ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Bava Kama 60
(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Ba Acher ve'Libah, ha'Melabeh Chayav'. The
source of the word 've'Libah' (meaning 'made a fire') lies in the Pasuk in
Sh'mos (in connection with the Burning Bush) - "*be'Labas* Eish" ('in a
flame of fire).
(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak learns from the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Borei Niv
Sefasayim" - that those who have the text 'Nibsah ha'Ru'ach' (instead of
'Libsah ... ') have not erred.
(c) The connection between "Niv Sefasayim" and 'Nibsah ha'Eish' in our
Mishnah - is that, just as fire is caused by the movement of the wind, so
too, is speech ("Niv") caused by the movement of the lips.
(d) The Mishnah concludes 'Libsah ha'Ru'ach, Kulan Peturin'. The Beraisa
qualifies this ruling - by establishing that if the person who placed the
last item went on to blow the fire forcefully, he will be liable, even
though the fire fanned the flames still further.
(a) If someone winnows on Shabbos with the help of the wind - he is Chayav
(to bring a Chatas if he did so be'Shogeg).
(b) Abaye and Rava both establish the Mishnah which exempts him with regard
to Nezikin, when the Mazik's blowing was ineffective against the wind.
According to Abaye, the Tana speaks when he blew the flames in one
direction, but the wind blew them in another direction. Rava establishes
it - when at the time when he began blowing, only a regular wind was blowing
(one that was insufficient to cause any damage), but suddenly a strong gust
of wind carried the flames further afield.
(c) According to Rebbi Zeira, the Mazik's blowing was simply ineffective -
because he was blowing warm breath from the back of his throat, insufficient
to cause any damage.
(d) According to Rav Ashi, our Mishnah speaks when he blew forcefully, and
yet he is Patur. And he draws a distinction between Shabbos and Nezikin (to
resolve the apparent discrepancy). By Shabbos, he explains - he is Chayav
because, since one can only light a fire in conjunction with the wind, it is
included in "Meleches Machsheves", whereas by Nezikin (where the criterion
is whether the Mazik performed the damage on his own or) he is Patur because
of G'rama, seeing as without the wind, his breath would not have caused the
(a) Our Mishnah states that a fire which destroyed wood, stones or earth
(the furrows of the field) - renders the person who lit it liable to pay.
(b) The Tana learns this from the Pasuk which specifies 'thorns', 'a
haystack', 'standing corn' and 'a field'. Having written ...
1. ... "Kotzim", the Torah nevertheless finds it necessary to write
"Gadish" - because whereas the former is commonly burned, the latter is not
(because one expects it to be protected).
(c) And the Torah needed to add ...
2. ... "Gadish", the Torah find it necessary to write "Kotzim" - to teach us
that one is liable to pay even for thorns, despite their being virtually
1. ... "ha'Kamah", according to the Rabanan - to confine liability to things
that are revealed (like standing corn), precluding things that are hidden in
(d) Rebbi Yehudah argues with the Rabbanan - with regard to Tamun ba'Eish.
According to him, the person who lit the fire is liable on things that are
hidden in the haystack, too.
2. ... "ha'Sadeh" - to include stones and the scorching of the furrows, in
the Mazik's range of liability.
(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah, "ha'Kamah" comes to include 'Kol Ba'alei
Komah' - incorporating animals and trees, which the Pasuk has not mentioned.
(b) If the Rabbanan learn ...
1. ... this from "*O* ha'Kamah", Rebbi Yehudah learns from "O" -
'Le'chalek', meaning that one is liable even for one of the items listed in
the Pasuk (and not only on condition that he damages them all).
(c) We just explained that from "ha'Sadeh" we learn 'Lichechah Niyro
ve'Sichsechah Avanav'. The Torah could not just have written "ha'Sadeh" -
because we would then have thought that the damages of Eish are confined to
what grows in the field, but not to the field itself.
2. ... 'Le'chalek' from "*O* ha'Sadeh", Rebbi Yehudah maintains -that since
the Torah had to write "*O* ha'Kamah", it also writes "*O* ha'Sadeh", even
though it is unnecessary to do so.
