Study Bava Kamma folio 31B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
ראשון – ודאי פושע הוא. שני – אגופו מחייב, דהיה לו לעמוד ולא עמד. אממונו פטור, דאמר ליה: האי בירא – לאו אנא כריתיה.
The Talmud 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.
מיתיבי: כולן חייבין על נזקי גופן, ופטורין על נזקי ממונן. מאי, לאו אפילו ראשון?
The Talmud 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?
לא, לבר מראשון. והא ״כולם״ קתני! אמר רב אדא בר אהבה: ״כולן״ – הניזקין.
The Talmud answers: No, it is referring to all of them except for the first. The Talmud 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.
האי מאי? אי אמרת בשלמא אפילו ראשון – היינו דקתני ״כולן״; אלא אי אמרת לבר מראשון, מאי ״כולן״? ליתני ״הניזקין״!
The Talmud 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.