The Gemara suggests a number of kal v’chomer arguments to reach conclusions opposite of what is known to be the case, such as, one should be obligated for shen and regel damages in the public domain as can be derived from keren in the public domain. Each suggestion is rejected based on inferences from the verses in the Torah. Is there a ransom payment only by keren damages or would one also pay a ransom payment if an animal killed a person by trampling them on the property of the one who was killed? From a braita, they derived that Rabbi Tarfon holds that there can be a ransom payment for one who kills by trampling. The Mishna discusses the responsibility of a person for damages. A person is always responsible, even if it was an accident or someone damaged while sleeping. Raba brings a list of cases where an act was done unintentionally and discusses the law for different areas of law – damages, melacha on Shabbat, going to a refuge city for killing unintentionally, and damage to a Caananite slave on account of which a slave may go free.
Bava Kamma 26
Share this shiur:
Bava Kamma
Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Bava Kamma
Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Bava Kamma 26
מִידֵּי כּוּלֵּיהּ קָאָמְרִינַן?! פַּלְגָא קָאָמְרִינַן!
The Gemara asks: Are we saying that based on the a fortiori inference one should have to pay the full cost of the damage caused in the public domain for Eating and Trampling? That would be false, as the verse indicating one’s liability to pay the full cost of the damage limits the application to damage caused in “the field of another.” We are saying only that he should be liable for half the cost of the damage there, just as with regard to Goring.
אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְחָצוּ אֶת כַּסְפּוֹ״ – כַּסְפּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, וְלֹא כַּסְפּוֹ שֶׁל אַחֵר.
The Gemara rejects this as well: This is also incorrect, as the verse states with regard to the payment of half the damages: “And divide its monetary value” (Exodus 21:35). The use of the expression “its monetary value,” and not “the monetary value,” emphasizes that it is specifically the price of this ox that caused damage classified as Goring whose money will be divided, i.e., the owner of the ox will be obligated to pay half the cost of the damage, but not the price of another, i.e., not in other cases of damage caused by one’s ox.
וְלֹא תְּהֵא שֵׁן וָרֶגֶל חַיֶּיבֶת בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק אֶלָּא חֲצִי נֶזֶק – מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר מִקֶּרֶן; וּמָה קֶרֶן, שֶׁבִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים חַיֶּיבֶת – בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק אֵינָהּ מְשַׁלֶּמֶת אֶלָּא חֲצִי נֶזֶק; שֵׁן וָרֶגֶל, שֶׁבִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים פְּטוּרָה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁבִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי נֶזֶק?
The Gemara suggests a derivation from a different inference: And let one be held liable to pay only half the cost of the damage caused by Eating and Trampling even if the incident took place on the property of the injured party. This can be inferred via an a fortiori inference drawn from Goring, as follows: And if for damage classified as Goring, which is governed by a stricter halakha, as one is held liable for damage classified as Goring even if it occurs in the public domain, yet one nevertheless pays only half the cost of the damage caused on the property of the injured party, then with regard to damage classified as Eating and Trampling, which are governed by more lenient halakhot, as one is completely exempt from liability for damage caused in the public domain, is it not right that he should have to pay only half the cost of the damage caused on the property of the injured party?
אָמַר קְרָא: ״יְשַׁלֵּם״ – תַּשְׁלוּמִין מְעַלְּיָא.
The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to Eating and Trampling: “The best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall pay” (Exodus 22:4). The intent of the verse is to emphasize that the owner of the ox pays a proper, meaning complete, amount of payment, and not half the cost of the damage.
וְלֹא תְּהֵא קֶרֶן בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים חַיָּיב – מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר; וּמָה שֵׁן וָרֶגֶל, שֶׁבִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם – בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים פְּטוּרָה; קֶרֶן, שֶׁבִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק חֲצִי נֶזֶק – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁבִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים פְּטוּרָה?
The Gemara suggests a derivation from a different inference: And let one not be held liable at all with regard to damage classified as Goring in the public domain. This can be inferred via an a fortiori inference, as follows: And if for damage classified as Eating and Trampling, for which one is liable to pay the full cost of the damage for incidents that took place on the property of the injured party, one is completely exempt for damage caused in the public domain, then with regard to damage classified as Goring, which is governed by a more lenient halakha, as one is held liable for only half the cost of the damage caused on the property of the injured party, is it not right that one should be exempt in the public domain?
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אָמַר קְרָא: ״יֶחֱצוּן״ – אֵין חֲצִי נֶזֶק חָלוּק לֹא בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְלֹא בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד.
Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The verse states in reference to an innocuous ox: “And the carcass they shall also divide” (Exodus 21:35), to indicate that there is no difference with regard to the payment of half the cost of the damage, whether the damage occurs in a public domain or whether it occurs on private property.
וִיהֵא אָדָם חַיָּיב בְּכוֹפֶר – מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר; וּמָה שׁוֹר, שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים – חַיָּיב בְּכוֹפֶר; אָדָם, שֶׁחַיָּיב בְּאַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָּיב בְּכוֹפֶר?
The Gemara suggests a derivation from a different inference: And let a person who inadvertently kills another be liable to pay ransom. This can be inferred via an a fortiori inference, as follows: And if the owner of an ox, who is not liable to pay the four types of indemnity, i.e., pain, medical costs, loss of livelihood, and humiliation, if his ox injures a person, is nevertheless liable to pay ransom if it killed someone, then with regard to a person, who is liable to pay the four types of indemnity if he injures another, is it not right that he should be liable to pay ransom if he were to kill him?
אָמַר קְרָא: ״כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר יוּשַׁת עָלָיו״; ״עָלָיו״ – וְלֹא עַל אָדָם.
The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to an ox killing a person: “He shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is imposed upon him” (Exodus 21:30). “Upon him”: This means upon the owner of an ox who kills a person, but not upon a person who kills another.
וִיהֵא שׁוֹר חַיָּיב בְּאַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים – מִקַּל וְחוֹמֶר; וּמָה אָדָם, שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּכוֹפֶר – חַיָּיב בְּאַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים; שׁוֹר, שֶׁחַיָּיב בְּכוֹפֶר – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיְּהֵא חַיָּיב בְּאַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים?
The Gemara suggests the reverse derivation: And let the owner of an ox that injured a person be liable to pay the four types of indemnity. This can be inferred via an a fortiori inference, as follows: And if a person, who is not obligated to pay ransom if he kills someone, is nevertheless liable to pay four types of indemnity if he injures another, then with regard to the owner of an ox, who is liable to pay ransom, is it not right that he should also be liable to pay the four types of indemnity?
אָמַר קְרָא: ״אִישׁ בַּעֲמִיתוֹ״ – וְלֹא שׁוֹר בַּעֲמִיתוֹ.
The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to this matter: “And if a man maims another” (Leviticus 24:19), from which it can be derived that this halakha applies when a man harms another person but not when an ox harms another person.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: רֶגֶל שֶׁדָּרְסָה עַל גַּבֵּי תִּינוֹק בַּחֲצַר הַנִּיזָּק, מַהוּ שֶׁתְּשַׁלֵּם כּוֹפֶר? מִי אָמְרִינַן: מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַקֶּרֶן – קֶרֶן, כֵּיוָן דַּעֲבַד תְּרֵי וּתְלָתָא זִמְנֵי – אוֹרְחֵיהּ הוּא, וּמְשַׁלֵּם כּוֹפֶר; הָכָא נָמֵי לָא שְׁנָא;
§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to Trampling, in the case of an animal that tramples a child in the courtyard of the injured party and kills the child, what is the halakha with regard to the liability of the owner of the animal to pay ransom? The Gemara explains the different sides of the question: Do we say that this halakha is just as it is with regard to Goring? Accordingly, just as with regard to Goring, once an animal has gored two or three times this becomes defined as its usual manner and therefore it is deemed forewarned and the owner must pay ransom in the event that it kills a person by an act classified as Goring, here too it is not different, as with regard to the category of Trampling the owner is deemed forewarned from the start and he must therefore pay ransom.
אוֹ דִלְמָא, קֶרֶן כַּוּוֹנָתוֹ לְהַזִּיק, הַאי אֵין כַּוּוֹנָתוֹ לְהַזִּיק?
Or perhaps, should we say that the halakha with regard to Goring is more stringent, as Goring requires the animal’s intent to cause damage, and that is why the owner must pay ransom in the event of a death; but in a case of Trampling, where there is no intent to cause damage, the owner would be exempt from paying ransom?
