BAVA KAMA 61 - Two weeks of study material have been dedicated by Ms. Estanne Fawer to honor the Yahrzeit of her father, Rav Mordechai ben Eliezer Zvi (Rabbi Morton Weiner) Z'L, who passed away on 18 Teves 5760. May the merit of supporting and advancing Dafyomi study -- which was so important to him -- during the weeks of his Yahrzeit serve as an Iluy for his Neshamah.

1)

TOSFOS DH HACHI GARSINAN: ELA L'MA'AN D'AMAR TAMUN BA'EISH TARTI KERA'I LAMAH LI

úåñ' ã"ä ä"â àìà ìîàï ãàîø èîåï áàù úøúé ÷øàé ìîä ìé

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the Gemara's question.)

àáì äà ìà áòé ãìîä ìé ëìì ÷øàé ...

(a)

Implied Question: The Gemara does not ask why we need Pesukim at all ...

ãçã ÷øà àöèøéê ìëì äôçåú îùåí áòéà ãèîåï.

1.

Answer: ... since one Pasuk at least is needed to resolve the She'ilah of 'Tamun ba'Eish'.

åäà ãëúéá "åéöéìä" ...

(b)

Implied Question: And the Pasuk writes "va'Yatzilah" ...

ìø"é äöéìä ùìà äðéç ìùøåó ëãé ùìà éúçééá áèîåï.

1.

Answer #1: ... to teach us - according to Rebbi Yehudah, that he did not allow them to burn it in order not to be Chayav for Tamun ...

åìøáðï ùäöéì àú äîæé÷ ùìà ðúçééá ìùìí.

2.

Answer #2: - and according to the Rabanan, that he saved the Mazik from having to pay for it.

àáì úøé ÷øàé ìîä ìé?

(c)

Gemara's Question: But why do we need two Pesukim?

ãìî"ã 'ìàçìåôé', àò"ô ùàí ìà äéå òãùéí, äéå öøéëéí ìéùàì àí îåúø ìéèåì ùòåøéí òì îðú ìùìí ãîéí ...

(d)

Clarification: Because, according to the opinion that holds 'to switch (one field for the other)', even though, had there not been lentils there, they would still have needed to ask whether they were permitted to take the barley with the intention of remunerating the owner with money ...

î"î äæëéø 'òãùéí' ìôé ùäéå îæåîðéí ùí, åäéå øåöéí ìôøòí úçúéäï ...

1.

Clarification (cont.): It nevertheless mentions 'lentils' seeing as they happened to be in the vicinity, and they now wanted to pay with them instead ...

åìî"ã 'ìäöéì òöîå áîîåï çáéøå', îéáòéà ìéä áùòåøéï ãìà çùéáé ëì ëê, åáòãùéí ãçùéáé èåáà.

(e)

Clarification (cont.): ... whereas according to the opinion that holds 'to save oneself with someone else's money', we need to ask regarding barley which is not so Chashuv and regarding lentils, which are much more Chashuv.

àìà ìî"ã 'èîåï', úøåééäå ìîä ìé?

1.

Answer (concl.): But according to the opinion that holds (that the question was) 'Tamun', why do we need both Pesukim?

åá÷åðèøñ âøñ '÷øàé ìîä ìé?'

(f)

Explanation #2: However Rashi has the text 'Why do we need the Pesukim'?

2)

TOSFOS DH MAI V'LO AVAH DAVID LI'SHTOSAM

úåñ' ã"ä îàé åìà àáä ãåã ìùúåúí

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the extent of the question.)

äåä îöé ìîéîø ã÷àé à'çã îäðê ãîéáòéà ìéä òí èîåï...

(a)

Refuted Answer: The Gemara could have established the Pasuk in connection with one of the questions that they asked together with 'Tamun' ...

àìà îùîò ìéä ãà'ëì îéìúà ãàéáòéà ìéä ÷àé.

(b)

Refutation: ... only it understood that it applies to everything.

åîëàï ÷ùä ìôé ôéøåù ä÷åðèøñ - ãîòùä áà ìôðéå ùùøôå àðùéå âãéù åäéå áä ëìéí èîåðéí ...

