Bava Kamma - Daf 10
- הכשרתי מקצת נזקו: digging the tenth tefach of a bor
The Mishnah on Daf 9b had stated: הכשרתי במקצת נזקו – If I caused part of the damage, חבתי בתשלומי נזקו – I am liable in payment of his damage כהכשר כל נזקו – like causing the whole damage. A Baraisa illustrates: החופר בור תשעה – If one digs a pit nine tefachim deep, ובא אחר והשלימו לעשרה – and another came and completes it to a depth of ten tefachim, האחרון חייב – the last person alone is liable for death or damages it causes. Thus, although the second person only increased the pit’s capacity for damage, he is fully culpable for its damages. The Gemara notes that this disagrees with Rebbe, who said about this case: אחר אחרון למיתה – the damaged party goes after the last person for payments for his animal’s death, since the pit was incapable of killing when it was nine tefachim, אחר שניהם לנזקין – but he goes after both of them for payment for his animal’s damages, since both contributed to its damaging capacity. Rav Pappa explains how it can agree with Rebbe: למיתה ודברי הכל – the Mishnah, which holds only the last digger responsible, is discussing payment for the animal’s death, and is the opinion of everyone.
- ה' שישבו על ספסל אחד ולא שברוהו ובא אחד וישב עליו ושברו
It was taught in a Baraisa: ה' שישבו על ספסל אחד ולא שברוהו – If five people were sitting on a bench, and did not break it from their combined weight, ובא אחד וישב עליו ושברו – and one more person came and sat on it, and broke it, this last person is fully liable. The Baraisa is discussing כגון פפא בר אבא – someone like Pappa bar Abba, who was extraordinarily heavy (and did not have permission to use the bench). The Baraisa about “partial damage” did not mention this case, because if the bench would not have broken without him, he caused all the damage himself. If it would have broken without him, he did nothing more than the others, and would not be solely responsible. The Gemara then asks what the Baraisa itself is discussing and asks further that the sixth person can claim that since the bench would not have broken without them, they should have risen when he sat down, and since they did not, they should share responsibility. It concludes that the case is: דבהדי דסמיך בהו תבר – he broke it as he was leaning on them (preventing them from rising) and teaches: דכחו כגופו דמי – that his force is like himself, and he is responsible for merely leaning on them, without actually sitting on the bench.
- הבעלים מטפלין בנבילה
The Gemara notes that the Mishnah did not state "חבתי בנזקו" – I am liable for his damage, but "בתשלומי נזקו" – in the payment of his damage, which carries the connotation of "השלמה" – completion. This teaches: שהבעלים מטפלין בנבילה – that the owner of the killed animal must deal with the carcass. It is his responsibility to sell it for its value, and the damaging party only pays the difference between its value while alive and the carcass’s value. The Gemara quotes three sources for this law and explains the need for all three. The Gemara asks, since damage payments may be made from anything of value, even bran, what difference does it make if the carcass belongs to the owner or the damager? Even if it belongs to the damager, he can simply use it as payment!? It answers: לא נצרכא אלא לפחת נבילה – it was only needed to be taught with respect to the carcass’s depreciation. Since it belongs to the owner immediately, he suffers the loss of any further depreciation between its death and the court case.
