Bava Kamma 17b

בבא קמא י״ז ע״ב

Learn Bava Kamma 17b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 17b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Repetitions in the משנה about רגל and שן, the מחלוקת over pebbles (צרורות), and when indirect damage counts as the animal's body

Overview

The גמרא first asks why our משנה seems to repeat itself, saying both 'the foot is מועדת' and 'the animal is מועדת'. רבא answers that the first line teaches the main category (אב) and the second teaches its offshoots (תולדות). רב אשי explains a similar repetition in the eating section: one line is about a חיה and the other about a בהמה. The גמרא then discusses why the משנה lists its cases in this order. Next, a ברייתא lists all the ways a walking animal causes full damage. סומכוס holds that pebbles (צרורות) kicked up by an animal also pay full damage, while the רבנן say half, and several ברייתות about chickens show the same מחלוקת. רבא explains that the רבנן agree an animal's force is like its body, but the half payment for pebbles is a הלכה learned by tradition. He also compares damages to the laws of a זב, which teaches that a cart pulled by a calf counts as the animal's body. Finally, רבא asks whether a vessel that an animal stepped on, and that rolled away and broke, counts as body damage or as pebbles. The גמרא's attempts to answer this continue onto the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (35)

1. ChallengeWhy does the משנה say 'foot' and 'animal' twice?
2. ResolutionFirst the main category, then its offshoots
3. ChallengeThe eating section also repeats itself
4. Responseרבא's joking reply
5. QuestionSo why does the eating section repeat?
6. ResolutionWild animal first, then domestic animal
7. ChallengeThen the domestic animal should come first
8. ResolutionA law from a derivation is dear to the תנא
9. ChallengeWhy not put the derived case first in the opening clause too?
10. ResolutionThe two cases are not comparable: a primary category versus a subcategory
11. ResolutionAnother answer: continuing from the end of the previous פרק
12. StatementA ברייתא: all the ways a walking animal causes full damage
13. Statementסומכוס adds pebbles and a burrowing pig
14. ChallengeIf the pig caused damage, that is obvious
15. ResolutionCorrect the wording: the pig kicked up pebbles
16. ChallengeWho mentioned pebbles at all?
17. ResolutionThe ברייתא is missing words: pebbles pay half
18. StatementChickens flying: wings pay full, wind pays half
19. StatementChickens hopping on dough: pecking pays full, kicked-up dirt pays half
20. StatementAn unnamed ברייתא: wind from a chicken's wings pays half
21. ConclusionThe unnamed ברייתא follows the רבנן
22. Challengeרבא: Why do the רבנן say half?
23. Resolutionרבא: Force Is Like the Body, but Pebbles Are a Special Tradition
24. Statementרבא's Rule: Damages Follow the Laws of a זב
25. ChallengeDid רבא Only Come to Teach the Pebbles Law?
26. Resolutionרבא Teaches the Case of a Calf Pulling a Cart
27. ProofA ברייתא Supports רבא: Full Payment for a Calf Pulling a Cart
28. StatementChickens peck through a bucket rope and the owner pays in full
29. QuestionAn animal steps on a vessel that later rolls away and breaks
30. ProofTrying to answer from רבה's case of a vessel thrown off a roof
31. RejectionWhat was obvious to רבה was still a question for רבא
32. ProofA new attempt from a ברייתא about a chicken's hopping
33. ChallengeHow could hopping not be normal for a chicken?
34. ProofReading the ברייתא as hopping that pushed a vessel away
35. RejectionNo, the argument can be explained another way