Bava Kamma - Daf 48
- Permission to bake vs. permission to bring wheat into someone’s property
The Gemara relates that a woman once entered someone’s house with permission to bake. The homeowner’s goat ate the dough and died, and Rava required her to pay for the goat. Although Rav had taught that one is not responsible when an animal harms itself by eating his food, since she received permission to bring the dough in, she accepted to prevent it from causing harm, as will be explained. The Gemara asks, why is this different from a Baraisa which implies that a woman who brought wheat into someone’s courtyard with permission would not be responsible for an animal slipping on it!? The Gemara answers that regarding bringing wheat into someone’s property, כיון דלא בעיא צניעותא מידי – since it does not require any privacy, לא בעי מסלקי מרוותא דחצר נפשייהו – the courtyard’s owner does not need to remove himself from it; therefore, the owner remains responsible for protecting his property. However, regarding baking, כיון דבעיא היא צניעותא – since she requires privacy (because her arms are exposed during the process), מרוותא דחצר מסלקי נפשייהו – the yard’s owner removes himself from the property when granting her permission to bake there; הלכך עלה דידה רמיא נטירותא – therefore, the responsibility of guarding his property is upon her.
- הבאיש מימיו לאחר נפילה
The Mishnah on Daf 47b had taught: נפל לבור והבאיש מימיו חייב – If [the trespasser’s ox] fell into the homeowner’s pit and fouled its waters, [its owner] is liable. Rava said this is only when it fouled the waters while falling into them, when it is classified as shor. אבל לאחר נפילה פטור – But if it fouled them after falling, he is exempt, because the ox is then classified as the damager of bor (which damages passively), and water is the equivalent of “utensils” (being inanimate), ולא מצינו בור שחייב בו את הכלים – and we never found a bor which is liable for damaged utensils. The Gemara asks that this is true according to Shmuel, who considers any obstacle a bor, even if it is owned. But according to Rav, who classifies all owned obstacles as shor, the owner should still be liable for the damaged waters!? Therefore, Rava’s statement is revised to be that the ox’s owner is only liable שהבאיש מגופו – where it fouled the waters with its body, אבל הבאיש מריחו פטור – but if it fouled them with [the carcass’s] odor, he is exempt, because גרמא בעלמא הוא – it is merely causative damage, וגרמא בעלמא לא מיחייב – and one is not liable for mere causative damage.
- Paying kofer where the ox fell onto someone in a bor
The Mishnah had taught that if the homeowner’s father or son was in the pit and was killed when the ox fell in, its owner pays kofer. The Gemara asks that the ox is a tam, which is not liable to kofer!? Rav answers that the animal was a mu’ad to fall onto people in pits, and Rav Yosef explains that it was not killed the first three times because דחזא ירוקא ונפל – the case is where it saw vegetation at the pit’s edge and fell in while trying to eat it (never intending to kill) and became a mu’ad to do so. Shmuel says the animal is a tam, and the Mishnah is the opinion of Rebbe Yose HaGlili, who holds that a tam would pay half-kofer. Ulla goes further and says that Rebbe Yose HaGlili holds like Rebbe Tarfon that a tam is liable to full damages in private property, so a tam would pay full kofer for killing someone in private property.
The Gemara notes that according to Ulla, the Mishnah picked a case of the owner’s “father or son” in the pit, because that would obligate full kofer, but according to Shmuel, אורחיה דמילתא קתני – it is teaching a common case but would apply to anyone.
