[a - 41 lines; b - 52 lines]

1a)[line 1] LICHECHAH NIRO- [that which one is responsible to pay if his fire] seared a plowed furrow belonging to another [preventing it from growing, even though this is an unusual way for fire to cause damage]

b)[line 1] SICHSECHAH AVANAV- [that which one is responsible to pay if his fire] scorched [and blackened] stones belonging to another [even though this is an unusual way for fire to cause damage]

2)[line 2] TZAD HA'SHAVEH - Deriving Halachos from a Common Denominator (MAH HA'TZAD)

(a)When attempting to derive Halachos through a Binyan Av/Mah Matzinu, the Gemara sometimes invalidates the derivation due to a Pirchah (logical argument; see above, entry #21). In such a case, the Gemara will sometimes attempt to reestablish the Mah Matzinu through a "Yochi'ach"/"Tochi'ach (fem.)". Literally a proof, this involves showing that the Halachah that we wish to apply is in effect in a third section of the Torah -- one to which the Pirchah is not applicable.

(b)Usually, the Gemara will respond with a second Pirchah, this time one that draws a distinction between the Yochi'ach and the target of the Mah Matzinu. If this Pirchah does not apply to the first attempted source, then it itself becomes the Yochi'ach.

(c)The Gemara then forms a "Mah ha'Tzad" or "Tzad ha'Shaveh" - a common denominator. This involves finding a property shared by the two prospective sources, aside from the Halachah that we wish to derive. We may then conclude that since the target subject shares the common denominator, the Halachah in question applies to it as well.

(d)The terminology of the Gemara in such a situation is "v'Chazar ha'Din" - the ruling returns [back and forth]; "Lo Re'i Zeh k'Re'i Zeh" - the characteristics of this one are unlike the characteristics of this one, and vice versa; but the "Tzad ha'Shaveh" - the common denominator - teaches us that the derivation is valid. This process can continue, with the Gemara asking a Pirchah upon the common denominator and attempting to introduce yet a third comparison that will solidify the Tzad ha'Shaveh.

3)[line 3] AVNO SAKINO U'MASA'O SHE'HINICHAN B'ROSH GAGO- one's stone, knife, or load that he placed at the edge of his roof

4)[line 4] RU'ACH METZUYAH- a common wind [of average strength]

5a)[line 4] IY BA'HADEI D'AZLEI KA'MAZKEI- if they cause damage as they are moving [after they fell off the roof]

b)[line 5] HAINU ESH!- this is [conceptually identical to] fire [in which case it is obvious that the same Halachic status]!

6)[line 5] KO'ACH ACHER ME'URAV BA'HEN- another force [that one should have expected (namely, wind)] is involved with them [in order for them to have destructive potential]

7)[line 6]MAMONCHA- This term cannot mean that one "owns" the fire that he ignited, since this is neither possible nor necessary in order to be responsible for the damage it causes. Rather, this term is either printed mistakenly (TOSFOS to 4a, DH Adam) or it is not meant to be taken literally (TOSFOS to 3b, DH u'Mamoncha).

8)[line 8] BASAR D'NAYCHI- after they come to rest [another stumbles over them]

9)[line 8] IY D'AFKERINHU- if [the case is one] in which he relinquished ownership

10)[line 8] BEIN L'RAV BEIN L'SHMUEL- The disagreement between Rav and Shmuel which is now referred to in our Gemara is found on Daf 28b.

11)[line 10] TECHILAS ASIYASO L'NEZEK- it is a liability to cause damage from [when it is] first [placed in a public domain]

12)[line 10]MAMONCHA- This term cannot mean that one "owns" the pit that he dug in a public domain, since this is neither possible nor necessary in order to be responsible for the damage it causes. Rather, this term is either printed mistakenly (TOSFOS to 4a, DH Adam) or it is not meant to be taken literally (TOSFOS to 3b, DH u'Mamoncha).

13)[line 11] HANEI NAMI TECHILAS ASIYASAN L'NEZEK- these, too, are a liability to cause damage from [when they are] first [placed on the roof] (see also RASHASH)

14)[line 13]KULAM- all [items left in a public domain, even if they are not rendered ownerless]

15)[line 16]... TOCHIACH... V'CHAZAR HA'DIN- see above, entry #2

16)[line 18] BOR HA'MISGALGEL B'RAGLEI ADAM UV'RAGLEI VEHEMAH- an obstacle [in a public domain] (such as a stone) that is rolled [from place to place] by the feet of people and animals [that was then tripped upon in its new location]

17)[line 25] MA'ASAV GARMU LO- his actions [of digging and/or uncovering the pit directly] led [to the damage caused]

