## Bava Kamma Daf 31b

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

רִאשׁוֹן – וַדַּאי פּוֹשֵׁעַ הוּא. שְׁנִי – אַגּוּפוֹ מִחַיַּיב, דְּהָיָה לוֹ לַעֲמוֹד וְלֹא עָמַד. אַמָּמוֹנוֹ פָּטוּר, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: הַאי בֵּירָא – לָאו אֲנָא כְּרִיתֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **The first is certainly** considered **negligent,** and is therefore liable to pay for damage caused by both his body and his property. **The second is deemed liable** to pay **for** damage caused by **his body, as he had** the opportunity **to stand** up **and he did not stand** up. **For** damage caused by **his property** that was lying there and that caused the third person to stumble and fall, he is **exempt, as he can say to him: I did not dig this pit,** i.e., I did not cause this obstacle. Since it was the first person who stumbled and brought about the situation where the items of the second were lying on the ground, the second is not deemed liable.


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

מֵיתִיבִי: כּוּלָּן חַיָּיבִין עַל נִזְקֵי גּוּפָן, וּפְטוּרִין עַל נִזְקֵי מָמוֹנָן. מַאי, לָאו אֲפִילּוּ רִאשׁוֹן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to Rava’s statement from a *baraita* that comments on this case: **All of them are liable** to pay **for damage caused by their bodies and exempt** from paying restitution **for damage caused by their property. What, does this not** refer **even** to **the first,** indicating that even he is exempt from damage caused by his property?


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

לָא, לְבַר מֵרִאשׁוֹן. וְהָא ״כּוּלָּם״ קָתָנֵי! אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: ״כּוּלָּן״ – הַנִּיזָּקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** it is referring to all of them **except for the first.** The Gemara asks: **But doesn’t** the *baraita* **teach** the term **all of them,** indicating that the first is also included? **Rav Adda bar Ahava said:** The term **all of them** refers only to **those who incurred damage,** and excludes the first one, who only caused damage to others.


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

הַאי מַאי? אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא אֲפִילּוּ רִאשׁוֹן – הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי ״כּוּלָּן״; אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לְבַר מֵרִאשׁוֹן, מַאי ״כּוּלָּן״? לִיתְנֵי ״הַנִּיזָּקִין״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this answer: **What** is **this** interpretation? **Granted, if you say** that the term includes **even the first, this** explanation **is** consistent with **that which is taught: All of them. But if you say** that it is referring to all of them **except for the first, what is** the reason that the misleading term: **All of them** is used? **Let** the *baraita* **teach** more accurately that **those who incurred damage** are liable in turn for the damage caused by their bodies, but are exempt from paying restitution for damage caused by their property.


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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: רִאשׁוֹן חַיָּיב – בֵּין בְּנִזְקֵי גוּפוֹ דְּשֵׁנִי, בֵּין בְּנִזְקֵי מָמוֹנוֹ דְּשֵׁנִי; וְשֵׁנִי חַיָּיב בְּנִזְקֵי שְׁלִישִׁי – בְּנִזְקֵי גוּפוֹ, אֲבָל לֹא בְּנִזְקֵי מָמוֹנוֹ. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ בּוֹר, וְלֹא מָצִינוּ בּוֹר שֶׁחִיֵּיב בּוֹ אֶת הַכֵּלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** this entire explanation of Rava’s statement should be rejected, and it should be explained as follows: **Rava said** that **the first** is **liable both for injury** caused **to the body of the second and for damage** caused **to the property of the second, and the second** is **liable** to pay **for damage incurred by the third with regard to injury to his body but not with regard to damage to his property. What is the reason** for the exemption in the last case? It is **because** after his fall, the body of the second person **is** effectively **a pit, and we do not find that** in the category of **Pit** one is **liable** to pay restitution **for** damage caused to **vessels.**


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

הָנִיחָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר: כֹּל תַּקָּלָה – בּוֹר הוּא; אֶלָּא לְרַב, דְּאָמַר: אִי אַפְקְרֵיהּ אִין, אִי לָא לָא; מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This works out well** according **to Shmuel, who says** that **any obstacle** that was placed in the public domain **constitutes a pit,** i.e., the *halakhot* of a pit apply to it. **But** according **to Rav, who says** that **if** the one who placed it there **renounces ownership** of the hazardous object it **is** considered a pit, **but if** he does **not** renounce ownership of it then it is **not** considered a pit, **what is there to say?** The second one who fell obviously did not renounce ownership of his body, so why is he exempt from damage he caused to vessels as though he were a pit?


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

לְעוֹלָם – כִּדְאָמַר מֵעִיקָּרָא, וּדְקַשְׁיָא לָךְ ״כּוּלָּן חַיָּיבִין״ – תַּרְגְּמַהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבִינָא: שֶׁהוּזְּקוּ כֵּלִים בְּכֵלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually,** Rava’s statement should be explained **as** he was understood to have **said initially,** i.e., that he distinguishes between damage caused by another’s body and damage caused by his property. **And as for your difficulty** from the statement in the *baraita* that **all of them are liable** to pay for the damage caused by their bodies but exempt from paying restitution for the damage caused by their property, apparently including even the first one, contrary to Rava’s opinion, **Rav Adda bar Minyumi interpreted it before Ravina** as referring to a case **where vessels were damaged by vessels.** In other words, it is not the body, but the vessels of the second that were damaged by the property of the first, and since the broken vessels of the first have the status of a pit, the owner is exempt from liability for damage caused to the vessels of others.


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

אָמַר מָר: אִם מֵחֲמַת רִאשׁוֹן נָפְלוּ – רִאשׁוֹן חַיָּיב בְּנִזְקֵי כוּלָּם. מֵחֲמַת רִאשׁוֹן הֵיכִי נָפֵיל? רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: דְּפַסְקֵהּ לְאוֹרְחֵיהּ כְּשִׁלְדָּא. רַב זְבִיד אָמַר: כְּחוּטְרָא דְסַמְיוּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Master said** above: **If they** all **fell because of the first, the first** is **liable** to pay **for the damage of them all.** The Gemara asks: **How did they** all **fall because of the first? Rav Pappa said:** It is a case **where he blocked the road like a skeleton [*keshilda*],** filling the entire width of the road and causing the rest to stumble over different parts of his body. **Rav Zevid said:** He fell diagonally **like a blind man’s cane,** and they all stumbled over him.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** זֶה בָּא בְּחָבִיתוֹ וְזֶה בָּא בְּקוֹרָתוֹ, נִשְׁבְּרָה כַּדּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה בְּקוֹרָתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה – פָּטוּר; שֶׁלָּזֶה רְשׁוּת לְהַלֵּךְ, וְלָזֶה רְשׁוּת לְהַלֵּךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If **this** person **came** in the public domain **with his barrel, and that** person **came** from the opposite direction **with his** cross **beam,** and **this one’s jug was broken by that one’s** cross **beam,** the one carrying the cross beam is **exempt, because this one had permission to walk** in the public domain, **and that one** also **had permission to walk** there.


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

הָיָה בַּעַל הַקּוֹרָה רִאשׁוֹן וּבַעַל חָבִית אַחֲרוֹן; נִשְׁבְּרָה חָבִית בְּקוֹרָה – פָּטוּר בַּעַל הַקּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If they were walking in the same direction, so that **the owner of the** cross **beam was** walking **first,** in front, **and the owner of a barrel last,** behind him, and **the barrel was broken by the** cross **beam, the owner of the** cross **beam** is **exempt,** since the owner of the barrel saw him in front of him and should have been more careful.