Bava Kamma 31a

בבא קמא ל״א ע״א

Learn Bava Kamma 31a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 31a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

The barley-penalty story, then the משנה of two potters who trip: why the fallen one pays, and רבא's rule for a chain of falls

Overview

This amud opens by finishing a story about date residue left in the public domain. The גמרא asks why רב הונא publicly declared someone's barley ownerless, when he holds we do not teach that rule publicly. It answers that those owners had been warned and ignored it, so this was a special קנס. Then a new משנה begins: two potters walk one behind the other, the first trips and falls, the second trips over him, and the first pays. רבי יוחנן says even the רבנן agree, because the first potter could have stood up and did not. רב נחמן בר יצחק says he pays even if he could not get up, because he should have warned the one behind him. The גמרא tries to prove רב נחמן בר יצחק's view twice, first from the beam-and-barrel משנה and then from a ברייתא about potters and glassmakers. Both proofs are pushed off. Finally רבא rules that the first person pays the second for damage from his body and his property, but the second pays the third only for damage from his body. The גמרא challenges this rule with a 'whichever way you look at it' question.

Opening lines

The steps (18)

1. QuestionThe last word of the story: date residue
2. ChallengeDid רב הונא change his mind?
3. ResolutionThe barley owners had been warned
4. Statementמשנה: Two potters, one trips over the other
5. Statementרבי יוחנן: Liable because he could have stood up
6. Statementרב נחמן בר יצחק: Liable because he could have warned
7. RejectionWhy רבי יוחנן rejects the warning reason
8. ProofThe beam and barrel mishnah is brought as evidence
9. ProofThe beam carrier stopped to shift his load, so his only fault was not warning
10. RejectionNo, he stopped to rest
11. ChallengeThen the משנה should have taught that stopping to shift is exempt
12. ResolutionThe משנה teaches that saying 'Stop!' exempts even one who stopped to rest
13. ProofA new proof from the potters and glassmakers
14. RejectionMaybe they could have gotten up
15. ChallengeThen the ברייתא should have split its own case
16. ResolutionThe warning clause teaches a bigger point
17. Statementרבא's rule for the first and second person in a chain of falls
18. ChallengeEither way, רבא's split does not seem to work