2) A HEAVY PERSON WHO BREAKS A BENCH
QUESTION: The Beraisa teaches that if five people sat on a bench and it did not break, and then one person came and sat on it and it broke, the last person is liable to pay for the damages. Rav Papa says that this refers to a person "like Papa ben Aba." Rashi says that Papa ben Aba was heavy.

What is the significance of the fact that the person who broke the bench was heavy? Would the Halachah differ if the person was not heavy?

ANSWERS:
(a) TOSFOS (DH Kegon) in the name of the RASHBAM explains that when a person is invited into the home of another, the invitation includes permission to sit on any of the seats or benches in the house, but only if the person is not extremely overweight. If the person is extremely overweight, the invitation does not include permission to sit on the benches in the house. Therefore, if the person who broke the bench was not very heavy, he would not be obligated to pay for the damages since he was permitted to sit down on them. He is considered a "Sho'el" (borrower) who is exempt from paying for an item that breaks in its normal course of usage ("Meisah Machmas Melachah"). A person like Papa bar Aba, however, would not have permission to sit on the bench, and thus he would be liable for damaging it.

The Rishonim ask a number of questions on this approach.

According to the Rashbam, even if the heavy person was not the last person to sit on the bench but was the first person to sit down, he should be liable if the bench breaks since the others (who are of normal weight) used the bench with permission, while he used it without permission. (RABEINU YESHAYAH cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes)

Moreover, when the Gemara suggests that the bench eventually would have broken without the last person sitting on it but since he sat there it broke sooner, the Gemara finds it necessary to explain why the other people sitting on the bench are exempt. The Gemara says that they could claim, "Had you not sat down, we would have been able to sit longer, and therefore we should not be liable." The Gemara rejects this claim by asserting that they should have arisen immediately when they saw the heavy person sit down next to them on the bench.

Why, though, do the others need any excuse to exempt themselves? The reason they are exempt is because they sat there with permission because they are of normal weight! (Ibid.)

RABEINU YESHAYAH answers that one question answers the other. The fact that the Beraisa obligates the heavy person only because he is the last one who sat there implies that the other people who sat on the bench are also overweight. That is why the last person to sit down is liable only if he is the last one to sit there. Otherwise, he would be exempt and the heavy person who did sit there last would be obligated instead, since he sat there without permission. (Although the other heavy people also sat there without permission, "the bench would not have broken if he (the last one) had not sat there.")

This answers the second question. The Gemara needs to find an excuse to exempt the first people who sat on the bench because they, too, were heavy (and sat there without permission), which is clear from the fact that the person who broke the bench is liable only because he was last. (See TALMID RABEINU PERETZ cited by the Shitah Mekubetzes who offers a different answer to these two questions.)

(b) TOSFOS cites RABEINU TAM who answers that Rav Papa explains that the person who broke the bench was heavy because the Gemara concludes that that person is liable since he leaned on the people who were sitting on the bench. He put his weight on the bench and, at the same time, prevented the others from standing up. If he was not very heavy, he would not have been able to prevent the others from standing up.

According to this approach, Rav Papa actually answers his own question. Rav Papa asked why the Gemara does not explain that the Mishnah's case is the same as the case of the Beraisa, in which the last person broke the bench? Rav Papa himself immediately answers that in the Beraisa's case the last person pushes down on the bench and on the people on it, thereby causing all of the damage and not just the final blow. (According to Rabeinu Tam, the proper Girsa is "Amar Rav Papa" and not "v'Amar Rav Papa" as it appears in our texts.) The Gemara then articulates why Rav Papa finds it necessary to explain the Beraisa in this way. (RASHBA)

According to Rabeinu Tam, it cannot be proven from this Gemara that a person is permitted to sit on a bench in any house into which he is invited.

(c) The ME'IRI writes that Rav Papa made his comment in a light-hearted manner. He was commenting that it must have been a very heavy person who broke the bench. (Rav Papa himself was known to be heavy (Bava Metzia 84a), and perhaps he was giving himself as an example when he said this, saying that he would have broken the bench had he sat there.)