(a) Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan interprets the Pasuk "Ki
Seitzei Eish ... " allegorically. According to his explanation ...
1. ... The "Kotzim" (in "u'Matz'ah Kotzim") - refers to the Resha'im.
(b) The message the Pasuk now conveys is - that on the one hand, it is the
Resha'im who are responsible for Divine communal retribution, whilst on the
other, it is the Tzadikim who go first.
2. ... The "Gadish (in "ve'Ne'echal Gadish") - pertains to the Tzadikim.
(c) We justify this grammatically (in spite of the fact that "Gadish" is
written after "Kotzim") - by translating "ve'Ne'echal Gadish" in the
pluperfect (as 'and a haystack had been consumed' - before the thorns).
(a) Rav Yosef ...
1. ... quoting a Beraisa, learns from the Pasuk (in connection with the
smiting of the firstborn) "ve'Atem Lo Seitz'u Ish me'Pesach Beiso ad
Boker" - that when the destructive angel is let loose, he makes no
distinction between Tzadikim and Resha'im (but kills all in his path).
(b) When Rav Yosef when he wept at the apparent worthlessness of Tzadikim,
Abaye consoled him - by explaining that Hashem does this for the Tzadik's
benefit (in order to spare him being a witness to the calamity that is about
to befall K'lal Yisrael).
2. ... extrapolates from the Pasuk "ve'Hichrati Mimcha Tzadik ve'Rasha" -
that he even begins with the Tzadikim.
(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav learns from the Pasuk that we just quoted ("ve'Atem
Lo Seitz'u Ish me'Pesach Beiso ad Boker") - that one should arrive at one's
destination before it gets dark and that one should not set out on a journey
whilst it is still dark.
(d) The reason for this is so as not to fall prery to demons and robbers
(see also Tosfos DH 'Le'olam.
(a) he Beraisa learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "ve'Atem Lo Seitz'u ... " - that when there is a plague of
pestilence, one should stay at home.
(b) Based on the Pasuk "Ki Alah Ma'ves ba'Chalonenu", whenever there was a
plague of pestilence - Rava would close the windows.
2. ... the Pasuk "Lech Ami Ba ba'Chadarecha" - that this extends to the
daytime as well.
3. ... the Pasuk in Ki Savo "mi'Chutz Teshakel Cherev u'me'Chadarim Eimah" -
that it even applies when the sword of the enemy lurks outside.
(c) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Vayehi Ra'av ba'Aretz, Va'yered Avraham Mitzraymah" - that when
there is a famine, one should leave the country.
2. ... (in connection with the four Metzora'im) "Im Amarnu Navo ha'Ir
ve'ha'Ra'av ba'Ir Va'masnu Sham" (in conjunction with the first part of the
Pasuk "Lechu ve'Niplah el Machaneh Aram, Im Yechayunu ve'Nichyeh") - that
this even applies when remaining outside the town constitutes a Safek
Nefashos (i.e. one's life is in danger there too).
(a) One is advised to walk ...
1. ... at the sides of the road when there is a plague of pestilence in
town - because the Angel of Death, who has been given a free hand, walks
proudly in the middle of the road.
(b) When there is a plague of pestilence - one should avoid entering a Shul
altogether, because that is where he places his tools, unless children are
learning there or there is a Minyan in progress.
2. ... in the middle of the road (before the advent of cars) when there is
not - because the Angel of Death, having been denied a free hand, walks
dejectedly at the side of the road.
(c) The dogs ...
1. ... whining - is an indication that the Angel of Death is in the
(d) This is not necessarily the case however, if they are barking in the
presence of a bitch.
2. ... barking joyfully - is an indication that Eliyahu is in the area.
(a) Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi once gave Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha sitting before
Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha, placed him in a predicament - when one of them
demanded a D'var Halachah (and would not allow him to say a D'var Agadah),
and the other one demanded a D'var Agadah (and would not allow him to say a
(b) To describe his predicament, he told them the Mashal - of the aging man
with two wives, one young and the other, old. Whenever the young wife
discovered white hair on his head, she would pluck it out; whereas the old
wife would pluck out the black hairs, until finally, he had no hair left at
(c) He got out of that predicament by telling them something that
encompassed both Agadah and Halachah.
