Bava Kama 114 - 119
“One should conclude Torah study with a ‘good word’.”
The concluding sugya in our masechet of Bava Kama teaches a way to determine when taking another’s property is considered theft and when it is not. The underlying principle is that when the owner is “makpid” about his property (meaning that he is not agreeable to another person taking his property), then it is considered theft if another person in fact takes it.
An example cited in a beraita at the conclusion of our Tractate is the case of unripe grains that were fit for animals to eat. Rabbi Yehuda states that it is not theft if another person takes some of it unless the owner is makpid and not agreeable to any taking. Ravina adds that the city of Masa Machsia was a place where the owners were not agreeable to taking their animal grain without permission. Rashi explains that the reason they were makpid regarding others taking their animal grain was because Masa Machsia was a place of many animals, and much of this grain was needed by the animal owners, since their animals required a “good pasture”.
The Maharsha points out that it would have been sufficient for Rashi to have written the word “pasture” without the word “good”. He suggests that Rashi adds the word “good” (tov) as the final word of his commentary on Bava Kama in order to end on a “good note”, after learning a Tractate that is virtually entirely dedicated to the negative topic of damages. Therefore, instead of ending his commentary with the word “pasture” (mireh), which in Hebrew ends with the word “bad” (ra’ah) at the end, Rashi ends with the word “good”, which is correct in the context of the case in the gemara, as well as “concluding Torah study with a 'good word'”. In this case the “good word” is literally the word “good”, whereas in other cases it may be an optimistic or consoling message. Other Tractates actually conclude with a positive message, but since Bava Kama is, in a sense, part of the trilogy of Bava Kama, Bava Metzia, and Bava Batra, the Maharsha suggests that the gemara in Bava Kama does not conclude on a clear “good note” like other Tractates.
Although the gemara does not openly conclude on a good note or a good message, the Maharsha suggests that gemara actually concludes in a way that hints to a positive ending. He notes that the final four letters of the Tractate are yod, heh, vav and alef, which hint to three different names of our merciful
- Bava Kama 119b