Musar for Bava Kamma 124:17

ומי מצית אמרת הכי והא שלמה כתיב אמרי אנן בבעלי חיים קאמרינן אימא בבעלי חיים דבר שנבלתו מטמא במגע ובמשא אין דבר שאין נבלתו מטמא במגע ובמשא לא

whereas the measure of four-fold or five-fold payments has no application except in the case of a thief alone — [this, be it noted], is not taught here. This [omission] supports the view of R. Hiyya b. Abba, for R. Hiyya b. Abba stated that R. Johanan said: He who falsely alleges a theft [to account for the absence] of a deposit [entrusted to him], may have to make double payment;14 so also if he slaughtered or sold it he may have to make four-fold or five-fold payment.15 Some read as follows: Shall we say that this [omission] supports the view of R. Hiyya b. Abba who said in the name of R. Johanan: He who falsely alleges a theft [to account for the absence] of a deposit [entrusted to him] may have to make double payment; so also if he slaughtered or sold it, he may have to make four-fold or five-fold payment'? — But does your text say, 'There is no difference between [this16 and that17 except …]'? What it says is, THERE IS MORE FREQUENT OCCASION. — While some points were stated in the text others were omitted.18 AS THE MEASURE OF DOUBLE PAYMENT APPLIES BOTH TO A THING POSSESSING THE BREATH OF LIFE AND TO A THING WHICH DOES NOT POSSESS THE BREATH OF LIFE etc. Whence is this derived? As our Rabbis taught: For every matter of trespass19 is a generalisation; whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, is a specification; or for any manner of lost thing generalises again. We have thus here a generalisation preceding a specification which is in its turn followed by another generalisation,20 and in such cases we include only that which is similar to the specification. Just as the specification here mentions an object which is movable and which has an intrinsic value, there should therefore be included any object which is movable and which has an intrinsic value. Real estate is thus excluded,21 not being movable; slaves are similarly excluded as they are on the same footing [in the eye of the law] with real estate;22 bills are similarly excluded, as though they are movable, they have no intrinsic value; sacred property is also excluded as the text speaks of 'his neighbour'. But since the specification mentions a living thing whose carcass would cause defilement whether by touching or by carrying,23 [why not say] there should be included any living thing whose carcass similarly causes defilement whether by touching or by carrying24 so that birds would not be included?25 — How can you seriously say this? Is not raiment26 mentioned here? It may, however, be said that it is only regarding objects possessing life that we have argued.27 Why then not say in the case of objects possessing life that it is only a thing whose carcass causes defilement by touching and carrying that is included, whereas a thing whose carcass does not cause defilement by touching and carrying should not be included,

Shenei Luchot HaBerit

We find a similar discussion in Bava Kamma (62b), in conjunction with rules about where to place the Chanukah lights. First we are told that any damage due to sparks emitted from the anvil is the smith's responsibility. We are also taught there that if a camel laden with flax walks in the public domain near which Chanukah lights are burning, the owner of those lights is not responsible for damage sustained by the flax (at least according to Rabbi Yehudah). If the lights causing the damage did not serve a מצוה purpose, everybody agrees that the owner is responsible. The discussion about possible damage caused by the Chanukah lights is also mentioned in Shabbat 21b, where most of the details about Chanukah observances may be found.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Previous Verse Full Chapter Next Verse