(d) He derived from the fact that the Pasuk ...
1. ... opens with a fire going out by itself ("Ki Seitzei Eish"), and ends
with the Mazik causing the damage directly ("Shalem ... ha'Mav'ir es
ha'Be'eirah") - that it must be referring to Hashem, who is hinting that
although He did not cause the fire that burned the Beis Hamikdash (we did),
He considers it as if He had (as the Pasuk in Eichah writes "Va'yatzes Eish
be'Tziyon"), and is therefore prepared to rebuild it when the time comes (as
the Pasuk in Zecharyah writes "va'Ani Eheyeh Lah ... Chomas Eish Saviv ...
2. ... opens with Nizkei Mamon ("Ki Seitzei Eish"), and ends with Nizkei
Gufo ("Shalem ... ha'Mav'ir es ha'Be'eirah") - to teach us that 'Isho Mishum
Chitzav' (obligating the owner of the fire to pay the four things).
(a) When David asked for water to quench his thirst, the Pasuk describes the
three strong men as having gone into the enemy camp and drawn water from the
well of Beis-Lechem.
(b) According to Rava Amar Rav Nachman, he asked them whether, having burned
someone's haystack, they were obligated to pay for things that were hidden
inside it (See Agados Maharsha). They replied either 'Patur' (like the
Rabbanan), or 'Chayav' (like Rebbi Yehudah), we do not know which.
(c) According to Rav Huna, it was a case of P'lishtim hiding inside
barley-stacks belonging to Jews - and David asked the three strong men (i.e.
Talmidei-Chachamim, strong in Torah), whether one was permitted to save
oneself with someone else's money (see also Tosfos DH 'Mahu').
(a) The third interpretation of David's She'eilah is - whether they were
permitted to eat barley-stacks belonging to Jews with the intention of
paying back lentil-stacks belonging to the P'lishtim.
(b) According to both latter versions - they replied that although anybody
else was forbidden to burn or to eat the barley-stacks (for either of the
two reasons (see Maharatz Chiyos), in his capacity as a king, was permitted
to break a way through anyone's field, as he saw fit.
1. Rav Huna attributes the fact that one Pasuk refers to a field full of
lentils, whereas a second Pasuk refers to a field full of barley - to the
fact that there also happened to be some lentil-stacks in which the
P'lishtim had hidden.
2. The third opinion explains the Pasuk "Va'yisyatzev be'Soch ha'Chalakah
va'Yatzilah " - to mean that they refused to allow them to burn the
barley-stacks in order to pay back the lentil-stacks.
3. The reason that there are two Pesukim, according to Rav Nachman (Tamun
ba'Eish) is - because, besides asking about Tamun ba'Eish, David also asked
one of the other two She'eilos.
(a) We interpret the Pasuk "ve'Lo Avah David Li'shtosam", according to ...
1. ... the latter two explanations to mean - that even though strictly
speaking, in his capacity as king, he was permitted to burn the
barley-stacks, he refused to make use of the special concession, and was
strict with himself.
(b) We interpret the Pasuk "va'Yasech Osam Lifnei Hashem, according to ...
2. ... Rav Nachman, despite the fact that they ruled either like the Rabanan
or like Rebbi Yehudah, to mean - that he refused to repeat the ruling in
their name, because they risked their lives in the process of taking the
She'eilah to the Beis-Din in Beis-Lechem, and we have learned that when
someone risks his life for Torah (by which it is written "va'Chai Bahem",
one omits his name when quoting the Halachah (see Agados Maharsha).
1. ... the two latter explanations - in praise of David, who rejected the
special concession Leshem Shamayim.
2. ... Rav Nachman (seeing as he merely did what was right) to mean - that
he said it over in the name of the Rabbanan S'tam (see Maharatz Chiyos).