Gemara Clarity

Bava Kamma 48b

בבא קמא מ״ח ע״ב

Learn Bava Kamma 48b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 48b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Damage on another's property, an ox falling into a pit, who guards an ox brought into a yard, and payment for a miscarriage

Overview

The amud opens with a ברייתא about two people who damage each other. From it the גמרא learns that when only one had permission to be there, he is פטור and the trespasser is חייב. Next comes the משנה's ox that fell into a pit and spoiled the water. רבא's ruling is first explained by treating the ox as a בור, but that does not fit רב, so the final version is different: the owner is חייב if the ox's body spoiled the water, and פטור if only its smell did, because that is גרמא. For the father or son killed in the pit, the גמרא asks why a תם pays כופר. רב, שמואל, and עולא each give a different answer. On the משנה about bringing an ox in with permission, רב rules like the תנא קמא and שמואל rules like רבי. A ברייתא about 'guard it' versus 'I will guard it' seems to split between the רבנן and רבי. רבי אלעזר, רבא, and רב פפא each resolve this differently. Finally a new משנה begins: an ox that causes a miscarriage is פטור from דמי ולדות, but a person pays, by comparing the woman's value before and after birth. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל's comment continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

שְׁנֵיהֶם בִּרְשׁוּת

If both of them were there with permission

אוֹ שְׁנֵיהֶם שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת,

or both of them were there without permission,

הִזִּיקוּ זֶה אֶת זֶה – חַיָּיבִין.

and they damaged each other, they are liable.

הוּזְּקוּ זֶה בָּזֶה – פְּטוּרִין.

If they got hurt by each other, they are exempt.

The steps (34)

  1. ProofA ברייתא about two people who damage each other
  2. ProofInference: with permission is exempt, without permission is liable
  3. StatementThe משנה: an ox fell into a pit and spoiled the water
  4. Statementרבא: liable only if the water was spoiled at the moment of the fall
  5. ResponseThe reason: the ox is a pit and the water counts as utensils
  6. ChallengeThis works for שמואל but not for רב
  7. ResolutionA second version of רבא: its body versus its smell
  8. ConclusionSmell is only indirect damage, so he is exempt
  9. StatementThe משנה: the father or son was inside the pit
  10. ChallengeWhy pay ransom if the ox is a תם?
  11. Resolutionרב: the ox was a מועד for falling on people
  12. ChallengeIf it is a מועד, the ox should be put to death
  13. Resolutionרב יוסף: it fell while going for grass
  14. Resolutionשמואל: the משנה follows רבי יוסי הגלילי
  15. Resolutionעולא: רבי יוסי הגלילי together with רבי טרפון
  16. ChallengeWhy does the משנה mention the father or son?
  17. ResolutionThe משנה describes the usual case
  18. Statementרב and שמואל disagree whose view is the הלכה
  19. StatementWho must guard decides who is responsible
  20. ChallengeThe ברייתא seems to contradict itself: quoting the first case
  21. ChallengeFrom the first case: with no stated terms, the yard owner takes on the guarding
  22. ChallengeQuoting the second case: 'I will guard it'
  23. ChallengeFrom the second case: with no stated terms, the yard owner does not take on the guarding
  24. ChallengeThe latter clause matches the view of רבי
  25. ChallengeCan the first clause follow the רבנן and the latter clause follow רבי?
  26. Resolutionרבי אלעזר: The ברייתא is indeed split
  27. Resolutionרבא: The whole ברייתא follows the רבנן
  28. Resolutionרב פפא: The whole ברייתא follows רבי, together with רבי טרפון
  29. ResolutionSaying 'guard it' gives the ox owner no place in the yard
  30. ResolutionWithout 'guard it', the yard becomes shared and goring pays half
  31. StatementNew משנה: an ox versus a person causing a miscarriage
  32. QuestionHow is the payment for the babies calculated?
  33. ResponseCompare the woman's value before and after birth
  34. Statementרבן שמעון בן גמליאל begins his view