(c)

Question: And Rashi's interpretation is difficult from here - because of the account that came before him that his workers burned a bundle of grain that had vessels hidden within it

ãìôéøåùå äåä ìéä ìîéîø ù'ìà àáä ãåã ìùúåú' äééðå ùìà øöä ìäôèø îçîú ùäåà îìê.

1.

Question (cont.): ... because according to his interpretation it should have said that 'David did not want to drink', meaning that he did not wish to be exempted due to his being the king.

3)

TOSFOS DH AVRAH GEDER SHE'HU GAVOHAH ARBA AMOS

úåñ' ã"ä òáøä âãø ùäåà âáåä àøáò àîåú

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the case.)

áâîøà îôøù àøáò àîåú îùôú ÷åöéí åìîòìä.

(a)

Explanation #1: The Gemara establishes the case where the four Amos are higher than the upper edge of the thorns

åðøàä ìø"é ãàééøé ùàéï äâãø âáåä îï äùìäáú, ùàí äéä âáåä éåúø, îàé ÷îôìéâ áéï ÷åìçú ìðëôôú? îä ìé æä åîä ìé æä? ...

1.

Explanation #1 (cont.): The Ri explains that it also speaks where the wall is not higher than the flames, because if it was, on what basis does the Gemara differentiate between a fire that jumps and one that creeps? What difference will it make whether it is one or the other ...

ëéåï ùäâãø âáåä îï äùìäáú, îä éëåìä ìäæé÷?

2.

Reason: ... since, seeing as the wall is higher than the flames, what harm can it do?

àìà åãàé áùàéï âáåä îï äùìäáú àééøé.

3.

Conclusion: It must therefore be speaking where it is not higher than the flames ...

åîéäå ëùàéï òöé äãìé÷ä âáåäéï îï äâãø àééøé, ùàí äéå âáåäéï îï äâãø, îä îåòéì ùäâãø âáåä îï ä÷åöéí, äøé äåà ëàéìå äéúä äîãåøä òì äâãø?

(b)

Clarification: On the other hand, it speaks where the firewood is not higher than the wall, because, if it was, what will it help that the wall is higher than the thorns, since it is as if the fire was on top of the wall?

àìà ëùòöé äãìé÷ä ùåéí ìâãø àééøé àå ðîåëéí îï äâãø.

1.

Conclusion: It must therefore be speaking where the firewood is the same height as the wall or lower.

åòåã ðøàä ã'âáåä ã' àîåú' ã÷úðé à'òöé äãìé÷ä ÷àé, ùäâãø âáåä îòöé äãìé÷ä àøáò àîåú ...

(c)

Explanation #2: Alternatively, the four Amos in the Mishnah refers to the firewood - that the wall is four Amos higher than the firewood ...

åøá ôôà áà ìäåñéó âî' ùîùôú ÷åöéí åìîòìä ðîé áòéðï àøáò àîåú.

1.

Explanation #2 (cont.): ... and Rav Papa comes to add that it must also be four Amos higher than the upper edge of the thorns

àáì ôùèà ãîúðéúéï à'òöé äãìé÷ä ÷àé ...

2.

Explanation #2 (concl.): Although the plain P'shat in the Mishnah refers to the firewood.

åìùåï 'òáø' ìà ùééê àí ìà äéä äâãø âáåä îòöé äãìé÷ä, àò"ô ùäùìäáú òåìä ìîòìä îï äâãø.

(d)

Conclusion: ... and the Lashon 'Avar' (in the Mishnah) would not apply if the wall was not higher than the firewood, even if the flames rose higher than the wall.

4)

TOSFOS DH V'HA'TANYTA AVRAH GEDER ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä åäúðéà òáøä âãø ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the Text.)

àåîø ø"é ,ãàé âøñé' ááøééúà 'òã' åáîúðéúéï ìà âøñéðï 'òã' ìà ðéçà, ãìà ùééê ìîôøê ëìì ...

(a)

Clarifying the Text #1: The Ri explains that it will not work out if we have the text 'Ad' in the Beraisa but not in the Mishnah, since then one cannot query the contradiction ...

ãôùéèà ãáøééúà îìîèä ìîòìä ÷à çùéá, ãáòðéï àçø ìà îéôøù àìà 'òã åìà òã áëìì', ãáëì î÷åí ã' àîåú ëìîòìä îã' àîåú.

1.

Reason: ... seeing it is obvious that the Beraisa is reckoning from the bottom upwards, since in any other way, it can only be explained as 'Ad ve'Lo ad bio'Chelal', in which case the Din by four Amos is equivalent to that of more than four Amos.

åáîúðéúéï ìà ÷úðé 'òã', ãáàøáò àîåú ôèåø.

2.

Reason (cont.): ... whereas the Mishnah does not have the text 'Ad', because if it is exactly four Amos, he is Patur.

åàôéìå ÷úðé áîúðéúéï 'òã' ëîå ááøééúà, àéï ùééê ìä÷ùåú, ãôùéèà ãîúðéúéï ìà îéôøùà àìà îìîòìä ìîèä, åáøééúà ìà îéôøùà àìà îìîèä ìîòìä.

3.

Reason (concl.): And even if the Mishnah does have the word 'Ad' like the Beraisa, one cannot ask, since it is obvious that the Mishnah can only be explained from the top downwards, whereas the Beraisa can only be explained from the bottom upwards.

àáì àé áîúðéúéï ÷úðé 'òã' åááøééúà ìà ÷úðé 'òã', àæ ùééê ìîôøê ùôéø.

(b)

Clarifying the Text #1 (concl.): But if the Mishnah has the text 'Ad' and the Beraisa does not, only then is the contradiction applicable.

àé ðîé, áùðéäí àéï 'òã', ùééê ìîôøê ùôéø - ãîúðéúéï ÷úðé áã' àîåú ôèåø, åáøééúà ÷úðé çééá?

(c)

Clarifying the Text #2: Alternatively, one can ask, if both of them co not contain the word 'Ad' - since the Mishnah states that if it is four Amos, he is Patur, whilst the Beraisa says that he is Chayav?

åà"ú, àé áùðéäí àéï 'òã', àîàé àöèøéê ìùðåéé 'îúðéúéï îìîòìä ìîèä åáøééúà îìîèä ìîòìä'? - ìéîà îúðéúéï ã' àîåú ãå÷à áìà 'òã', åáøééúà îéôøùà á'òã'?

(d)

Question: If both of them do not have the word 'Ad', why does the Gemara need to answer that the Mishnah is speaking from the top downwards and the Beraisa, from the bottom, upwards'? Why does it not answer that the four Amos speak without 'Ad', whereas the Beraisa is speaking with 'Ad'?

åé"ì, ãëéåï ãìà ÷úðé 'òã' ìà ëàï åìà ëàï, ñáøà äåà ãëé äéëé ãäê îéôøùà á'òã', äê ðîé îéôøùà á'òã'.

(e)

Answer: .. seeing as the Tana does not mention 'Ad' by either of them, it is logical to say just as one nevertheless speaks with 'Ad', so does the other one.

5)

TOSFOS DH LO SHAN U ELA B'KOLACHAS

úåñ' ã"ä ìà ùðå àìà á÷åìçú

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the text and the explanation, accordingly.)

à'âãø ÷àé ...

(a)

Explanation #1: It refers to the wall ...

åâøñ 'àáì áðëôôú' àôé' òã îàä àîä'', åìà âøñ 'îàä îéì ... '

1.

Text #1: ... and the text reads 'But if it creeps, then even if it is a hundred Amos - and not 'a hundred Mil'... ' ...

ã'îéì' ìà ùééê áâåáä.

2.

Reason: ... since the concept of 'Mil' does not exist when it comes to height.

åìôé äñôøéí ãâøñé 'îàä îéì' ...

(b)

Text #2: Conversely, according to the Sefarim which have the text 'a hundred Mil' ...

ö"ì ã÷àé à'ãøê øä"ø'.

1.

Explanation #2: ... it must be speaking with reference to 'Derech R'shus ha'Rabim'.

åàéï ðøàä, ãäà áñîåê îééúé îùðä ã'ãøê äøáéí', åàîøéðï òìä 'îàï úðà' - îùîò ãòã äùúà ìà àééøé áä.

