Gemara Clarity

Bava Kamma 10a

בבא קמא י׳ ע״א

Learn Bava Kamma 10a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 10a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Comparing the categories of damage (שור, אש, בור) and their missing stringencies, and the משנה's rule about one who makes possible part of the damage.

Overview

This amud finishes a ברייתא that compares the main categories of damage, showing that שור and אש, and then בור and אש, are each stricter than the other in some way. The גמרא then asks why the ברייתא did not also say that a שור pays for broken כלים while a בור does not. One answer says the ברייתא follows רבי יהודה, who holds a בור liable for כלים. That fails because of the ברייתא's own fire clause, which the גמרא first reads as being about כלים. The גמרא gives two ways out. Either the ברייתא follows the רבנן and simply left some cases out (תנא ושייר), or 'something not fit for fire' means scorching a field, which fits רבי יהודה. רב אשי then challenges the רבי יהודה reading, and the attempt to defend it is rejected. Next the גמרא turns to the משנה's line about making possible part of the damage. A ברייתא explains it with a pit dug to nine טפחים and finished to ten, and רב פפא shows this fits even רבי's view. Finally, רבי זירא and רב ששת suggest other examples, the five guards and adding wood to a fire. The גמרא rejects the first, and its look at the second continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

חוֹמֶר בְּשׁוֹר מִבְּאֵשׁ,

A stringency in Ox over Fire,

חוֹמֶר בְּאֵשׁ מִבְּשׁוֹר.

a stringency in Fire over Ox.

חוֹמֶר בְּשׁוֹר מִבְּאֵשׁ –

The stringency in Ox over Fire:

שֶׁהַשּׁוֹר מְשַׁלֵּם כּוֹפֶר,

that for the ox, one pays a ransom,

The steps (28)

  1. StatementOx and fire each have a stricter side
  2. StatementHow the ox is stricter than fire
  3. StatementHow fire is stricter than the ox
  4. StatementFire and pit each have a stricter side
  5. StatementHow the pit is stricter than fire
  6. StatementHow fire is stricter than the pit
  7. ChallengeWhy not list that an ox is liable for vessels and a pit is not?
  8. ResolutionThe ברייתא follows רבי יהודה
  9. ChallengeThe סיפא says a pit is not liable for vessels
  10. ResolutionIt follows the רבנן, and the תנא left some cases out
  11. QuestionWhat else did he leave out?
  12. ResponseHe left out hidden items
  13. ResolutionAnother way to read the ברייתא as רבי יהודה
  14. Challengeרב אשי: the ברייתא should have listed פסולי המוקדשין
  15. ChallengeWhy the missing case is a problem only for רבי יהודה
  16. ResolutionHe also left out an ox trampling a plowed field
  17. RejectionTrampling a field is already covered in the ברייתא
  18. StatementNew line of the משנה: making possible part of the damage
  19. StatementThe ברייתא's example: finishing a pit from nine to ten
  20. ChallengeThis ברייתא seems not to follow רבי
  21. Resolutionרב פפא: the ברייתא is about death, so everyone agrees
  22. ChallengeSecond version: Does the ברייתא disagree with רבי?
  23. Resolutionרב פפא: The ברייתא speaks about death, and everyone agrees
  24. Challengeרבי זירא: What about the ox given to five guards?
  25. RejectionIf the ox needed all five guards, the careless one did all the damage
  26. RejectionIf the ox was guarded anyway, the careless one did nothing
  27. Challengeרב ששת: What about adding a bundle of wood to a fire?
  28. QuestionWhat exactly is the case of the added bundle?