Gemara Clarity

Bava Kamma 14a

בבא קמא י״ד ע״א

Learn Bava Kamma 14a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 14a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Liability for damage in a shared courtyard: רבי אלעזר, רב יוסף's ברייתא, and רבי שמעון בן אלעזר's four rules

Overview

This amud finishes explaining a ברייתא about a borrowed ox. In the first case, the borrower never took on the job of stopping the ox from causing damage. The second half of that ברייתא is a different case, where he did take on that job. The גמרא then challenges רבי אלעזר, who exempts partners for שן and רגל in a shared courtyard, using a ברייתא of רב יוסף that makes them liable. רבי אלעזר answers that the ברייתות disagree, and he quotes רבי שמעון בן אלעזר's four rules, which exempt partners in a shared courtyard. The גמרא settles the clash: one courtyard is set aside for both produce and oxen, while the other is set aside only for produce. רבי זירא and אביי then argue whether a produce-only courtyard counts as 'another's field'. Next the גמרא studies the four rules closely. It reads 'חייב בכל' as full damage, following רבי טרפון, and asks whether the last rule switches to the רבנן. רבינא offers a reading where the whole ברייתא follows רבי טרפון. The גמרא objects that this leaves only three rules, and רב נחמן בר יצחק's answer begins at the very end of the amud and continues on the next one.

Opening lines

וְלֹא קִבֵּל עָלָיו שְׁמִירַת נְזָקָיו.

but he did not take upon himself the guarding of its damages.

אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא:

If so, say the latter clause:

נִפְרְצָה בַּלַּיְלָה אוֹ שֶׁפְּרָצוּהָ לִסְטִים,

if it broke open at night, or robbers broke it open,

וְיָצְתָה וְהִזִּיקָה – פָּטוּר.

and it went out and caused damage, he is exempt.

The steps (29)

  1. ResolutionThe borrower did not take on guarding against damage
  2. ChallengeThe second half of the ברייתא implies the borrower can be liable
  3. ResolutionThe second half is talking about a borrower who did take on that job
  4. Challengeרב יוסף's ברייתא seems to refute רבי אלעזר
  5. Resolutionרבי אלעזר answers that the ברייתות disagree
  6. Proofרבי שמעון בן אלעזר's four rules: the first two
  7. StatementThird rule: a place belonging to both sides
  8. StatementFourth rule: a place belonging to neither side
  9. ProofThe point of the proof: exempt in a partners' courtyard
  10. ChallengeThe two ברייתות contradict each other
  11. ResolutionTwo different kinds of partners' courtyard
  12. ProofThe wording of each ברייתא supports the split
  13. Challengeרבי זירא: a shared courtyard is not 'another's field'
  14. Resolutionאביי: a courtyard not meant for oxen counts as 'another's field'
  15. QuestionMaybe the אמוראים don't argue either
  16. Responseרבינא: Yes, or else they argue over רבי זירא versus אביי
  17. StatementBack to the four rules: in the victim's property, the owner pays for everything
  18. Statement"Liable in All" Means Full Damage
  19. StatementThis Follows רבי טרפון
  20. StatementQuoting the Last Part of the ברייתא
  21. ChallengeCan the Courtyard Belong to an Outsider?
  22. ResolutionThe place belongs to just one of them
  23. StatementThe last clause matches the Rabbis
  24. ChallengeCan one teaching follow two opinions?
  25. ResolutionYes, as שמואל told רב יהודה
  26. Resolutionרבינא: The whole teaching follows רבי טרפון
  27. StatementEating counts as the victim's yard; goring counts as public
  28. ChallengeThen there are only three rules, not four
  29. Resolutionרב נחמן בר יצחק begins his answer