(c)

Refutation: But this does not seem correct, since the Gemara will shortly cite the Mishnah of Derech ha'Rabim' on which it will ask who the author is - implying that until that point, the Gemara has not been discussing it.

àò"â ãáøééúà ã'úðéà ëååúéä' âøñ 'îéì', ãáøåçá àééøé åìà áâåáä ...

(d)

Implied Question: Even though the Beraisa which the Gemara cites to support Rav talks about 'Mil', since it is referring to the breadth of the fire and not the height ...

ëã÷úðé 'åòöéí îöåééï ìä' ...

1.

Proof: ... as the Tana says 'and there is wood available for it'.

î"î ùôéø ÷àîø 'úðéà ëååúéä', ãáøééúà îå÷îä ìîúðéúéï á÷åìçú.

(e)

Answer: ... it is nevertheless justified in saying 'Tanya Kavaseih', since the Beraisa establishes the Mishnah by 'Kolachas' (where the fire jumps).

6)

TOSFOS DH DERECH HA'RABIM MA'AN TANA REBBI ELIEZER HI

úåñ' ã"ä ãøê äøáéí îàï úðà øáé àìéòæø äéà

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the statement.)

à'îúðéúéï ÷àé, åäåé ñúí åàç"ë îçìå÷ú.

(a)

Clarification: It refers to the Mishnah, making it a S'tam ve'Achar-Kach Machlokes'.

7)

TOSFOS DH MA'AN D'AMAR NAHAR MAMASH AF-AL-GAV D'LEIS LEIH BEIH MAYA

úåñ' ã"ä îàï ãàîø ðäø îîù àò"â ãìéú áéä îéà

(Summary: Tosfos explains why eight Amos will suffice.)

åàò"â ãáøùåú äøáéí áòé è"æ àîåú ...

(a)

Implied Question: Even though a R'shus ha'Rabim requires sixteen Amos ...

äëà ñâé áç' àîåú, îúåê ùäðäø òîå÷, åâí éù áå ÷øéøåú îéí ùòåáøéí áå úîéã.

(b)

Answer: ... here eight Amos will suffice, since the river is deep, and also cold, on account of the water that constantly flows through it.

8)

TOSFOS DH EILU MAFSIKIN L'PE'AH ETC

úåñ' ã"ä àìå îôñé÷éï ìôàä ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos cites the text from the Mishnah in Pe'ah and explains why he needs to mention all the cases.)

áîñëú ôàä (ô"á î"à) âøñ áñãø äîùðä 'ãøê äéçéã' åàç"ë 'ãøê äøáéí'.

(a)

Text #1: The Mishnah in Maseches Pe'ah (Perek 2, Mishnah 1) has the text 'A private road and a public road' (as it does here).

åîôøù áéøåùìîé ãîùåí ñéôà àéöèøéê ìîéúðé, ã÷úðé 'äëì îôñé÷éï ìæøòéí, åàéðå îôñé÷ ìàéìï' ...

1.

Explanation: The Yerushalmi explains that it needs to mention it (the latter) on account of the Seifa, which states 'ha'Kol Mafsikin li'Zera'im, ve'Eino Mafsik le'Ilan' ...

ã÷î"ì ãàôéìå ãøê äøáéí àéðå îôñé÷ ìàéìðåú.

2.

Chidush: ... which teaches us that even a public road does not interrupt for trees.

åòåã [÷à] çùéá ùí 'ùáéì äéçéã åùáéì äøáéí ä÷áåò áéîåú äçîä åáéîåú äâùîéí'.

(b)

Text #2: Furthermore, it reckons there 'A private path and a public path which are fixed (used) both in the summer and in the winter'.

åäùúà 'ùáéì äéçéã' àéöèøéê ìàùîåòéðï - ãàò"ô ùäåà ÷èï îãøê îôñé÷, îàçø ùäåà ÷áåò.

1.

Chidush #1: The Tana needs to mention the Din by a private path to teach us - that even though it is smaller than a road, it nevertheless interrupts, since it is fixed ....

åãøê äéçéã àöèøéê - ãñ"ã ëéåï ùàéï ÷áåò, ìà îôñé÷, àò"ô ùäåà øçá.

2.

Chidush #2: ... and he needs to teach us 'a private road' - since we would otherwise have thought that since it is not fixed, it does not interrupt, even though it is wide.

åùáéì äøáéí àöèøéê - ãñ"ã àîéðà ãáùáéì äéçéã äåà ãáòéðï ÷áåò áéîåú äçîä åáéîåú äâùîéí, àáì ùáéì äøáéí, àò"ô ùàéï ÷áåò áéîåú äâùîéí, îôñé÷, ÷à îùîò ìï.

3.

Chidush #3: .. and he needs to insert 'a public path' - since we would otherwise have thought that it is only a private one that must be fixed both in summer and in winter, but a public one, will interrupt even if it is not ... . Therefore he teaches us that this is not the case.

9)

TOSFOS DH SHE'MECHALEKES SHALAL L'AGAPEHAH

úåñ' ã"ä ùîçì÷ú ùìì ìàâôéä

(Summary: Tosfos explains what happens.)

ëùâãìä äàîä, îúîìàä îéí áåøåú ùéçéï åîòøåú ùñáéáåúéä, ùîù÷éï áäí äùãåú.

(a)

Explanation: When the stream grows bigger, the water fills the surrounding pits, the trenches and the caves from which one waters the fields.

61b----------------------------------------61b

10)

TOSFOS DH V'LEIS LEIH L'REBBI SHIMON SHI'URA

úåñ' ã"ä åìéú ìéä ìø"ù ùéòåøà

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the question.)

÷ñ"ã äëì ìôé äéæ÷ äãìé÷ä éùìí, àôéìå àéï øàåé ìòáåø.

(a)

Clarification: The Gemara thinks that, according to Rebbi Shimon, the extent of the damage determines how much he pays, even if the fire is not strong enough to cross over.

11)

TOSFOS DH LO YA'AMID ADAM TANUR B'SOCH BEISO ETC

úåñ' ã"ä ìà éòîéã àãí úðåø áúåê áéúå ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos presents the ruling in two different contexts.)

ùéëåì ìòëá òìéå áòì äòìééä, àí äáéú ùì àçã åäòìééä ùì àçø, äéä îòîéãå áòìééä, áòì äáéú îòëá.

(a)

Explanation #1: That if the house is owned by one person and the attic, by another, the owner of the attic can stop the owner of the house, and the owner of the house, the owner of the attic, if he is the one to place it in his attic.

åá÷åðèøñ ôéøù ìòðéï áðé äòéø ùîòëáéï òìéå.

(b)

Explanation #2: Whereas Rashi explains it in connection with the people of the town who have the right to stop him.

åëîå ùôéøù ðéçà, ãäåé ãåîéà ãàéðê îúðéúéï ãäúí áôø÷ ìà éçôåø (á"á ãó ë:).

(c)

Support: And his explanation is correct, as it goes well with the other Mishnahs there in 'Lo Yachpor' (Bava Basra, Daf 20b).

12)

TOSFOS DH LIF'LUG V'LISNI B'DIDAH

úåñ' ã"ä ìôìåâ åìéúðé áãéãä

(Summary: Tosfos explains why currently, it differentiates in the same case and elaborates.)

åà"ú, äùúà ðîé ÷à îôìéâ áãéãä, áîãìé÷ áúåê ùìå?

(a)

Question: Now too, it differentiates in the same case, where (in the Seifa) he lights the fire in his own domain?

åé"ì, ãò"ë ñéôà áúåê áéúå ùì çáéøå îãìé÷ ...

(b)

Answer: The Seifa must be speaking where he lit it in his friend's domain ...

ãàé áîãìé÷ áúåê ùìå, àò"ô ùãøê áðé àãí ìäðéç ááúéí, äéä ôèåø, ãäà ÷úðé øéùà 'åçë"à, àéðå îùìí àìà âãéù ùì çèéï àå âãéù ùì ùòåøéï' ...

1.

Proof: ... because if it he lit it in his own domain, then even though people tend to place things in their houses, he would be Patur, since the Reisha quoting the Chachamim, says 'that he only pays for a haystack of wheat or one of barley' ...

