PAST DEDICATION
BAVA KAMA 31 - dedicated by Dr. Moshe and Rivka Snow in memory of Rivka's mother, Rebbetzin Leah bas Rav Yosef (Rabinowitz), the Manostrishtcher Rebbetzin, whose Yahrzeit is 15 Teves.

Bava Kama Chart #7a

Chart for Bava Kama Daf 31a-b

FOR WHAT DAMAGES IS A PERSON LIABLE FOR WHEN HE TRIPS AND FALLS IN RESHUS HA'RABIM?

RASHI AS PRINTED
IN OUR TEXTS
(A)
THE PERSON WHO TRIPPED FIRST
(B)
THE SECOND PERSON, WHO TRIPPED OVER THE FIRST
THE FIRST LASHON
OF RAVA
(and the Gemara's
conclusion (1))
("NISKAL POSHE'A") ("NISKAL ONES")
1a) HIS BODY CAUSED DAMAGE Guf, Kelim (3) Guf, Kelim (3)
1b) HIS POSSESSIONS CAUSED DAMAGE Guf (4) --- (6)
THE SECOND
LASHON OF RAVA (7)
("NISKAL ONES") ("NISKAL ONES")
2a) HIS BODY CAUSED DAMAGE Guf, Kelim (3) Guf (2) (5)
2b) HIS POSSESSIONS CAUSED DAMAGE --- (6) --- (6)

Bava Kama Chart #7b

Chart for Bava Kama Daf 31a-b

FOR WHAT DAMAGES IS A PERSON LIABLE FOR WHEN HE TRIPS AND FALLS IN RESHUS HA'RABIM?

RABEINU CHANANEL;
RASHI'S ALTERNATE APPROACH
(cited by Tosfos)
(A)
THE PERSON WHO TRIPPED FIRST
(B)
THE SECOND PERSON, WHO TRIPPED OVER THE FIRST
THE FIRST LASHON
OF RAVA (7)
("NISKAL ONES") ("NISKAL ONES")
3a) HIS BODY CAUSED DAMAGE Guf, Kelim (3) Guf (2) (5)
3b) HIS POSSESSIONS CAUSED DAMAGE --- (6) --- (6)
THE SECOND
LASHON OF RAVA (7)
("NISKAL POSHE'A") ("NISKAL ONES")
4a) HIS BODY CAUSED DAMAGE Guf (5) Guf (5)
4b) HIS POSSESSIONS CAUSED DAMAGE Guf (4) --- (6)
THE CONCLUSION
OF RAVA (1)
("NISKAL POSHE'A") ("NISKAL ONES")
5a) HIS BODY CAUSED DAMAGE Guf, Kelim (3) Guf, Kelim (3)
5b) HIS POSSESSIONS CAUSED DAMAGE Guf (4) --- (6)
-------------------------------------------------

==========

FOOTNOTES:

==========

(1) Rashi's explanation (as printed in our texts) of the first Lashon of Rava -- to which the Gemara reverts upon the conclusion of the Sugya, according to his explanation -- and the conclusive interpretation of Rava's second Lashon according to Rabeinu Chananel's explanation, are identical. This is why Rabeinu Chananel has in his Girsa of Rava's second Lashon, the sentence "I did not dig this Bor," just as Rashi has in his Girsa of Rava's first Lashon.

This explanation maintains that when the first person trips and falls, he is considered to be Poshe'a. (Tosfos adds that even if we normally say that "Niskal" is an Ones, this "Niskal" is certainly Poshe'a, because he should have stood up or warned those approaching and he did not do so.) However, the second person (who tripped on the first) is certainly an Ones.

(2) Even though the second person should have stood up or warned the approaching traffic, nevertheless since his fall was "further beyond his control" than the first person's fall, we are more lenient with him. We judge him as a complete Ones, and thus he is exempt from damage caused by his possessions after he made them Hefker (Rashi DH Ela, Tosfos).

(3) We consider him to be like Adam ha'Mazik.

(4) We consider it to be like any Bor, which is exempt for damage caused to Kelim. (According to Rav, the case is one in which he was Mafkir his possessions after they fell, because otherwise he would be Chayav even for damage done to Kelim.) Even though he was Mafkir his possessions they are still considered his Bor, since he was Mafkir them after he fell through his own Peshi'ah.

(5) We consider his body to be a Bor, since he should have stood up but did not. On this assertion, the Gemara asks how is it possible for an Adam to be considered a Bor and to be exempt from damage caused to Kelim, according to Rav? Rav holds that anything that a person did not make Hefker is Chayav for Kelim! (According to Rabeinu Chananel, even though the Gemara does not ask this question on the Lishna Kama, it could have asked this question, as Tosfos writes.)

(6) This is a case of one who is Mafkir his possessions after falling by Ones, for which one is exempt, for he may say, "I did not dig this Bor."

(7) The second Lashon of Rava ("Ela Amar Rava") according to Rashi, is identical to the first Lashon of Rava according to Rabeinu Chananel. This is why Rabeinu Chananel has in his Girsa of Rava's first Lashon, the sentence "[the second person to trip] is likened to a Bor," just as Rashi has in his Girsa of Rava's second Lashon.

According to this explanation, one who trips, "Niskal," is always considered an Ones, whether he was the first person who tripped or the second. Nevertheless, we are more lenient for the second person, as explained above in footnote #2. (Tosfos adds that even according to this Lashon, it is possible that "Niskal" is a Poshe'a. Nevertheless Rava exempts him from damages caused by his Kelim after he was Mafkir them, because he holds like the Rabanan who rule that one is Patur if he made his possessions Hefker even after a fall of Peshi'ah.)

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF