Bava Kamma 29b

בבא קמא כ״ט ע״ב

Learn Bava Kamma 29b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 29b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

מפקיר נזקיו: whether one who gives up ownership of his dangerous property is liable, and which of רבי יוחנן and רבי אלעזר holds which view

Overview

רבי יוחנן says the dispute about someone whose jug broke in the street is about damage done after the fall. The גמרא shows from another statement of רבי יוחנן that there is a dispute at the moment of the fall too. So his real point is that the רבנן exempt only because the owner was an אנוס, while an ordinary מפקיר נזקיו is liable. Next the גמרא brings a dispute between רבי יוחנן and רבי אלעזר about whether a מפקיר נזקיו is liable, and works out who holds which side. First it proves that רבי אלעזר says liable, defends that against his ruling about turning over dung (רב אשי: the dung was turned below three טפחים), and concludes that רבי יוחנן says exempt. That conclusion is challenged from the thorn-fence משנה, which the גמרא answers, and then from an unnamed משנה about a pit in רשות הרבים. This second challenge forces the גמרא to reverse itself: רבי יוחנן says liable. The amud ends by asking whether רבי אלעזר must then say exempt, with his statement continuing on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (24)

1. Statementרבי יוחנן places the dispute after the fall
2. ChallengeIf everyone exempts at the time of the fall, that clashes with רבי יוחנן later
3. ChallengeIf everyone obligates at the time of the fall, that also clashes
4. Resolutionרבי יוחנן's real point about מפקיר נזקיו
5. StatementA new dispute about giving up ownership of dangerous property
6. QuestionSuggesting the dispute matches רבי מאיר and the רבנן
7. RejectionEveryone agrees with רבי מאיר; they argue about the רבנן
8. ProofProof that רבי אלעזר is the one who says liable
9. ConclusionThe proof is accepted
10. Challengeרבי אלעזר seems to say the opposite
11. ResolutionHe put the dung back where it was
12. Resolutionרבינא's comparison: covering and uncovering a pit
13. Rejectionמר זוטרא: the comparison does not fit
14. RejectionThe right comparison: filling and re-digging a pit
15. Resolutionרב אשי: The dung was turned over below three handbreadths
16. ChallengeWhy did רבי אלעזר pick the narrow below-three case?
17. Resolutionרבא: The word 'turned over' means below three
18. ConclusionConclusion: רבי אלעזר says liable, so רבי יוחנן says exempt
19. ChallengeChallenge from the thorn-fence משנה and רבי יוחנן's comment
20. ChallengeInference that רבי יוחנן holds the owner liable
21. ResolutionA different reason the inside-thorns case is exempt
22. ChallengeChallenge from the unnamed משנה about a pit in the public area
23. Conclusionרבי יוחנן really holds liable
24. ChallengeDoes that mean רבי אלעזר holds exempt?