Bava Kamma - Daf 9
- If brothers who divide an estate are like יורשין or לקוחות
If brothers divided their father’s estate, and the father’s creditor collected his debt from one brother, Rav says: בטלה מחלוקת – The division is void, and the remaining estate is redivided. Shmuel says: ויתר – He has forgone his share and has no claim against his brother. Rav Assi says: נוטל רביע בקרקע ורביע במעות – He takes one-quarter of land from his brother, or his brother may give him the value of one-quarter of the field in money. Rav holds: האחים שחלקו כיורשים הוו – Brothers who divide an estate are considered like heirs, and jointly owe the father’s debts. If it was collected from one, he must be compensated, as if he never received his share. Shmuel holds they are considered לקוחות – purchasers of their shares from one another, and additionally are like purchasers without guarantee of compensation, so whichever land was taken, that brother has no claim against the other. Rav Assi is uncertain whether they are like heirs or purchasers, so he may only demand half-compensation, which is a quarter of the other brother’s share. Additionally, he holds the brother may choose to pay him with money instead of land.
- הידור במצוה עד שליש
Rebbe Zeira quoted Rav Huna: במצוה עד שליש – One spends up to a third on a mitzvah. This cannot mean that one must spend a third of his total assets on a mitzvah, because then one would have to spend his entire estate on three mitzvos!? Rebbe Zeira clarified: בהידור מצוה עד שליש במצוה –Regarding beautification of a mitzvah, one must spend up to a third of the cost of the mitzvah itself. Rav Ashi asked: שליש מלגיו או שליש מלבר – Is this a third calculated “from the inside” (i.e., an additional third above the original amount), or is it calculated “from the outside” (i.e., an additional half, which amounts to a third of the combined total)? The question is left unresolved. In Eretz Yisroel, Rebbe Zeira was quoted as saying: עד שליש משלו – Up to a third must be funded from one’s own assets. מכאן ואילך משל הקב"ה – From there and on, if he spends more, it will be funded (i.e., reimbursed) from Hashem.
- Leaving an ox or pit vs. leaving a fire to be watched by חרש שוטה וקטן
The next Mishnah states: כל שחבתי בשמירתו – Anything I am obligated to guard from damaging, הכשרתי את נזקו – I have caused the damage it does if I did not guard it adequately. A Baraisa illustrates this: שור ובור שמסרן לחרש שוטה וקטן – An ox or pit that one left under the watch of a deaf-mute, an insane person, or a minor, he is responsible for their damages. If he left a fire under their watch, he is exempt from its damages. The distinction is explained in two ways: According to Reish Lakish, who holds one responsible for a flame he handed to an incompetent person, this case must be with a mere גחלת – coal, and the parallel cases are a tied-up ox and covered pit. The difference is: שור דרכיה לנתוקי – An ox tends to loosen itself from its bonds, בור דרכיה לנתורי – and a pit’s cover tends to become dislodged (so the safeguards were insufficient), whereas a coal, the longer it is left alone, מעמיא עמיא ואזלא – it progressively dims, and he did not cause the damage. According to Rebbe Yochanan, who exempts even for damages from a flame left with them, the parallel case would be an untied ox and uncovered pit. The difference between them is that regarding a flame, צבתא דחרש קא גרים – the deaf-mute’s handling caused the damage, and not the owner’s negligence, whereas the unguarded ox and pit damaged without any action from the incompetent person.
