Bava Kamma 52b

בבא קמא נ״ב ע״ב

Learn Bava Kamma 52b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 52b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

A pit covered for oxen but not camels: are camels that come occasionally negligence, and does negligence about camels carry over (מגו) to a cover that rotted?

Overview

The גמרא asks what happens when a pit is covered well enough for oxen but not for camels. First it asks about camels that come only occasionally, weaken the cover, and then an ox falls in. It tries to answer from both clauses of the משנה, "covered properly, exempt" and "did not cover properly, liable." Both proofs are pushed off. The first clause may be about a cover that rotted from inside. The second clause may be about common camels, written only to match the first clause. A second version (איכא דאמרי) says the occasional-camels case is simply negligence. In that version the real question is מגו: if the owner was careless about common camels but the cover actually rotted, is he liable? Proofs from both clauses of the משנה are again pushed off. Finally a ברייתא about a deaf ox versus a sharp ox walking by day proves that we do not say מגו. The amud closes with רב explaining the משנה's words "forward" and "backward."

Opening lines

The steps (19)

1. ProofProof from the first clause: the owner is exempt
2. RejectionRejected: the cover rotted from inside
3. ProofA new proof from the second clause: setting up the case
4. ProofProof: occasional camels make him negligent
5. RejectionThe second clause is really about common camels, worded to match the first clause
6. StatementSecond version: the occasional-camels case was never in doubt
7. QuestionThe real question: weak against common camels, but it rotted instead
8. ProofA proof begins from the משנה and רבי יצחק בר בר חנה
9. ProofRuling out a cover fit even for camels
10. ProofThe exempt case must be a cover too weak for camels that rotted, so no מגו
11. RejectionThe exempt case really is a cover fit for camels, and the new point is that he need not knock on it
12. ProofA new proof from the liable clause: what case does it mean?
13. ProofThe liable case must be a cover too weak for camels that rotted, so we do say מגו
14. RejectionThe 'did not cover' case means camels weakened the cover
15. ResolutionWhy the משנה teaches an obvious case
16. ProofA ברייתא about weak oxen and sharp oxen
17. ProofWhy doesn't his carelessness carry over to the sharp ox?
18. ConclusionConclusion: we do not say מגו
19. Statementרב explains 'forward' and 'backward'