îùîò ãàôéìå îåøéâéí åëìé á÷ø ùãøê ìäðéç áâãéù, ìà îùìí, àìà âãéù ìáãå.

2.

Proof (cont.): ... implying that he is not obligated to pay even for the threshing-sledges and the ox's accessories, which one tends to place inside a haystack, only for the haystack itself.

åäùúà áëì òðéï ùðòîéã ãáøé øá ëäðà, ôøéê øáà òìéä ùôéø ...

(c)

Conclusion: Consequently, irrespective of how we establish Rav Kahana, Rava is justified in querying him ...

ãàí ø"ì øá ëäðà îçìå÷ú áúåê ùìå, åôìéâé áîåøéâéï åëìé á÷ø, ãø"é îçééá åçëîéí ôåèøéï, àáì áîãìé÷ áùì çáéøå àôéìå øáðï îçééáé à'îåøéâéï åëìé á÷ø ...

1.

Side #1: Because, if Rav Kahana wants to establish the Machlokes where he lit the fire in his own domain over threshing-sledges and the ox's accessories that Rebbi Yehudah obligates him and the Rabanan exempt him, but in a case where he lit in his own domain even the Rabanan obligate him over threshing-sledges and the ox’s accessories ...

àí ëï, ùôéø ôøéê ãìéôìåâ áãéãä áâãéù òöîä, ãäà áéøä ðîé ìà îéúå÷îà àìà áîãìé÷ áùì çáéøå?

2.

Side #1 (cont.): ... he is justified in asking that they ought to differentiate with regard to the haystack itself, since the case of 'mansion' also speaks only where he lit it in his friend's domain?

åàí ø"ì øá ëäðà îçìå÷ú áîãìé÷ áúåê ùìå, ãôìéâé àôéìå áàøð÷é, ãø' éäåãä îçééá àò"ô ãàéï ãøê àøð÷é ìäðéç áâãéù, åøáðï ôèøé àôé' áîåøéâéï, ëãôøéùéú...

(d)

Side #2: ... whereas if he establishes the Machlokes where he lit the fire in his own domain even over a purse - that Rebbi Yehudah declares him Chayav even though one does not normally place purses in haystacks, and the Rabanan declare him Patur even if they contain threshing-sledges, as Tosfos explained ...

î"î' ëùîñééí 'àáì áîãìé÷ áúåê ùì çáéøå, ã"ä îùìí ëì îä ùáúåëå', àôéìå à'àøð÷é ðîé ÷àé, ãîùîò 'ã"ä îùìí ëì îä ùáúåëå - 'ìøáðï ëîå ìø"é ...

(e)

Side #2: ... nevertheless, when the Tana concludes 'But where he lights it in his friend's domain, they both agree that he pays for whatever was inside the haystack', it refers even to a purse, since it implies that he he pays for whatever is inside - according to the Rabanan just like according to Rebbi Yehudah.

äìëê ôøéê ùôéø 'ìôìåâ åìéúðé áãéãä', ãìùîòéðï àôé' àøð÷é áâãéù, ãàéï ãøëå ìäðéç, ãäåé øáåúà èôé?

1.

Side #2 (cont.): Therefore he asks correctly 'Let the Tana differentiate in the same case', to teach us even by a purse, which one does not tend to place there, which is a bigger Chidush?

åòåã, ù÷ùä ìùåï äîùðä ã÷úðé 'ùãøê áðé àãí ìäðéç ááúéí' - ãàôé' àéï ãøê,ðîé îçééáé øáðï, áîãìé÷ áúåê ùì çáéøå?

(f)

Proof #2: Moreover, the Lashon of the Mishnah which states 'Since it is the way to place inside houses' is dificult - since, even if it was not the way to do so, if he lit it in his friend's domain, he would be Chayav, according to the Rabanan.

13)

TOSFOS DH ElA AMAR RAVA B'TARTI P'LIGI P'LIGI B'MADLIK B'TOCH SHELO ETC.

úåñ' ã"ä àìà àîø øáà áúøúé ôìéâé [ôìéâé] áîãìé÷ áúåê ùìå ëå'

(Summary: Tosfos clarifies the two points over which Rebbi Yehudah and the Chachamim are arguing.)

