Bava Kamma - Daf 31
- Machlokes if one who fell is responsible for not warning someone approaching
The next Mishnah states: שני קדרין שהיו מהלכין זה אחר זה – If two potters were walking, one behind the other, ונתקל הראשון ונפל – and the first stumbled and fell, ונתקל השני בראשון – and the second stumbled on the first, הראשון חייב בנזקי שני – the first is liable for damages to the second. Rebbe Yochanan explains that even according to the opinion that one who stumbles is faultless, the first person is liable here: שהיה לו לעמוד ולא עמד – because he should have stood up after falling, and he did not stand up. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchok says that he is liable even if he could not have stood up in time: היה לו להזהיר ולא הזהיר – He should have warned the person behind him, and he did not warn him. The second person’s fall is thus the fault of the first person. Rebbe Yochanan responds that if he could not get up in time, he is also not faulted for failing to warn the second person, דטריד – because he was preoccupied.
- The different liabilities of the first person who fell, and the second
Rava said: ראשון חייב בנזקי שני – The first person who fell is liable for damages to the second, בין בנזקי גופו בין בנזקי ממונו – both for damages caused by his body and for damages caused by his property. שני חייב בנזקי שלישי – The second is liable for damages to the third person, who fell over him, בנזקי גופו – only for damages caused by his body, אבל לא בנזקי ממונו – but not for damages caused by his property.
The Gemara explains that Rava considers the first person negligent for stumbling (Rashi notes he disagrees with Abaye on Daf 29 that this question is a machlokes Tannaim). Damages from his body are considered “a man which damages,” and he is even liable for utensils. He is also responsible for his property on the ground, and even if he is mafkir it, it is his bor (and is thus liable for its damages to people, but not to utensils, for which bor is exempt). The second person, who is not faulted for falling, is still liable for not having stood up. He is not responsible for damages from his property, because he can say: האי בירא לאו אנא כריתיה – “I did not dig this pit” (and is not even responsible for not picking them up, if he was mafkir them).
- זה בא בחביתו וזה בא בקורתו
The next Mishnah states: זה בא בחביתו וזה בא בקורתו – If this one was coming through רשות הרבים with his barrel, and this one was coming with his beam, and they collided, shattering the barrel, the owner of the beam is exempt, שלזה רשות להלך ולזה רשות להלך – because this one has permission to walk through רשות הרבים, and this one has permission to walk there. The Gemara on the next Daf will clarify this is only because the barrel’s owner was walking toward the beam, and his force contributed to the damage. The Mishnah continues that if the owner of the beam was in front, and the owner of the barrel walking behind him, then if the barrel struck the beam and was broken, the owner of the beam is exempt, because the owner of the barrel walked too quickly. If the owner of the beam stopped suddenly, causing the collision, he would then be liable for the barrel. However, if he warned the person behind him to stop, he is not liable. If the barrel is in front and the beam is behind, the reverse is true about each case.