18)[line 29] KOL ELU SHE'AMRU- [regarding] all of these [people] about whom it was said

19a)[line 29] POSKIN BIVOSEIHEN- they may open their drainpipes [and let them drain into the public domain]

b)[line 30] V'GORFIN ME'AROSEIHEN- and they may rake out those areas in which refuse is stored (lit. caves) [and throw it into the public domain]

20a)[line 30] BI'YEMOS HA'CHAMAH- in the summer [when the streets are clear and dry]

b)[line 31] BI'YEMOS HA'GESHAMIM- in the winter [when the streets are dirty and muddy]

21)[line 33] !KOCHO HU!- it [damages as a direct result of] his action [and it is clear that he is as responsible as if he caused the damage directly]!


22)[line 4] NASNU LO ZMAN- if [Beis Din] had given [the owner] a deadline

23a)[line 4] LA'KOTZ ES HA'ILAN- by which to cut down the tree [since it appeared to be in danger of falling into the public domain]

b)[line 5] LISTOR ES HA'KOSEL- by which to dismantle down the [unstable] wall

24)[line 8] HEZEIKO MATZUY- it is [relatively] common for damage to result from it (as opposed to Keren)

25)[line 13] EIN TECHILAS ASIYASAN L'NEZEK- they are not a liability to cause damage from [when they are] first [planted or built]

26)[line 15]" "? " " !"CHAV HA'MAZIK"? "CHAYAV HA'MAZIK" MIBA'EI LEI!- [Why does our Mishnah use the expression] "the one responsible for the damage is Chav" [which implies a detriment]? It should have written " the one responsible for the damage is Chayav" [which implies an obligation]!

27)[line 17] HAI TANA YERUSHALMI HU- the author of our Mishnah is from Yerushalayim (see MAHARATZ CHAYOS)

28)[line 18] LISHNA KELILA- shortened, pithy language

29)[line 19]"[ - -, -, ,] ""[KI YAV'ER ISH SADEH O CHEREM, V'SHILACH ES BE'IROH, U'VI'ER BI'SDEI ACHER,] MEITAV SADEHU U'MEITAV KARMO YESHALEM"- "[If a man shall lead his animal to another's field or vineyard, and send in his animal to trample it, or it shall graze in the field of another,] he shall make restitution with the best of his field or the best of his vineyard" (Shemos 22:4).

30)[line 19] MEITAV SADEHU SHEL NIZAK U'MEITAV KARMO SHEL NIZAK- (our Gemara takes this to mean) [if the owner of the animal wishes to pay with land, then he must replace the damaged land with that equal to] the best quality field of he who was damaged or the best quality vineyard of he who was damaged

31)[line 21] LO BA HA'CHASUV ELA LI'GVOS L'NIZAKIN MIN HA'IDIS- the sole purpose of the verse is to [teach that one] collects damages [equal to the value of what was damaged] from the highest quality land [of the damager]

32)[line 22]" V'KAL VA'CHOMER L'HEKDESH- The Gemara below explains this statement of Rebbi Akiva (see below, entry #42).

33)[line 23] , ; , ?ACHAL SHEMEINAH, MESHALEM SHEMEINAH; ACHAL KECHUSHAH, MESHALEM KECHUSHAH?- if [his animal] consumed [a] bountiful [patch], he must return [a] bountiful [patch]; [and] if [his animal] consumed [an] arid [patch], he must [also] return [a] bountiful [patch]?

34)[line 25] ARUGAH BEIN HA'ARUGOS- one garden patch among others [some of which were robust and some of which were weak]

35)[line 30] HA'MOTZI ME'CHAVEIRO ALAV HA'RE'AYAH - The Burden of Proof Lies with he who Wishes to Extract Money from Another

(a)When a dispute arises over the ownership of an item, the first rule to follow is "ha'Motzi me'Chaveiro Alav ha'Re'ayah." This means that the burden of proof lies with he who wishes to extract the object from the other, and not upon he who holds the item or money in his possession. Hence, in cases of doubt, all items or money remain in the possession of he who holds them.

(b)Our Gemara asks that if it is unclear whether one's animal consumed a bountiful or arid patch of produce, its owner should not be required to pay for more than the least possible damages unless he who was damaged can prove that he is owed more.

36)[line 32] IDIS D'NIZAK K'ZIBURIS D'MAZIK - the best-quality land of the damaged party is comparable to the best-quality land of the damager (ZIBURIS / BEINONIS / IDIS)

(a)When one must pay money to another, any object of value may be substituted in its place. If one wishes to transfer ownership of land in place of money, the minimum quality of the land that he may use depends upon the type of payment he is making. Damages (Nezikin) must be reimbursed only with Idis (high quality land, also termed "Meitav ha'Aretz" based on Shemos 22:4; see above, entry #29). Loans (Halva'os) may be repaid with Beinonis (average quality land). Any debt owed by an orphan and the value of a Kesuvah may even be paid with Ziburis (poor quality land). The Gemara explains the reason for these differences (Mishnah, Gitin 48b, and Gemara ibid.)


(a)See Background to Bava Kama 5:20:a-d.

(e)In our Gemara, Rav Acha bar Yakov explains that Rebbi Yishmael derives a Gezeirah Shavah within one verse. The word or root "Sadeh" appears at the beginning of the verse when describing the damaged field ("Sedei Acher"), and then again toward the end of the verse when describing the quality of land to be used in the repayment ("Meitav Sadeihu"; see above, entry #29). Rebbi Yishmael maintains that just as the first instance describes the field belonging to he who was damaged, so too does the second.

38)[line 39] D'HA'ICH D'KA MESHALEM- (the verse clearly implies that it refers to the field) of he who is to pay

39)[line 40] , AHANI GEZEIRAH SHAVAH, V'AHANI KRA- the Gezeirah Shavah is effective and [the plain meaning of] the verse is effective

40)[line 41]KEDEKA'AMINA- as I [have previously] explained

41)[line 44] , " "LO MATZI AMAR LEI, "TA AT GAVI MI'ZIBURIS"- he cannot tell him, "Come and collect from [my] Ziburis" [since the Torah states that he deserves "Meitav", and the Ziburis of the Mazik is not as valuable as the Meitav of the Nizak].

42)[line 46]' ...REBBI AKIVA OMER ...- This is a quote from the Beraisa quoted earlier, cited here to launch a discussion regarding its meaning.

43)[line 48] NAGACH TORA DIDAN L'SORA D'HEKDESH- an ox of ours (i.e., one belonging to an individual) gored an ox sanctified for use in the Beis ha'Mikdash

44)[line 49]"[ ] [, , ]""[V'CHI YIGOF SHOR ISH ES] SHOR RE'EHU [VA'MES...]" - "And if a man's ox shall gore] his fellow's ox [and it shall die, they shall sell the live ox and split its value, and split the dead ox as well]" (Shemos 21:35) (CHEZKAS SHALOSH PE'AMIM)

(a)When an event or result occurs a certain number of times consecutively, one may Halachically presume that the outcome in future occurrences will be identical unless there is evidence that the equation has changed. Such establishment of precedent is termed Chazakah.

(b)The Tana'im disagree as to how many times an occurrence must be observed before such a presumption is Halachically valid. Rebbi is of the opinion that after an event is observed to have occurred twice, one may presume that it will thus occur under identical conditions. Raban Shimon Ben Gamliel maintains that a Chazakah is established only after an event has occurred three times. The Halachah follows Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in monetary matters, and Rebbi in matters of Isur (restrictions).

(c)One classic example of Chazakah involves an ox that has gored other animals. The Torah states, "[And if a man's ox shall gore] his fellow's ox [and it shall die, they shall sell the live ox and split its value, and split the dead ox as well]" (Shemos 21:35). The ox referred to in this verse is a Tam - one whose habit to gore other animals has not been established - and its owner need only pay half of the damages, since such behavior is unusual among oxen. Furthermore, he need not pay any more than the worth of his ox (mi'Gufo). If the ox was a Mu'ad - one whose habit to gore other animals has been established - then its owner has been negligent to the point where he must make full restitution for the damages caused by his animal, even if this amounts to more that the value of his animal (min ha'Aliyah) (Shemos 21:36). Once an ox has gored - and its owner warned - three times, it has been established as a Mu'ad.

45)[line 49]RACHMANA- the Torah

46)[line 49] V'LO SHOR SHEL HEKDESH- (which implies) and not an ox belonging to Hekdesh [in which case one is exempt from making restitution]

47)[line 50] HAREI ALAI- it is incumbent upon me [to give to Hekdesh]

48)[line 51]MANEH- a unit of money comprised of one hundred Zuz and equivalent to 480 grams of silver

49)[line 51] BEDEK HA'BAYIS- the monetary fund of Hekdesh, used for the upkeep of the Beis ha'Mikdash and Yerushalayim

50)[line 51]GIZBAR- the treasurer of Bedek ha'Bayis

51)[last line] LO YEHEI ELA BA'AL CHOV- [Hekdesh] should be no more than a creditor