Commentary for Bava Kamma 119:19

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב

liability also for concealed articles damaged by fire, why had 'standing corn' [to be mentioned]? — To include anything possessing stature.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 5b. ');">¹⁵</span> Whence then did the [other] Rabbis include anything possessing stature?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., living objects and plants [Though the latter, unlike 'stacks' are still attached to the ground. Tosaf.] ');">¹⁶</span> — They derived this from [the word] 'or' [placed before] 'the standing corn'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 311, and also Tosaf. Hul. 86b. ');">¹⁷</span> And R. Judah? — He needed [the word] 'or' as a disjunctive.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 311, and also Tosaf. Hul. 86b. ');">¹⁷</span> Whence then did the [other] Rabbis derive the disjunction? — They derived it from [the word] 'or' [placed before] 'the field'. And R. Judah? — He held that because the Divine Law inserted 'or' [before] 'the standing corn' 'it also inserted 'or' [before] 'the field'. But why was 'field' needed [to be inserted]? — To include [the case of] Fire lapping his neighbour's ploughed field, and grazing his stones.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 347. n. 5. ');">¹⁸</span> But why did the Divine Law not say only 'field',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which includes everything. ');">¹⁹</span> in which case the others would not have been necessary? They were still necessary. For if the Divine Law had said 'field' only, I might have said that anything in the field would come under the same law, but not any other thing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as the field itself. ');">²⁰</span> It was therefore indicated to us [that this is not so]. R. Samuel b. Nahmani stated<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Having stated 'standing corn', the Torah must have added 'field' to indicate the field itself.] ');">²¹</span> that R. Johanan said: Calamity comes upon the world only when there are wicked persons in the world, and it always begins with the righteous, as it says: If fire break out and catch in thorns.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 5. ');">²²</span> When does fire break out? Only when thorns are found nearby. It always begins, however, with the righteous, as it says: so that the stack of corn was consumed:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Used metaphorically to express the righteous. ');">²³</span> It does not say 'and it would consume the stack of corn', but 'that the stack of corn was consumed' which means that the 'stack of corn' had already been consumed. R. Joseph learnt: What is the meaning of the verse, And none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 22. ');">²⁴</span> Once permission has been granted to the Destroyer, he does not distinguish between righteous and wicked. Moreover, he even begins with the righteous at the very outset, as it says:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XXI, 8. ');">²⁵</span> <i>And I will cut off from thee the righteous and the wicked</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus mentioning first the 'righteous' and then the 'wicked'. ');">²⁶</span> R. Joseph wept at this, saying: So much are they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the righteous. ');">²⁷</span> compared to nothing!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That they are punished even for the wicked. ');">²⁸</span> But Abaye [consoling him,] said: This is for their advantage, as it is written, That the righteous is taken away from the evil to come.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Isa. LVII, 1. ');">²⁹</span> Rab Judah stated that Rab said:

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 119:19. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.