תָּא שְׁמַע: הִכְנִיס שׁוֹרוֹ לַחֲצַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת, וּנְגָחוֹ לְבַעַל הַבַּיִת וָמֵת; הַשּׁוֹר – בִּסְקִילָה, וּבְעָלָיו – בֵּין תָּם בֵּין מוּעָד, מְשַׁלֵּם כּוֹפֶר שָׁלֵם; דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution to this dilemma from a baraita: If one brought his ox into the courtyard of a homeowner without his permission, and it gored the homeowner and he died, the ox is killed by stoning and the owner of the ox is obligated to pay the full amount of the ransom, regardless of whether the animal was innocuous or forewarned. This is the statement of Rabbi Tarfon.
כּוֹפֶר שָׁלֵם בְּתָם, לְרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן – מְנָא לֵיהּ? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּסָבַר לֵיהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, דְּאָמַר: תָּם מְשַׁלֵּם חֲצִי כוֹפֶר בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים – וּמַיְיתֵי לַהּ מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר מֵרֶגֶל? אַלְמָא אִיכָּא כּוֹפֶר בְּרֶגֶל!
The Gemara proceeds to clarify: From where does Rabbi Tarfon derive that with regard to an innocuous ox the owner must also pay the full amount of the ransom? Is it not because he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says that the owner of an innocuous ox that killed a person pays half the ransom if the incident took place in the public domain? And he derived this ruling via an a fortiori inference from the halakhot of Trampling: And if in a case of Trampling, for which one is exempted entirely from liability when it occurs in the public domain, one must nevertheless pay the full ransom if the incident took place on the property of the injured party, with regard to Goring, for which one must pay half the ransom when it occurs in the public domain, is it not right that one should be obligated to pay full ransom for an incident that took place on the property of the injured party? Evidently, it is clear that there is a ransom payment in the case of Trampling.
אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא: תַּנָּא – מִנְּזָקִין דְּרֶגֶל מַיְיתֵי לַהּ.
Rav Shimi of Neharde’a said: It is possible to explain that the tanna derived his a fortiori inference from damage caused by Trampling: And if in a case of Trampling, for which one is completely exempt from liability when it happens in the public domain, one pays the full cost of the damage done on the property of the injured party, with regard to Goring, for which one must pay half the ransom payment if the ox kills a person in the public domain, is it not right that one would certainly be obligated to pay the full ransom if the person was killed on his own property? According to this reasoning there is no indication that one pays a ransom payment in the case of a child that was killed by Trampling.
וְלִפְרוֹךְ: מָה לִנְזָקִין דְּרֶגֶל – שֶׁכֵּן יֶשְׁנָן בְּאֵשׁ! מִטָּמוּן.
The Gemara asks: But if this is the basis for Rabbi Tarfon’s opinion, let the Gemara refute it in this way: What can be learned about ransom from damage caused by Trampling? These same halakhot apply to Fire; nevertheless, there is no obligation to pay ransom when a person is killed by Fire, as was stated explicitly in a baraita above (10a). Consequently, the attempt to derive an a fortiori inference about ransom from Trampling is obviously flawed. The Gemara answers: The a fortiori inference can be based on the damage to concealed articles caused by Trampling on the property of the injured party. One would be exempt for damage such as this if it were caused by Fire.
מָה לְטָמוּן – שֶׁכֵּן יֶשְׁנוֹ בְּבוֹר! מִכֵּלִים.
The Gemara responds to this challenge with a different one: What is notable about damage to concealed articles caused by Trampling? It is notable in that these same halakhot apply to the category of Pit, but nevertheless there is no ransom paid if a person is killed by a pit. Consequently, an attempt to derive an a fortiori inference about ransom from this halakha is obviously flawed. The Gemara answers: The a fortiori inference can be based on damage caused to vessels by Trampling on the property of the injured party. One would be exempt for damage of this nature if it were caused by a pit.
מָה לְכֵלִים – שֶׁיֶּשְׁנָן בְּאֵשׁ! מִכֵּלִים טְמוּנִים. מָה לְכֵלִים טְמוּנִים – שֶׁיֶּשְׁנָן בְּאָדָם!
The Gemara rejects this as well: What is notable about damage caused to vessels by Trampling? It is notable in that these same halakhot apply to the category of Fire. The Gemara answers: The a fortiori inference can be based on damage caused to concealed vessels by Trampling. In this case, one would be liable for Trampling but exempt from liability for both Fire and Pit, so this can be the basis for the ransom payment, via the a fortiori inference stated by Rav Shimi of Neharde’a. The Gemara rejects this as well: What is notable about damage caused to concealed vessels by Trampling? It is notable in that these same halakhot apply to the category of Man, as a person is liable for damage to these items but does not pay ransom if he inadvertently kills another person.
אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִכּוֹפֶר דְּרֶגֶל מַיְיתