Gemara Clarity

Bava Kamma 28b

בבא קמא כ״ח ע״ב

Learn Bava Kamma 28b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 28b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Damage from a broken כד and objects in רשות הרבים: בור's exemptions, הפקר, and liability for אונס

Overview

The amud opens with רב's ruling about a כד that broke in רשות הרבים. The owner pays for the clothes of someone who slips, but not for the person's injury, because the ground hurt him. שמואל holds the reverse. Objects left in the street are learned from בור, and בור is exempt for vessels, so the owner pays for the person but not for the clothes. רב answers that only an object made הפקר is like a בור. רב אושעיא then brings a ברייתא that seems to trouble both of them. The גמרא shows that each can explain it his own way: רב by limiting it to הפקר objects, and שמואל by tying the flask case to רבי יהודה. רבי אלעזר's two versions about a flask breaking on a stone are linked to רבי נתן's rule. Finally the גמרא asks what רבי יהודה in the משנה means by 'with intent.' רבה's answer leads to a challenge that the תורה exempts an אנוס. The ברייתא brought to answer that challenge continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

אֲבָל הוּא עַצְמוֹ – פָּטוּר;

But [for] the person himself — [the owner is] exempt;

קַרְקַע עוֹלָם הִזִּיקַתּוּ.

the ground of the world injured him.

כִּי אַמְרִיתַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל,

When I said it before Shmuel,

אָמַר לִי:

he said to me:

The steps (24)

  1. Statementרב: No payment for the person's own injury, because the ground hurt him
  2. Challengeשמואל: Stone, knife and load are learned from the pit, so the pit's exemptions apply
  3. Conclusionשמואל: The person exemption is only for death, so the result is the reverse of רב
  4. Resolutionרב's answer: The pit comparison applies only to ownerless objects
  5. Challengeרב אושעיא brings a teaching about the pit
  6. ChallengeThe comparison is worded backwards
  7. ResolutionFixing the wording of the comparison
  8. StatementA flask broken on a stone
  9. ChallengeThe beginning troubles רב, and the end troubles שמואל
  10. RejectionThe ברייתא contradicts itself anyway
  11. ResolutionEach one explains the ברייתא his own way
  12. Resolutionרב's explanation: the first part is about objects the owner gave up
  13. Resolutionשמואל's explanation: the last part follows רבי יהודה
  14. Statementרבי אלעזר limits the stone owner's liability
  15. QuestionWhose view is this? Not רבי נתן's
  16. StatementThe second version: liable even if he tripped on the ground
  17. QuestionThe second version follows רבי נתן
  18. QuestionWhat does רבי יהודה mean by 'with intent'?
  19. Responseרבה defines intent as even intending to lower the jug
  20. Questionאביי infers how far רבי מאיר's liability goes
  21. Responseרבה agrees that רבי מאיר holds him liable even holding the handle
  22. ChallengeChallenge: the תורה exempts someone who is forced
  23. ResolutionA possible answer: the exemption applies only to the death penalty
  24. ChallengeA ברייתא about a broken jug and a fallen camel