sufficient. ² The distancing in our משנה is not because of דוושא, for if it was for דוושא, why mention windows at all. Obviously there is no concern for דוושא (for they are not parallel), merely for שלא יאפיל (even when it is מן הצד) and nevertheless it requires distancing of ד' אמות which contradicts the view of רב ייבא. See ‘Thinking it over’. ³ See footnote # 2. ⁴ See מהרש"א.

כדי שיהא זוקף את הסולם—So that he should raise up the ladder

OVERVIEW The משנה teaches that if a person has a gutter running along the side of his roof, and his neighbor intends to build a wall parallel to the gutter, he is required to distance his wall ד' אמות from the gutter,¹ in order that the neighbor be able to place a ladder² in these ד"א and lean it against his gutter to clean it out.

תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty:³

The משנה is discussing a case where the wall builder sold or gifted his neighbor the right to set up a ladder in his courtyard, and the משנה is informing us that he is required to give him ד"א.

SUMMARY If there was an unspecified agreement, the distancing required is ד' אמות.

THINKING IT OVER If they both agreed that he can place his ladder in his friend’s חצר (before anything was built on either side), however the מזחילה was distanced two אמות from the property line, is he required to distance the wall ד"א from the property line (because the agreement to place a ladder gives him ד"א בחצר חבירו), or just ד"א from the מזחילה?

footnotes: ¹ If the gutter is on the property line, he must pull back his wall ד"א from the property line. See ‘Thinking it over’. ² The gutter owner will place his ladder in the ד"א next to his neighbor’s wall on his neighbor’s property. ³ See ‘Overview’ and footnotes # 1 & 2. Why should the wall builder be obligated to give his neighbor space on his property to place a ladder ⁴ Seemingly if they agreed that the gutter owner has rights in his neighbor’s property so obviously the wall builder has to distance himself; what is the משנה teaching us? תוספות addresses this issue. ⁵ They agreed generally that gutter owner has the right to place his ladder in the wall builder’s property, but they did not agree as to how much space the ladder requires. The משנה teaches that if an unspecified agreement was reached the amount required (to distance the wall) is ד"א.

לימא תנן¹ סתמא דלא כרבי יוסי—Shall we say the Mishnoh taught anonymously not like Rabi Yosee

OVERVIEW The משנה stated that we must distance a ladder from a dovecote and a wall from a gutter ד' אמות. The גמרא assumed that this סתם משנה does not follow the view of ר' יוסי.² According to ר"י there is no reason why in the משנה, there is a need for distancing, since each one is עושה בתוך שלו. The גמרא answered that (even) in our משנה it can be considered גירי דיליה and therefore even ר"י would agree that distancing is required.

פירש רבינו חננאל מדקאמר הכא טפי לימא דלא כרבי יוסי ולא קאמר אמשניות דלעיל³ – The ר"ח explained since the גמרא preferred to ask here, ‘perhaps this משנה is not according to ר"י’ and the גמרא did not ask this regarding the previous משניות – משמע דכולהו אתי כרבי יוסי⁴ והוי כולהו גירי דיליה – This indicates that all those משניות are according to ר"י and all of those cases are considered גירי דיליה (his arrows), where even ר"י agrees that הרחקה is required, therefore the גמרא had no reason to ask there לימא דלא כר"י – תוספות explains how all these cases are considered גירי דיליה: דמההיא שעתא משתכחא היזיקא⁵ ולא פליג רבי יוסי אלא באילן⁶ – For the damage is prevalent from that time that he is סומך, and ר"י argues with the חכמים only regarding the tree and the pit.**** תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty: וצריך לומר לפירושו דמתניתין דלעיל הוי נמי גירי דיליה – And it will be necessary to say according to the פירוש ר"ח (who maintains that all the משניות are in agreement with ר"י) that the previous משנה (on כב,א) regarding distancing ד' אמות between two walls⁷ that it is also a case of גירי דיליה – דמיד כשסומך הכותל מונע הדוושא: for as soon as the second neighbor places his wall within ד"א from the existing wall he prevents דוושא, so the damage begins immediately.⁸

SUMMARY All the הרחקות in this פרק are (even) according to ר"י since they are all considered גירי דיליה (even the case of דוושא), the only exception is אילן ובור.

