Study Bava Kamma folio 10B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
If the fire would not have spread to another person’s field without him adding bundles the fire, it is obvious that he alone is liable for the damage because he alone did everything that led to the damage. Rather, the case must be one where the fire would have spread even without him. The Talmud a
Rav Pappa objects to the claim of the baraita that the Mishnah refers only to one specific case: But isn’t there also that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to a case in which 5 people were sitting on one bench [safsal] and it did not break, and then one additional person came and sat upon i
The Talmud rejects this suggestion: What are the circumstances? If we say that without him the bench would never have broken under the weight of the first 5 people, then it is obvious that the last individual is liable for all the damage, as ultimately it was his action alone that caused the damage.
The Talmud asks: Ultimately, how is the baraita cited by Rav Pappa to be explained? As the Talmud explained, the ruling of the baraita is understandable only if it is referring to a case where the bench would not have broken without him. But if that is the case, as the Talmud noted, it is obvious a
The Talmud explains: No, it is necessary in a case where without him it would have broken in two hours, and now it broke in one hour. The baraita teaches that the last individual alone is liable and not the first 5, as they can say to the last individual: Were it not for you, we would have sat a l