ãø"é îçééá àôé' àøð÷é áâãéù, ùàéï ãøê ìäðéç ...

(a)

Rebbi Yehudah #1: Because Rebbi Yehudah declares him Chayav even for a purse in a haystack, which one does not normally place there ...

îãð÷è 'îåãéí çëîéí áîãìé÷ àú äáéøä.'

1.

Proof: ... since the Tana says that 'The Chachamim concede where he sets fire to the mansion'.

ãìëê ð÷è 'áéøä- ' ùøåöä ìîöåà ùéçééáå øáðï àôé' áàøð÷é ëîå ø"é...

2.

Proof (cont.): And he mentions 'a mansion' - because he wants to find a case where the Rabanan declare him Chayav even by a purse, like Rebbi Yehudah ...

åàé øáé éäåãä ìà îçééá áîãìé÷ áúåê ùìå àìà ãå÷à áîåøéâéï, äåä ìéä ìôìåâé áãéãä, åìéîà ãîåãéí çëîéí áîãìé÷ âãéù ùì çáéøå, ãçééá áîåøéâéï?

3.

Proof (concl.): Now if, where he lit the fire in his own domain, Rebbi Yehudah would only declare him Chayav for a threshing-sledge ... , then the Tana should have differentiated in the same case, and said that the Chachamim concede that, if he lit the haystack of his friend, he is Chayav for the threshing-sledge?

àìà åãàé îçééá ø"é áîãìé÷ áúåê ùìå àôé' áàøð÷é áâãéù.

(b)

Conclusion (Rebbi Yehudah): Clearly then, Rebbi Yehudah declares Chayav someone who lights in his own domain even for a purse that is in the haystack.

åøáðï ìà îçééáé àôé' áîåøéâéï, ã÷úðé 'àéðå îùìí àìà âãéù ùì çèéí ...'.

1.

Conclusion (Rabanan): Whereas the Rabanan do not even declare him Chayav for a threshing-sledge ... , since they say that he only pays for a haystack of wheat.

åôìéâé ðîé áîãìé÷ áúåê ùì çáéøå, ãø' éäåãä îçééá àôé' áàøð÷é áâãéù...

(c)

Rebbi Yehudah #2: And they also argue over someone who sets fire in his friend's domain, where, according to the Rebbi Yehudah, he is Chayav even for a purse in a haystack ...

åøáðï ìà îçééáé àìà áîåøéâéï ùì çáéøå ùãøëå ìäðéç áâãéù, àå àøð÷é ááéú, ùãøê ìäðéç ëì ãáø ááúéí.

1.

Rabanan #2: ... whereas the Rabanan only declare him Chayav for the threshing-sledge, which his friend normally places inside the haystack, or for a purse in a house, since one tends to place anything inside a house.

åèòîééäå éù ìôøù - ãø' éäåãä ìà ôèø áèîåï ëìì;

(d)

Reason (Rebbi Yehudah): And one can explain their respective reasons, in that Rebbi does not exempt Tamun at all ...

åøáðï áîãìé÷ áúåê ùìå ôèøé, ëãîùîò ÷øà "ëé úöà àù" (åîùîò) ãàééøé ãîãìé÷ áúåê ùìå ...

(e)

Reason (the Rabanan): ... and the Rabanan exempt where one lights the fire in one's own domain, as implied by the Pasuk "Ki Seitzei Eish", which speaks where one lit in one's own domain ...

àáì áîãìé÷ áúåê ùì çáéøå, îçééá áãáø ùãøëå ìäèîéï, ãìà àùëçï ãôèø áéä ÷øà èîåï...

1.

The Rabanan (cont.): ... whereas someone who sets fire to his friend's domain is liable for something that one tends to place inside it, since the Torah did not exempt Tamun in such a case.

åáãáø ùàéï ãøëå ôèøé, îñáøà, ãìà àáòé ìéä ìàñå÷é àãòúéä ùéðéç àãí àøð÷é áâãéù.

2.

The Rabanan (concl.): And they exempt him from paying for something that is not normally placed there, from a S'vara - that a person is not obligated to take into account that a a person would place such an object there.