THINKING IT OVER How can we explain the מחלוקת between⁹ רש"י and the ר"ח (regarding גירי דיליה)?¹⁰

footnotes: ¹ The text in our גמרות (and רש"י) reads לימא מתניתין דלא (not לימא תנן סתמא דלא). According to גירסת התוס', the גמרא is not merely asking a question (is this משנה in accordance with ר"י), but rather it is posing a challenge; how can it be that a סתם משנה (where the הלכה is usually like a סתם משנה) is not in agreement with ר"י (which indicates that the הלכה is not like ר"י), when later on כה,ב the גמרא cites רב יהודה אמר שמואל that הלכה כר"י! ² The משנה later (כה,ב) cites a dispute between the חכמים and ר"י regarding a person who planted a tree (in his own property) which was within twenty-five אמות of his neighbor’s pit. The חכמים maintain that if the בור was there first, the tree needs to be chopped down. However, ר"י maintains that the tree can remain, for each person is doing whatever it is on their own property (עושה בתוך שלו). The גמרא there continues that even ר"י agrees by גירי דיליה (his own arrows), that it is necessary to refrain from causing any damage. ³ This refers to the משניות on יז,א (regarding the הרחקות of בור, גפת, זרעים ריחיים וכו'), כ,ב (regarding תנור, חנות וכו'), כב,א (regarding כותל וכו'). ⁴ This is not like רש"י בד"ה לימא who writes, וטובא מילי איכא במתניתין דודאי לא כר"י. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁵ See רשב"א, who cites in the name of the רי"ף, three criteria for גירי דיליה; 1. The damage begins immediately when placed, 2. The item itself damages, 3. The damage is initiated from the place it was put. In the case of הרחקת הבור, the damage to the neighbor’s property begins with the digging of the בור which loosens the neighbor’s ground. The same applies to the other הרחקות. ⁶ When the tree is planted within כ"ה אמה of the בור there is no damage at all to the בור; what damages the בור are the roots which grow later and they do not damage from the place of the tree but rather from the place of the roots. Therefore ר"י maintains that it is not גירי דיליה and זה חופר בתוך שלו וזה נוטע בתוך שלו. ⁷ Seemingly in that case the damage is preventing דוושא, so how can that be considered גירי דיליה, for the damage caused by the lack of דוושא (which is merely preventive) does not seem to start immediately, only after a while. ⁸ We consider preventing דוושא as a היזק (on its own), not merely because later the walls may collapse, but the mere fact that the ground is not compacted, that itself is the היזק, and that begins immediately when he places his wall within ד"א from his neighbor’s wall. ⁹ See footnote # 4. ¹⁰ See נחלת משה.

והא גרמא הוא—But it is merely causative

OVERVIEW The גמרא explained why we must distance a ladder from a dovecote, because it is possible that when one will place the ladder near the dovecote, a נמייה (mongoose/weasel?) may jump from the ladder onto the dovecote and kill the birds. The גמרא asked, but it is merely a גרמא (and גרמא is פטור בניזקין), why should he be prevented from placing his ladder there.

תוספות asks:

It is astounding that the גמרא did not pose this same difficulty previously regarding דוושא (trampling traffic).

SUMMARY The case of דוושא is also considered a גרמא and the גמרא there is not troubled by it!

THINKING IT OVER Can we not distinguish between the case of נמייה (where it is more גרמא [less direct cause]) and דוושא (where it is less גרמא [more direct cause])?²

footnotes: ¹ רבא explained on this עמוד the reason to distance one’s wall from a neighbor’s ד"א is in order there should be traffic that will tamp down the earth between the two walls. The question is that even if the walls are not distanced and there no דוושא, the one erecting the second wall is not causing any direct damage, he is a גרמא בניזקין; the same question (and answer) the גמרא mentions here should have been mentioned previously as well. ² See TIE תוס' ד"ה לימא (on this עמוד) footnote # 8.

