Bava Kamma 10b

בבא קמא י׳ ע״ב

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

Open Bava Kamma 10b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Who pays when others contributed to the damage, and why the ניזק keeps the carcass and bears its drop in value

Overview

The גמרא is looking for cases where other people helped cause damage, yet one person pays for all of it. Adding wood to a fire does not work as an example: either his liability is obvious, or he did nothing. רב פפא brings the ברייתא of a bench that breaks under a sixth person. After several tries, the גמרא explains it as a case where the bench broke the moment he leaned on the others, which teaches כחו כגופו דמי. The ten sticks case is left off the list, either because the list deals only with money or because the list would not follow a lone opinion against the רבנן. Next, the משנה's word 'תשלומי' teaches that the ניזק keeps the נבילה and the מזיק pays only the loss. Three פסוקים are brought as sources for this, and a צריכותא shows why each one is needed. רב כהנא asks why the תורה needs to give the carcass to the ניזק at all, and the answer is פחת נבילה, the carcass's drop in value. The amud ends by asking whether פחת נבילה is a dispute between תנאים, and that discussion continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (30)

1. ChallengeAdding wood to a fire is either obvious or meaningless
2. Challengeרב פפא brings the case of the broken bench
3. RejectionThe bench case is either obvious or meaningless too
4. ChallengeSo how do we explain the bench ברייתא?
5. ResolutionThe bench would have broken later, but he made it break sooner
6. ChallengeThe sixth man can blame the first five
7. ResolutionIt broke the moment he leaned on them
8. ChallengeThen the ruling is obvious
9. ResolutionForce counts like body
10. ChallengeWhy is the ten sticks case missing?
11. ResolutionThe list does not deal with the death penalty
12. ResolutionThe list leaves out disputed cases
13. ChallengeBut the list already has a disputed case
14. ResolutionFollowing the majority is different
15. StatementThe extra word 'payments' teaches that the owner keeps the carcass
16. QuestionWhere do we learn this law from?
17. Responseרבי אמי: read 'he shall complete it' instead of 'he shall pay it'
18. Responseרב כהנא: 'he pays up to the torn animal' from the פסוק of the שומר
19. Responseחזקיה's source: the dead animal belongs to the damaged party
20. ProofA ברייתא from חזקיה's school says the same thing
21. QuestionWhat does 'it could not have been that' mean?
22. Responseאביי: the extra words of the פסוק show the carcass goes to the damaged party
23. ResponseWhy 'one who strikes an animal' alone is not enough
24. ResponseWhy the torn-animal source alone is not enough
25. ResponseWhy the first two sources still cannot teach the goring ox
26. ConclusionWhy the goring-ox source alone is not enough, so all three are needed
27. Questionרב כהנא restates the assumption
28. ChallengeThe damager could pay with the carcass anyway
29. ResolutionThe verse is needed for the carcass's drop in value
30. QuestionIs the drop in value a dispute between תנאים?