Gemara Clarity

Bava Kamma 35b

בבא קמא ל״ה ע״ב

Learn Bava Kamma 35b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 35b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

End of the משנה on doubtful ox-damage claims (המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה), the debate over whether it argues with סומכוס, and רבה בר נתן's wheat-and-barley rule

Overview

The amud finishes the משנה about oxen that chased and hurt another ox when nobody knows which one did the damage. When the owner and the injured party argue over which ox did it (large or small, תם or מועד, or which ox hurt which), the rule is המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה: whoever wants to take money must bring proof. רבי חייא בר אבא learns from this that the חכמים disagree with סומכוס, who splits doubtful money even when both sides claim to be certain. רב פפא objects. If the משנה is a case where both sides are certain, its סיפא would contradict רבה בר נתן's rule that someone sued for wheat who admits to barley is fully exempt. So the גמרא reads the סיפא as ניזק שמא ומזיק ברי and the רישא as ניזק ברי ומזיק שמא, and explains that these count as one kind of case. Then the גמרא examines רבה בר נתן's rule itself and challenges it from our משנה. It answers that the injured party is only 'fit to take' and the court does not collect for him, and that a ברייתא saying he is paid speaks of a case where he already grabbed. The amud ends with the same challenge raised from the תם and מועד case, which is answered on the next amud.

Opening lines

שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּטוּרִים.

The two of them are exempt.

אִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם

If both of them were

שֶׁל אִישׁ אֶחָד –

of one person,

שְׁנֵיהֶם חַיָּיבִים.

both are liable.

The steps (29)

  1. StatementTwo owners are exempt, one owner is liable
  2. StatementArguing over which of one owner's oxen did the damage
  3. StatementTwo injured oxen and two damaging oxen
  4. StatementThe משנה shows the חכמים disagree with סומכוס
  5. QuestionDoes סומכוס split even when both sides are certain?
  6. ResponseYes, סומכוס splits even when both are certain
  7. QuestionHow do we know the משנה is about certain claims?
  8. ResponseThe wording 'this one says… that one says No' shows certainty
  9. Challengeרב פפא: if the first part is certain, so is the last part
  10. Challengeרב פפא quotes the סיפא: big or small, תם or מועד
  11. ChallengeInference from the סיפא: without proof, he collects what the מזיק admits
  12. ChallengeThis would contradict רבה בר נתן
  13. ResolutionSo the סיפא must be a case where one side is sure and one is unsure
  14. QuestionWho is sure and who is unsure?
  15. ChallengeIf the injured party is sure, the problem with רבה בר נתן comes back
  16. ResponseThe injured party is unsure and the damager is sure
  17. StatementInferring that the first clause matches the second clause
  18. ChallengeWould סומכוס really split the money in such a weak claim?
  19. ResolutionThe first clause is the reverse case
  20. ChallengeNow the two clauses don't match
  21. ResolutionCertain-and-maybe either way counts as one kind of case
  22. Statementרבה בר נתן: claimed wheat, admitted barley, exempt
  23. ChallengeThis is already taught in a משנה
  24. ResolutionHe teaches that the defendant is fully exempt
  25. ChallengeOur משנה seems to make the defendant pay what he admits
  26. ResolutionHe is only fit to take, but does not actually get
  27. ChallengeA ברייתא says he does get paid
  28. ResolutionThe ברייתא is a case where he grabbed
  29. ChallengeThe same problem from the case of a תם and a מועד