זאת אומרת גרמא בנזקין אסור—This tells us that it is forbidden to cause indirect damage

OVERVIEW The גמרא asked why should there be a prohibition of placing a ladder near a dovecote (because a נמייה may jump directly from the ladder to the dovecote), since it is merely a גרמא (and גרמא בנזקין is פטור). רב טובי בר מתנא replied, this ruling teaches us the even though גרמא בנזקין is פטור from paying damages, nevertheless one is forbidden from causing damage even through גרמא. Our תוספות discusses the difference between גרמא (which is פטור) and גרמי (for which one is חייב).

ומעיקרא סלקא דעתין כי היכי¹ דמעיקרא פטור הכי נמי דמותר – And initially (when we asked why is it prohibited) we assumed that just like one is (initially) פטור for a damage done by גרמא, similarly it should be permitted to even do something which may cause a damage through גרמא. הכא משמע² דגרמא בנזקין דפטור – It seems from the גמרא here that if one caused damage indirectly (גרמא) he is exempt from paying. תוספות cites some examples where we see that גרמא בנזקין פטור – וכן בפרק כיצד הרגל (בבא קמא דף כו,ב) זרק כלי מראש הגג והיו תחתיו כרים וכסתות – And similarly in פרק כיצד הרגל, the גמרא states, he threw someone’s vessel from the rooftop and underneath there were pillows and blankets (which would prevent the כלי from shattering) – וקדם וסילקן אפילו הוא פטור³ – And even if the thrower went ahead and removed them before the כלי landed,**** so that the כלי broke; the thrower (who is the remover) is פטור from paying for the כלי – ובפרק הפרה (שם דף מז,ב) הכניס פירות לחצר בעל הבית שלא ברשות כולי – And in פרק הפרה, it states if one brought in produce into the owner’s courtyard without permission, etc. – וקאמר בגמרא דאם אכלה והוזקה פטור⁴ – And the גמרא rules that if the owner’s cow ate so much of these פירות and was damaged by the excess food**,** the בעל הפירות is פטור – ונתן סם המות לפני בהמת חבירו דפטור (שם) – And similarly the גמרא there rules that one who placed poison before his friend’s animal and the animal ate it and died, that the poisoner is פטור – ושולח בעירו⁵ ביד חרש שוטה וקטן (שם נט,ב) – And one who sends fire in the hands of a חש"ו and it damaged; the sender is פטור – ופורץ גדר בפני בהמת חבירו⁶ וכופף קמת חבירו בפני הדליקה⁷ – And one who breaks a fence in front of his friend’s animal, and one who bends over his friend’s standing grain into the path of a fire – ועושה מלאכה במי חטאת⁸ (שם נה,ב נו,א.) וליבה וליבתו הרוח – And one who did work with his friend’s מי חטאת, and in a case where he fanned the flames and the wind fanned the flames (both together) – דפטור בכל הנך כדאמר בפרק הכונס (שם דף נט,ב) – That in these cases he is פטור as the גמרא rules in פרק הכונס – ומבעית חבירו דהוי נמי גרמא – And one who frightened his friend and caused him damage that is also considered גרמא and he is פטור for any damages to his friend – כדאמר בפרק קמא דקדושין (דף כד,ב) דאיהו הוא דאבעית אנפשיה⁹ – As the גמרא states in the first פרק of מסכת קדושין, that he is פטור since the victim frightened himself – ובכיצד הרגל (בבא קמא דף כג,ב) שיסה בו כלב שיסה בו נחש פטור – And in פרק כיצד הרגל the ברייתא states, ‘he incited a dog against him, or he incited a snake against him and he was damaged by the dog or the snake, the inciter is פטור’. This concludes the many examples of גרמא בנזקין פטור. תוספות asks: ויש ליתן טעם מאי שנא כל הני מדינא דגרמי – And it is necessary to give a reason, how are all these cases of גרמא different from the rule of גרמי – כגון אחווי אחויי דהגוזל בתרא¹⁰ (שם דף קטז,ב ושם) ומראה דינר לשולחני ונמצא רע – For instance the cases where he pointed out his neighbor’s field**,** in פרק הגוזל בתרא, and where he showed a דינר to the moneychanger who pronounced it good and it turned out to be bad¹¹ – ונפרצה אומר לו גדור¹² ודן את הדין¹³ דחייב לרבי מאיר אפילו לא נשא ונתן בידו – And the case where if the wall between a vineyard and a wheat field was breached, we tell the vineyard owner, ‘fence it’, and if he did not, he is liable for the loss due to כלאים, and where one passed judgment incorrectly where he is liable according to ר"מ, even if he did not take and give the money with his own hand – והשורף שטרותיו של חבירו¹⁴ ומוכר שטר חוב לחבירו וחזר ומחלו¹⁵ – And one who burns his friend’s notes of debt, and one he sells his note of debt to his friend and forgave the debtor; in all these case he is liable because of דינא דגרמי. It is necessary to establish criteria when is it considered גרמא (and he is פטור) and when is it considered גרמי (and he is חייב). תוספות offers some solutions:** וחילק רבינו יצחק לשון אחד –** And the ר"י, in one version, differentiated between