Thursday, January 08, 2009

Rif Bava Kamma 4b {10b - 11a}


{Bava Kamma 10b}

אי דבלאו איהו לא אזלא פשיטא אלא דבלאו איהו נמי אזלא מאי קעביד
If without his co-operation it {=the fire} would not have spread, is it not obvious {that he is entirely to blame}? Rather, that without him {it spread}, what did he do {that he should be liable}?

(מתקיף לה רב פפא ותו ליכא
והא איכא הא דתניא חמשה שישבו על ספסל אחד ולא שברוהו ובא אחד וישב עליו ושברו האחרון חייב
ואמר רב פפא כגון פפא בר אבא
היכי דמי
אי דבלאו איהו לא מתבר פשיטא אלא דבלאו איהו נמי מתבר מאי קעביד
סוף סוף מתניתין היכי מיתרצא
לא צריכא דבלאו איהו קא מיתבר בתרתי שעי והשתא איתבר בחדא שעתא
דאמרינן ליה אי לאו את הוה יתיבנא פורתא וקיימינן
ולימא להו אי לאו אתון בגואי דידי לא הוה מיתבר כלל
לא צריכא דבהדי דקם מסמיך סמיך בהו פשיטא
מהו דתימא כחו לאו כגופו דמי
קמ"ל דכחו כגופו דמי וכל היכא דגופו תבר כחו נמי תבר):
(* Rav Pappa objected to it: And more, there is not? But there is that which they learnt {in a brayta}: Five were sitting upon one bench and did not break it, and one came and sat {with them} upon it and broke it, the last one is is liable.
And Rav Pappa said: Such as Pappa bar Abba {who was very fat}.
How so? If without him it would not have broken, this is obvious! And if without him it would have also broken, what did he do?
When it comes down to it, how is our brayta {of Rav Pappa} explained?
No, it is necessary -- that without him it would have broken in two hours, and now it broke in one hour. That we say to him, "if not for you, we would have sat for a small amount of time and then gotten up."
And let him say to them, "if you were not with me, I would not have broken it at all!"
No, it is necessary, that before they arose, he leaned upon them.
This is obvious!
I would have said that his force is not like his body. Therefore it informs us that his force is like his body, and in any instance his body breaks, his force also breaks.

חבתי בתשלומי נזקו:
חבתי בנזקו לא קתני אלא בתשלומי נזקו
תנינא להא דתנו רבנן תשלומי נזק מלמד שהבעלים מטפלין בנבלה:
'I become liable for the replacement of the damage' is not stated but '… TO COMPENSATE FOR THE DAMAGE'.
We have learnt this. For the Sages learnt {in a brayta}: 'To compensate for damage' teaches that the owners have to retain the carcass as part payment.

תניא אם טרוף יטרף יביאהו עד (הטרפה עד) יביא עדים שנטרפה באונס (ופטור)
אבא שאול אומר יביאהו עד יביא עדודה לבית דין
ודכולי עלמא פחת נבלה דניזק הוי ובטורח נבילה קא מיפלגי
כדתניא אחרים אומרים מנין לבעל בור שחייב להעלות שור מבורו שנאמר כסף ישיב לבעליו והמת:
They learnt {in a brayta}: {Shemot 22:12}:
יב אִם-טָרֹף יִטָּרֵף, יְבִאֵהוּ עֵד: הַטְּרֵפָה, לֹא יְשַׁלֵּם. {פ} 12 If it be torn in pieces, let him bring it for witness; he shall not make good that which was torn. {P}
{Bava Kamma 11a}
Let him bring witnesses that it was torn by total accident {ones}.
Abba Shaul says: Let him bring a witness = let him bring it as evidence to bet din.

And according to everyone, the reduction in the value of the carcass belongs to the damagee, and they are arguing about the bother of the carcass. As they learnt {in a brayta}: Others say: How do we know that the owner of the pit is obligated to bring the ox from his pit? Because it is stated {Shemot 21:34}:
לד בַּעַל הַבּוֹר יְשַׁלֵּם, כֶּסֶף יָשִׁיב לִבְעָלָיו; וְהַמֵּת, יִהְיֶה-לּוֹ. {ס} 34 the owner of the pit shall make it good; he shall give money unto the owner of them, and the dead beast shall be his.
{Thus, the owner of the pit must give the dead beast to the owner; thus he has the burden of getting it out of the pit.}

אמר שמואל אין שמין לא לגנב ולא לגזלן אלא לניזקין ולשואל

ההוא גברא דשאיל נרגא מחבריה תבריה אתא לקמיה דרב
אמר ליה זיל שלים ליה נרגא מעליא
אמרי ליה רב כהנא ורב אסי לרב דינא הכי
שתיק רב
Shmuel said: We do not assess {the present value of the animal}, neither for the thief nor the robber, but rather for damages and for the borrower.

There was a certain man who borrowed an ax from his friend, and broke it. He came before Rav. He {=Rav} said to him: Go, and pay him a good quality ax.
Rav Kahana and Rav Assi said to Rav: Is the law indeed so?
Rav was silent.

No comments: