## Bava Kamma Daf 31a

###### Bava Kamma 31a:1
[Bava Kamma 31a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/31a:1)

סְלִיקוּסְתָּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**residue from dates?**


###### Bava Kamma 31a:2
[Bava Kamma 31a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/31a:2)

בִּשְׁלָמָא רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה – כִּשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ. אֶלָּא רַב הוּנָא, לֵימָא הֲדַר בֵּיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **Granted, Rav Adda bar Ahava** acted **in accordance with his halakhic** opinion that this is the *halakha*, and a public ruling is issued to that effect. **But** with regard to **Rav Huna, shall we say** that **he retracted** his prior opinion?


###### Bava Kamma 31a:3
[Bava Kamma 31a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/31a:3)

הָנְהוּ – מוּתְרִין הֲווֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Those** owners of the barley **were forewarned** to remove the barley from the public domain, and they did not comply. Therefore, they were penalized by Rav Huna declaring publicly that their barley was ownerless.


###### Bava Kamma 31a:4
[Bava Kamma 31a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/31a:4)

**מַתְנִי׳** שְׁנֵי קַדָּרִין שֶׁהָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין זֶה אַחַר זֶה, וְנִתְקַל הָרִאשׁוֹן וְנָפַל, וְנִתְקַל הַשֵּׁנִי בָּרִאשׁוֹן – הָרִאשׁוֹן חַיָּיב בְּנִזְקֵי שֵׁנִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **two potters** carrying pots **who were walking one after the other** in the public domain, **and the first stumbled** on a bump **and fell, and the second stumbled over the first** and fell too, **the first** is **liable** to pay **for the damage incurred by the second.**


###### Bava Kamma 31a:5
[Bava Kamma 31a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/31a:5)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לָא תֵּימָא מַתְנִיתִין רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: נִתְקָל פּוֹשֵׁעַ הוּא – וְחַיָּיב; אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבָּנַן, דְאָמְרִי אָנוּס הוּא, וּפָטוּר – הָכָא חַיָּיב; שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ לַעֲמוֹד, וְלֹא עָמַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Do not say that the mishna is** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, who says** that **one who stumbles is** considered **negligent and** therefore **liable. Rather, even** according **to the Rabbis, who say** that one who stumbles **is** generally **a victim of circumstances beyond his control and is** consequently **exempt, here,** in the case in the mishna, he is **liable, since** after falling **he had** the opportunity **to stand** up, **and he did not stand** up.


###### Bava Kamma 31a:6
[Bava Kamma 31a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/31a:6)

רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא לֹא הָיָה לוֹ לַעֲמוֹד; הָיָה לוֹ לְהַזְהִיר, וְלֹא הִזְהִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Even** if **you say** that **he did not have** the opportunity **to stand** up, **he had** the opportunity **to warn** the person behind him, **and he did not warn** him.


###### Bava Kamma 31a:7
[Bava Kamma 31a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/31a:7)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כֵּיוָן דְּלֹא הָיָה לוֹ לַעֲמוֹד – לֹא הָיָה לוֹ לְהַזְהִיר; דִּטְרִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan** could have **said** in response that **since he did not have** the opportunity **to stand** up, **he did not have** the opportunity **to warn** the other person either, **as he was busy** trying to stand up. Therefore, the mishna, which holds him liable, must be referring to a case where he could have stood up.


###### Bava Kamma 31a:8
[Bava Kamma 31a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/31a:8)

תְּנַן: הָיָה בַּעַל קוֹרָה רִאשׁוֹן וּבַעַל חָבִית אַחֲרוֹן, נִשְׁבְּרָה חָבִית בַּקּוֹרָה – פָּטוּר, וְאִם עָמַד בַּעַל קוֹרָה – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara attempts to prove that the opinion of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak is correct. **We learned** in the next mishna (31b): If **the owner of** a cross **beam was** walking in the public domain carrying his beam **first, and the owner of a barrel was** walking with his barrel **last,** i.e., behind him, and **the barrel was broken by the** cross **beam,** the one who carried the cross beam is **exempt. But if the owner of the** cross **beam stopped,** he is **liable,** since the accident was caused by his stopping.


###### Bava Kamma 31a:9
[Bava Kamma 31a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/31a:9)

מַאי, לָאו שֶׁעָמַד לְכַתֵּף – דְּאוֹרְחֵיהּ הוּא, וְקָתָנֵי חַיָּיב, דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְהַזְהִיר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What, is it not** referring to a situation **where** the one carrying the cross beam **stopped** in order **to adjust** the load **on his shoulder, which is the normative behavior of** one carrying a beam, and is not considered negligence? **And** nevertheless the *tanna* **teaches** that he is **liable,** as, although **he had** the opportunity **to warn** the person behind him that he was about to stop, he did not warn him. This supports the opinion of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak.


###### Bava Kamma 31a:10
[Bava Kamma 31a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/31a:10)

לֹא, כְּשֶׁעָמַד לָפוּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No,** it is referring to a situation **where he stopped to rest,** which could not have been anticipated by the person walking behind him. Consequently, he is liable.