גרמא and גרמי – דדינא דגרמי חייב היינו שעושה הוא עצמו היזק לממון חבירו – That the rule where גרמי is חייב is where he himself damaged another’s money – In the case of סולם ושובך the damage is done by the נמייה not the person. In זרק כלי the damage is done by the ground. By הכניס פירות or סם המות the damage was done by the food or poison. By שלח הבערה ביד חש"ו the damage was done by the חש"ו. By פורץ גדר the damage was done by the בהמה. By כופף קמתו the damage was done by the fire. By מי חטאת it is a היזק שאינו ניכר therefore he is only a גרמא. By ליבה וליבתו הרוח the מזיק is the fire. By מבעית חבירו the מזיק is the נבעת. By שיסה בו כלב the מזיק is the dog/snake. In contrast the laws of גרמי are where the person does the damage. By אחווי as well as by the שולחני as well as by the דיין it is their words which cause the damage. By the כרם it is the reluctance of the בעל הכרם that makes it כלאים. The same is by השורף שטרותיו and המוכר שט"ח לחבירו that he was מזיק through burning or being מוחל. תוספות offers another distinction between גרמא and גרמי: ועוד חילק דדינא דגרמי דחייב היינו¹⁶ משעת מעשה שבא ההיזק – And the ר"י additionally distinguished that the rule that גרמי is חייב is when the damage happened at that time, not later as by גרמא – By סולם ושובך the damage is not done when he places the ladder, rather after the נמייה jumps. By זרק כלי the damage came after he threw it or removed the pillows. By הכניס פירותיו and סם המות the damage happened after he placed it, when the בהמה ate it later. By שולח הבערה ביד חש"ו the damage happened after he gave it to them. By פורץ גדר the damage happened later. By כופף קמתו the damage happened later. [The case of עושה מלאכה במי חטאת needs some clarification.¹⁷] By ליבה ולבתה הרוח the damage happened later when the fire came. By המבעית חברו the damage happened when the victim reacted. The same is by שיסה הכלב. In contrast by גרמי the damage happened immediately. By אחוויי אחוויי as soon as he showed it to the נכרים, the property was lost. By מראה דינר לשולחנו as soon as he validated the coin there was a loss. By the כלאים as soon as he gave up to repair the fence it becomes כלאים. The same is true by the דיין as soon as he ruled wrong the damage was done, The same applies to השורף שטרותיו and המוכר שט"ח לחברו ומחלו in all these cases the damage happens immediately. Therefore they are considered גרמי and he is חייב. תוספות asks on both these two versions: ועל הכל קשה טיהר את הטמא ובעל הבית עצמו עירבן עם פירותיו – And there is a difficulty with all (?) these explanations; the case where the דיין was מטהר food that was really טמא and the owner mixed these foods which the דיין was מטהר with his other foods which were טהור, thereby causing all his foods to become טמא, and the ruling is that the דיין is חייב on account of גרמי. The question is – ואמאי חייב דהוא עצמו אינו עושה היזק בממון חבירו – But why is the דיין חייב, for the דיין himself did not do damage to his friend’s money; this presents a difficulty for the first version of the ר"י – וגם באותה שעה שמטהר אינו בא ההיזק – And also at the time he was mistakenly מטהר the דברים טמאים, the damage did not happen; it only happened later when the owner mixed them with his פירות טהורים. This presents a difficulty to the second version of the ר"י. תוספות offers an alternate distinction between גרמא and גרמי: ונראה לרבינו יצחק בן אברהם דדינא דגרמי הוי מטעם קנס¹⁸ כדמוכח בירושלמי¹⁹ – And it appears to the ריצב"א that the ruling by גרמי that it is חייב, is because it is a punishment as is evident in תלמוד ירושלמי – ולכך כל היזק המצוי ורגיל לבא קנסו חכמים – So therefore any damage which is frequent and occurs usually, the חכמים fined the perpetrator – וטעם דקנסו שלא יהא כל אחד הולך ומזיק לחבירו בעין²⁰ – And the reason they fined him is in order to prevent everyone from going and (directly) damaging his friend – והיינו טעמא דמאן דמחייב בהיזק שאינו ניכר²¹ – And this is also the reason of the one who holds one liable for an unnoticeable damage, which was done במזיד – ואפשר דבשוגג נמי קניס²² רבי מאיר²³ כי היכי דקניס במטמא²⁴ ומדמע²⁵ אחד שוגג ואחד מזיד: And it is possible²⁶ that ר"מ would fine the גרמי even if it was accidental, just like ר"מ fines by making טמא and mixing whether he is a שוגג or a מזיד.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות writes that in the הו"א we assumed that just as he is פטור therefore we assume that it is מותר.²⁷ How is it possible to assume even in a הו"א that it is permitted to cause damage to another person; we are even obligated in השבת אבידה, so certainly it is forbidden to cause damage even indirectly?!²⁸

SUMMARY

גרמא – פטור טעמי הפטור והחיוב גרמי – חייב סולם אצל שובך זרק כלי מראש הגג הכניס פירות נתן סם המות שלח בערה ביד חש"ו פורץ גדר בעד בהמה כופף קמת חברו בפני הדליקה עושה מלאכה במי חטאת לבה ולבתו הרוח מבעית חברו שיסה בו כלב נחש א. בגרמא הוא לא עשה בעצמו מעשה ההיזק, בגרמי הוא עושה בעצמו ההיזק ב. בגרמא הנזק לא נעשה מיד, בגרמי ההיזק בא בשעת מעשה ג. גרמא אינו מצוי ורגיל תמיד – לא קנסו, בגרמי מצוי ורגיל - קנסו אחווי אחויי מראה דינר לשולחני נפרצה אומר לו גדור דן את הדין שורף שטרותיו של חברו מכר שט"ח ומחלו

footnotes: ¹ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read היכי דפטור הכי (instead of היכי דמעיקרא הכי). The מקשן assumed that since גרמא בנזקין פטור, this indicates that גרמא is not considered to be a מזיק; therefore he should be allowed to do it. See ‘Thinking it over’. ² The גמרא asked that he should be even permitted to place the ladder there since it is only גרמא, and the answer was that גרמא בנזקין is אסור, but the גמרא did not answer that there is a חיוב. ³ He is not liable for throwing it off the roof, since they would have landed on the pillows and would not break; he is not liable for removing the pillows, since that is merely a גרמא (he did not break the כלי directly). ⁴ The בעל הפירות did not encourage the בהמה to eat; the בהמה ate on its own, therefore the בעל הפירות is only a גרמא. ⁵ A marginal note amends this to read הבערה (instead of בעירו). ⁶ The animal then ran out and did damage, the breaker of the fence is פטור for the damage, since it is considered גרמא. ⁷ See the גמרא there ב"ק נו,א that the fire reached the קמה through an unusually strong wind, therefore he is פטור. ⁸ מי חטאת is the water in which the אפר פרה אדומה was mixed into it. One may not use it for any work such as using it for a weight. If any work is done with it the מי חטאת is פסול. ⁹ The one who was frightened contributed to his damage for he became frightened and that caused the damage. ¹⁰ A person heard that the king wished to take possession of people’s property illegally, and he went and told them to take the property of a certain person, he is liable מדינא דגרמי, even though he did not actually take away his friend’s field. ¹¹ See ב"ק צט,ב. The שולחני did not actually damage him he only caused him to accept a counterfeit coin. ¹² ב"ק ק,א. It is the responsibility of the בעל הכרם to repair the fence so as not to cause the wheat to become אסור on account of כלאים. The בעל הכרם is חייב for the loss of the wheat (due to the איסור כלאים) if he decides not to repair the fence, even though he did not actually damage the wheat directly. ¹³ שם. The דיין ruled incorrectly; causing a loss to one party. The rule, according to ר"מ, is that the דיין must pay for the loss, even if he did not make the loss directly. He did not take away the money from the