Bava Kamma

But according to the view that his inquiry concerned concealed goods in the case of Fire, what need was there for the verses?  — He might say to you that besides [the problem of] hidden goods [in the case of Fire], one of the other problems [referred to above]  was asked by him. Now according to the [other] two views we quite understand why it is written, But he would not drink thereof,  for he said, 'Since there is a [general] prohibition  I do not want it.'  But according to the view that his inquiry concerned hidden goods  in the case of Fire, was it not a traditional teaching which was despatched to him, [and that being so,]  what would be the meaning of 'But he would not drink thereof'?  — [The meaning would be] that he did not want to quote this teaching in their names,  for he said: 'This has been transmitted to me from the Court of Law presided over by Samuel of Ramah, that no halachic matter may be quoted in the name of one who surrenders himself to meet death for words of the Torah.' But he poured it out unto the Lord.  We quite understand this according to the [other] two views, as he acted thus for the sake of Heaven.  But according to the view that [his inquiry concerned] hidden goods in the case of Fire, what would be the meaning [of this verse], 'but he poured it out unto the Lord'? — That he repeated this [halachic statement] in the name of general traditional learning. MISHNAH. IF IT CROSSED A FENCE FOUR CUBITS HIGH OR A PUBLIC ROAD  OR A CANAL, THERE WOULD BE NO LIABILITY. GEMARA. But was it not taught: 'If it crossed a fence four cubits high there would [still] be liability'? — R. Papa thereupon said: The Tanna of our ruling [here] was reckoning downwards; [at the height of] six cubits there would be exemption; at five cubits, there would be exemption; down to [the height of] four cubits  there would [still] be exemption. The Tanna of the Baraitha [was on the other hand] reckoning upwards; at [the height of] two cubits, there would be liability; of three cubits,  there would be liability; up to [the height of] four cubits, there would [still] be liability. Raba said: [The height of] four cubits stated [in the Mishnah] as not involving liability would also suffice even where the fire passed over to a field of thorns. R. Papa, however, said: [The height of] four cubits should be calculated from the top of the thorns. Rab said: The Mishnaic ruling applies only where the fire was rising in a column, but where it was creeping along there would be liability, even if it crossed a public road of about [the width of] a hundred cubits. Samuel [on the other hand] said that the Mishnah deals with a creeping fire; for in the case of a fire rising in a column there would be exemption if it crossed a public road of any width whatsoever. It was, however, taught in accordance with Rab: This ruling  applies only where it was rising in a column; if it was creeping along, and wood happened to be in its path, there would be liability were it even to pass over a public ground of about the width of a hundred mil.  If, however, it crossed a river or pool eight cubits wide, there would be exemption. A PUBLIC ROAD. Who was the Tanna [who laid this down]? — Raba said: He was R. Eliezer, as we have indeed learnt: 'R. Eliezer says: [If it was] sixteen cubits [wide] like the road in a public thoroughfare, [there would be exemption]. OR A CANAL. Rab said: It means an actual river. Samuel, however, said: It means a pond for watering fields. The one who says it is an actual river [would maintain the same ruling] even where there was no water there.  But the one who says it means a pond for watering fields [would hold that] so long as there was water there the ruling would apply, but not where no water was there. Elsewhere we have learnt: 'Divisions [of fields] with respect to Pe'ah  are effected by the following: a brook, a shelulith, a private road and a public road.  What is shelulith? — Rab Judah stated that Samuel had said: A [low lying] place where rainwater collects.  R. Bibi, however, said on behalf of R. Johanan: A pond of water which [as it were] distributes spoil  to the banks. The one who says that it means a [low-lying] place where rain water collects would certainly apply the ruling to a pond of water,  but the one who says that it means a pond of water would on the other hand maintain that [low-lying] places where rain-water collects would not cause a division, as these