Bava Kamma 6a

בבא קמא ו׳ ע״א

Learn Bava Kamma 6a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Bava Kamma 6a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Three views of what the משנה's "הצד השוה שבהן" comes to include

Overview

The גמרא first finishes explaining an extra phrase about אש: it includes fire that scorched a plowed field or singed stones without burning them up. Then it asks what the משנה's closing phrase, הצד השוה שבהן (the common feature among them), comes to add. אביי says it adds objects that a normal wind blew off a roof. The גמרא rules out other ways of picturing this case, since they would already be אש or בור. It settles on objects that landed and were made הפקר: they are unlike בור because the wind moved them, so they are learned from what בור and אש share. רבא says the phrase adds an obstacle kicked to a new spot by people or animals. Since the owner did not put it there himself, it is learned from what בור and שור share. רב אדא בר אהבה says it adds gutters and caves emptied into the street with permission. The waste is unlike בור, which is dug without permission, yet the owner still pays if it causes damage.

Opening lines

The steps (28)

1. ResponseFire damage that leaves the object intact
2. QuestionWhat does "the common feature" add?
3. Responseאביי: objects blown off a roof
4. ChallengeIf they damage while falling, that is just אש
5. ProofWhy falling objects fit the definition of אש
6. ChallengeMaybe the case is after the objects landed, but then it is just בור
7. ProofWhy landed objects fit the definition of בור
8. ChallengeMaybe he did not make them ownerless, but for שמואל it is still בור
9. ResolutionThe objects are not like בור because the wind was involved
10. ResolutionFire proves an outside force does not cancel liability
11. ChallengeBut fire naturally travels and does damage
12. Resolutionבור proves that too, so we learn from both together
13. Statementרבא: it includes a בור-obstacle kicked to a new spot
14. ChallengeWhat exact case is רבא talking about?
15. ChallengeShowing that these objects match בור
16. ChallengeWhat if the owner did not make them ownerless?
17. ResolutionIt is הפקר, but not like בור, because feet moved it
18. Resolutionשור shows that the owner's own action is not needed
19. ChallengeBut שור moves around by nature
20. Resolutionבור shows that moving around is not needed
21. ConclusionThe proof circles back to what בור and שור share
22. StatementAnother case included: gutters and caves emptied into the street
23. ChallengeWhen does the poured-out waste do damage?
24. ResolutionThe case is after the waste settles
25. ChallengeIf he declared it ownerless, it is just בור
26. ResolutionMaybe he did not declare it ownerless
27. ChallengeFor שמואל, it is still בור
28. ResolutionOwnerless, but poured with permission