respondent and give it to the claimant. ¹⁴ ב"ק צח,א. The מלוה can no longer collect his debt for he does not have his שטר to prove that he is owed money. The burner is חייב to pay the מלוה the amount of the loan written in the שטר because of גרמי. ¹⁵ See כתובות פו,א. The מלוה sold his שטר to a third person. The מלוה then went and forgave the לוה the debt. The לוה is not required to pay to the buyer of the שטר. However because of גרמי the מלוה must pay to the buyer the full face value of the שטר. ¹⁶ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read היינו דבשעת מעשה בא ההיזק (instead of משעת מעשה שבא ההחיזק) ¹⁷ Perhaps since it is a היזק שאינו ניכר it is considered as if there is no damage now but it happens later (when he wants to use it, וצ"ע. ¹⁸ According to the ריצב"א there is no intrinsic difference between the case of גרמא and גרמי, rather one is more frequent (גרמי) and the other is less common (גרמא). This may explain why טיהר את הטמא is חייב since it is frequent. ¹⁹ See שו"ת מהר"ם מרוטנבורג ח"ד סי' ת"ס who cites a ירושלמי in מס' שבועות פ"ו ה"ו, which states, דכל דיני דגרמי משום קנס. ²⁰ See רש"ש who is troubled by this word 'בעין'. He suggested that it should be inserted in the next line which should read, והיינו כעין טעמא וכו'. ²¹ See גיטין נג,א where there is a dispute whether היזק שאינו ניכר is considered a היזק and one is חייב or it is not considered a היזק and one is פטור. However even the מ"ד who maintains היזק שאינו ניכר is פטור, nevertheless he admits that if he did it מזיד he is חייב in order that שלא יהא כ"א הולך ומטמא טהרותיו של חבירו. See footnote # 24 & 25 for examples of היזק שאינו ניכר. ²² One is usually fined if he transgressed premeditatingly (במזיד), however if it was בשוגג there would seem no reason to fine him; it was accidental. Nevertheless by גרמי perhaps the חיוב is even for a שוגג, for we are גוזר שוגג אטו מזיד. ²³ ר"מ is the תנא who is דאין דינא דגרמי. ²⁴ מטמא is when one is מטמא the טהרות of his friend, thus rendering it worthless, since it needs to be burnt. This is considered a היזק שאינו ניכר, because superficially the טהרות look the same as they did before they became טמא. ²⁵ מדמע is when one mixes תרומה into his friend’s חולין; causing the value of the חולין to become less. This too is a היזק שאינו ניכר. In both these cases ר"מ is מחייב even by שוגג because גזרו שוגג אטו מזיד. ²⁶ תוספות writes that it is possible that by גרמי we are also מחייב the שוגג, just like we are מחייב a שוגג by היזק שאינו ניכר. However, it is also possible that we cannot compare a היזק שאינו ניכר where the damage was done directly (it is merely אינו ניכר) and therefore we are stricter, however by גרמי where it was an indirect damage perhaps we are more lenient and are not גוזר שוגג אטו מזיד. ²⁷ See footnote # 1. ²⁸ See נחלת משה.