Bava Kamma 21a

בבא קמא כ״א ע״א

Learn Bava Kamma 21a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 21a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Paying for living in another's חצר without permission, and an animal eating produce at the edge of the public square

Overview

This amud opens by finishing an answer about הקדש: using הקדש always counts as if the Owner knew. Then רבי אבא בר זבדא sends a question to רב הונא: must someone who lives in another person's חצר without permission pay rent? רב הונא dies before answering. His son reports, in the name of רב, that no rent is owed. He also reports that a person who unknowingly rented a house that belonged to someone else must pay that real owner. The גמרא explains that the difference is whether the place is normally rented out, and a second report says the same. רב gives a reason from a פסוק (an empty house falls to ruin), and רב יוסף gives a similar reason. The story of רב נחמן and the orphans' land is shown not to disagree, because the orphans lost real income. Next the גמרא turns to the משנה about an animal eating food in the public square. רב and שמואל argue, in several versions, about an animal that turns its head, and about space a person gives over to public use. The amud ends as the גמרא begins rejecting a suggestion that this argument depends on the law of a בור dug in one's own property; the rejection continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (32)

1. RejectionUsing הקדש is like using a regular person's property with his knowledge
2. QuestionA question sent to רב הונא about living in a friend's חצר
3. Responseרבה בר רב הונא reports two rulings in the name of רב
4. QuestionWhat does שמעון have to do with it?
5. ResponseThe house turned out to belong to שמעון
6. ChallengeThe two rulings seem to contradict
7. ResolutionIt depends on whether the place is usually rented out
8. ProofA second report of the same ruling
9. QuestionWho are these owners?
10. ResponseThe house turned out to have owners
11. ChallengeTwo rulings that seem to clash
12. ResolutionProperty for rent versus property not for rent
13. StatementA reason from a פסוק: empty houses fall to ruin
14. Statementמר בר רב אשי saw how harmful it is
15. Statementרב יוסף: a lived-in house stays standing
16. QuestionWhat is the difference between the two reasons?
17. ResponseA house used for storing wood and straw
18. StatementA man builds a mansion on the orphans' garbage heap
19. ProofDoes this story prove a squatter must pay rent?
20. RejectionNo proof: the orphans actually lost money
21. Statementרב and שמואל on an animal that turns its head to eat
22. ChallengeHow does שמואל explain the משנה's liability?
23. ResolutionThe animal walked over and stood at the side
24. StatementSecond version: the argument as a stand-alone dispute
25. ChallengeSecond version: the same challenge to שמואל
26. ResolutionSecond version: same answer, the animal stood at the side
27. ChallengeChallenge to רב from the store entrance case
28. ResolutionThe store is on a corner
29. StatementAnother version: the argument is about space given to the public
30. Statementרב and שמואל on space set aside for the public
31. QuestionSuggesting the argument depends on a pit dug in one's own property
32. Rejectionרב begins to reject the suggested link