Gemara Clarity

Bava Kamma 22a

בבא קמא כ״ב ע״א

Learn Bava Kamma 22a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 22a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

A dog or goat that jumps and does damage (normal versus unusual behavior), and the dispute between רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש about why a person is liable for damage done by his fire.

Overview

The גמרא first raises a contradiction. A ברייתא says a jumping dog or goat is פטור, even though the teaching just before said the owner pays in full. רב פפא explains that the ברייתא is talking about unusual movement: a dog that leaped and a goat that climbed. Even then, פטור only means פטור from נזק שלם, and the owner still pays חצי נזק. Next the גמרא brings a basic dispute about fire. רבי יוחנן says אשו משום חציו (fire is like a person's arrows), and ריש לקיש says אשו משום ממונו (fire is like his property). Each one explains why he rejects the other's comparison. The גמרא then tests ריש לקיש against the משנה of the dog that carried a burning cake, and ריש לקיש answers that the dog threw the coal. It also tests him against the משנה of the camel loaded with flax. ריש לקיש explains that the camel lit every spot itself, and that in the storekeeper's case the camel had stopped to urinate.

Opening lines

וְהָתַנְיָא: הַכֶּלֶב וְהַגְּדִי שֶׁדִּילְּגוּ;

But isn't it taught: a dog or a goat that jumped;

בֵּין מִלְּמַעְלָה לְמַטָּה,

whether from above to below,

בֵּין מִלְּמַטָּה לְמַעְלָה – פְּטוּרִין!

or from below to above, they are exempt!

תַּרְגְּמַאּ רַב פָּפָּא:

Rav Pappa interpreted it:

The steps (21)

  1. ChallengeA teaching says a jumping dog or goat is exempt
  2. Resolutionרב פפא: the animals moved in an unusual way
  3. ChallengeThen why should they be fully exempt?
  4. ResolutionExempt from full damage, but they pay half
  5. StatementQuoting the משנה: a dog that took a cake
  6. StatementIs fire like arrows or like property?
  7. QuestionWhy doesn't ריש לקיש agree with רבי יוחנן?
  8. ResponseArrows travel by his force; fire does not
  9. QuestionWhy doesn't רבי יוחנן agree with ריש לקיש?
  10. ResponseProperty is tangible; fire is not
  11. ProofBringing the משנה of the dog and the burning cake
  12. ChallengeThe challenge to ריש לקיש: the fire was not the dog owner's property
  13. Resolutionריש לקיש: the dog threw the coal, so the owner pays only for the spot it hit
  14. Resolutionרבי יוחנן: the dog placed the coal down, so the owner pays half for the stack
  15. ProofThe camel loaded with flax
  16. ChallengeWhy does the camel's owner pay if the fire isn't his?
  17. ResolutionThe camel set the whole building on fire itself
  18. ChallengeThen why does the storekeeper pay in the next part?
  19. ResolutionThe camel stood still
  20. ChallengeA camel standing still should make its owner even more liable
  21. ResolutionThe camel stopped to urinate