###### Bava Kamma 31a:11
[Bava Kamma 31a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/31a:11)

אֲבָל עָמַד לְכַתֵּף מַאי, פָּטוּר? אַדְּתָנֵי סֵיפָא: וְאִם אָמַר לוֹ לְבַעַל חָבִית ״עֲמוֹד״ – פָּטוּר, לִפְלוֹג וְלִיתְנֵי בְּדִידַהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – כְּשֶׁעָמַד לָפוּשׁ, אֲבָל עָמַד לְכַתֵּף – פָּטוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** according to this interpretation, if **he stopped to adjust** the load **on his shoulder, what** is the *halakha*? Is he **exempt?** If so, **rather than teaching** in **the latter clause** of that mishna: **But if he said to the owner of the barrel: Stop,** he is **exempt, let** the *tanna* **distinguish and teach within** the former case **itself,** as follows: **In what** case **is this statement,** that he is liable, **said?** In a case **when he stopped to rest. But** in a case where **he stopped to adjust** the load **on his shoulder,** he is **exempt.**


###### Bava Kamma 31a:12
[Bava Kamma 31a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/31a:12)

הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּעָמַד לָפוּשׁ, כִּי קָאָמַר לוֹ לְבַעַל חָבִית: ״עֲמוֹד״ – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The mishna is presented in **this** manner because it **teaches us this** novelty, **that even if he stopped to rest,** in a case **when he says to the owner of the barrel: Stop,** he is **exempt.**


###### Bava Kamma 31a:13
[Bava Kamma 31a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/31a:13)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַקַּדָּרִין וְהַזַּגָּגִין שֶׁהָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין זֶה אַחַר זֶה; נִתְקַל הָרִאשׁוֹן וְנָפַל, וְנִתְקַל הַשֵּׁנִי בָּרִאשׁוֹן, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי בַּשֵּׁנִי – רִאשׁוֹן חַיָּיב בְּנִזְקֵי שֵׁנִי, וְשֵׁנִי חַיָּיב בְּנִזְקֵי שְׁלִישִׁי. וְאִם מֵחֲמַת רִאשׁוֹן נָפְלוּ – רִאשׁוֹן חַיָּיב בְּנִזְקֵי כּוּלָּם. וְאִם הִזְהִירוּ זֶה אֶת זֶה – פְּטוּרִין. מַאי, לָאו שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לָהֶן לַעֲמוֹד?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** an alternative proof from what is taught in a *baraita*: With regard to **potters and glaziers who were walking one after the other,** and **the first stumbled and fell, and the second stumbled over the first,** sustaining damage, **and the third** stumbled **over the second,** also falling and sustaining damage, in this case, **the first** person is **liable** to pay **for the damage of the second, and the second** is **liable** to pay **for the damage of the third. But if they** all **fell because of the first, the first** is **liable** to pay **for the damage of them all. And if they warned each other,** i.e., each one warned the next, **they are** all **exempt.** The Gemara concludes: **What, is it not** a case **where they did not have** the opportunity **to stand** up, and they are nevertheless liable to pay for not warning the people behind them, in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak?


###### Bava Kamma 31a:14
[Bava Kamma 31a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/31a:14)

לֹא, שֶׁהָיָה לָהֶן לַעֲמוֹד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** it is a case **where they had** the opportunity **to stand** up and they did not do so.


###### Bava Kamma 31a:15
[Bava Kamma 31a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/31a:15)

אֲבָל לֹא הָיָה לָהֶם לַעֲמוֹד מַאי, פָּטוּר? אִי הָכִי, אַדְּתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אִם הִזְהִירוּ זֶה אֶת זֶה – פָּטוּר; לִפְלוֹג וְלִיתְנֵי בְּדִידַהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – שֶׁהָיָה לָהֶן לַעֲמוֹד, אֲבָל לֹא הָיָה לָהֶן לַעֲמוֹד – פְּטוּרִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** according to this interpretation, if **they did not have** the opportunity **to stand** up, **what** would be the *halakha*? Would they be **exempt? If so, rather than teaching** in **the latter clause** of the *baraita*: **If they warned one another, they are exempt, let** the *tanna* **distinguish and teach within** the former case **itself,** as follows: **In what** case **is this statement,** that they are liable, **said?** It is a case **where they had** the opportunity **to stand** up, **but** if **they did not have** the opportunity **to stand** up, **they are exempt.**


###### Bava Kamma 31a:16
[Bava Kamma 31a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/31a:16)

הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּהָיָה לָהֶן לַעֲמוֹד, כִּי הִזְהִירוּ זֶה אֶת זֶה – פְּטוּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The *baraita* is presented in **this** manner because it **teaches us this** novelty, **that even if they had** the opportunity **to stand** up, in a case **when they warned each other they are exempt.**


###### Bava Kamma 31a:17
[Bava Kamma 31a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/31a:17)

אָמַר רָבָא: רִאשׁוֹן חַיָּיב בְּנִזְקֵי שֵׁנִי – בֵּין בְּנִזְקֵי גוּפוֹ, בֵּין בְּנִזְקֵי מָמוֹנוֹ. שֵׁנִי חַיָּיב בְּנִזְקֵי שְׁלִישִׁי – בְּנִזְקֵי גוּפוֹ, אֲבָל לֹא בְּנִזְקֵי מָמוֹנוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to this *halakha*, **Rava said: The first** one who stumbled is **liable** to pay **for the damage of the second, both for damage caused** to the second person **by his body and for damage caused** to him **by his property.** By contrast, **the second** is **liable** to pay **for the damage of the third** only **with regard to damage caused by his body** as result of the fall, **and not with regard to damage caused by his property.**


###### Bava Kamma 31a:18
[Bava Kamma 31a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/31a:18)

מִמָּה נַפְשָׁךְ? אִי נִתְקָל פּוֹשֵׁעַ הוּא – שֵׁנִי נָמֵי לִיחַיַּיב! אִי נִתְקָל לָאו פּוֹשֵׁעַ הוּא – אֲפִילּוּ רִאשׁוֹן נָמֵי לִיפְּטַר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions Rava’s statement: **Whichever way you** look at it, this is difficult to understand. **If** Rava maintains that **one who stumbles is** considered **negligent, the second** person **should also be liable** to pay for all forms of damage caused by his negligence. And **if** Rava maintains that **one who stumbles is not** considered **negligent, even the first should be exempt** from liability for the damage incurred by the second.