Gemara Clarity

Bava Kamma 18a

בבא קמא י״ח ע״א

Learn Bava Kamma 18a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 18a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Indirect damage by an animal (צרורות): whether we judge by the first action, and whether the half payment is collected from the animal's body or from the owner's best land.

Overview

This amud deals with damage an animal causes indirectly, called צרורות. First the גמרא tests a ברייתא about chickens that pecked a bucket's rope until the bucket fell and broke. It asks whether this proves that we judge damage by the first action (בתר מעיקרא). It tries reading the ברייתא as the opinion of סומכוס, but the end of the ברייתא and רב אשי's open question rule that out. It then reads the ברייתא as the opinion of the רבנן. רב ביבי בר אביי pushes the proof away: the chicken's force carried the bucket the whole way. Next רבא asks a new question: is the half payment for צרורות collected only from the animal's body (מגופו), or from the owner's best land (מעלייה)? The גמרא tries to answer from a ברייתא about a hopping chicken and from a משנה about a dog that carried a loaf with a burning coal and set a stack of grain on fire. Each proof is challenged, and the reading that רבי אלעזר follows סומכוס and רבי יהודה is itself being questioned by רב סמא as the amud ends.

Opening lines

בְּהִתִּיז צְרוֹרוֹת,

It is where it kicked up pebbles,

וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְּסוֹמְכוֹס וְרַבָּנַן קָמִיפַּלְגִי.

and they disagree about the dispute of Sumchus and the Rabbis.

תָּא שְׁמַע:

Come and hear:

תַּרְנְגוֹלִין שֶׁהָיוּ מְחַטְּטִין בְּחֶבֶל דְּלִי,

Chickens that were pecking at the rope of a bucket,

The steps (23)

  1. RejectionThe earlier dispute is really about pebbles
  2. ProofProof from chickens that broke a bucket
  3. RejectionThe full payment is only for the rope
  4. ChallengeBut pecking at a rope is unusual
  5. ResolutionThe rope had dough on it
  6. ChallengeBut it says the bucket broke
  7. ResolutionThe ברייתא follows סומכוס
  8. ChallengeThe second half of the ברייתא doesn't fit סומכוס
  9. ResolutionA possible defense: סומכוס treats a force of a force differently
  10. Challengeרב אשי left this exact question unresolved
  11. ProofSo the ברייתא must follow the רבנן, and we judge damage by where it started
  12. RejectionNo proof: the chicken's force carried the bucket the whole way
  13. Questionרבא asks how half damage for pebbles is collected
  14. ProofA teaching about a hopping chicken, read as pebbles
  15. ProofThe two opinions match the two sides of רבא's question
  16. RejectionNo, they argue about the dispute of סומכוס and the רבנן
  17. ProofA dog takes a loaf and burns a stack of grain
  18. ProofHalf for the stack is paid from the animal's body
  19. RejectionThis reading does not fit רבי אלעזר
  20. ResolutionThe dog acted unusually, so this is a case of קרן
  21. RejectionRejecting the reading that follows רבי טרפון
  22. Resolutionרבי אלעזר holds like סומכוס and like רבי יהודה
  23. Challengeרב סמא questions whether רבי יהודה's rule applies to צרורות