Bava Kamma 13b

בבא קמא י״ג ע״ב

Learn Bava Kamma 13b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 13b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Damaging קדשים, and explaining the phrases of the משנה: בני ברית, נכסים המיוחדין, the מזיק's domain, the shared courtyard and שומרים

Overview

The amud opens by finishing a point about a damaging שלמים: the ניזק cannot say that only the meat did the damage and not the אימורין. רבא then rules that from a damaging תודה the ניזק collects from the meat but not the bread. The גמרא explains that the real point is that the owner must still bring the bread, because it is his own obligation. Next the גמרא explains phrases of the משנה. 'בני ברית' excludes a גוי's property. 'נכסים המיוחדין' gets three explanations: an unclear case where each owner blames the other's ox, an ownerless ox (from a ברייתא), or, according to רבינא, an ox that was made הקדש or הפקר after it gored. A ברייתא of רבי יהודה supports רבינא: the ox's status must be the same at the death, the trial and the verdict. Then the גמרא explains why there is no liability in the מזיק's own domain. רב חסדא and רבי אלעזר disagree about a shared courtyard, and each reads the משנה differently. Finally, the גמרא brings a ברייתא that makes the four kinds of שומרים liable for damage done by an animal in their care. It starts working out the exact case, which continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (30)

1. ResolutionThe whole animal did the damage, not just the meat
2. StatementA damaging תודה: collect from the meat, not the bread
3. ChallengeIsn't it obvious about the bread?
4. Resolutionרבא needed the second half: the owner still brings the bread
5. ChallengeIsn't the owner bringing the bread also obvious?
6. ResolutionWithout רבא, the owner might have pushed the bread onto the ניזק
7. ChallengeWhat does 'property of בני ברית' exclude?
8. ResolutionThe משנה states the rule first and explains it later
9. QuestionWhat does 'assigned property' exclude?
10. Responseרב יהודה: it excludes when each owner blames the other's ox
11. ChallengeA later משנה already teaches the two-oxen case
12. ResolutionThe משנה states the rule here and explains it later
13. ResponseA ברייתא: the phrase excludes ownerless property
14. QuestionWhich case of ownerless property is meant?
15. ResponseAn ownerless ox gored our ox
16. ChallengeHe can just take the ownerless ox
17. ResolutionSomeone else took the ox first
18. Responseרבינא: the ox gored and was then made הקדש or הפקר
19. ProofA ברייתא supports רבינא: goring followed by הקדש or הפקר is exempt
20. ChallengeIsn't the final verdict needed too?
21. ResolutionReword the rule to include the final verdict
22. StatementWhy there is no payment in the damager's own domain
23. StatementIn a shared courtyard the owner is liable for שן and רגל
24. Statementרבי אלעזר says a shared courtyard is exempt, and the last clause adds קרן
25. ChallengeAccording to רב, what does 'the damager is obligated' add?
26. ResolutionThe last clause brings in the ברייתא about watchmen
27. QuestionWhat case is the ברייתא talking about?
28. RejectionIt cannot be the lender's ox hurting the borrower's ox
29. ChallengeIt cannot be the borrower's ox hurting the lender's ox either
30. ResolutionBack to the first case: the borrower only agreed to guard the ox's body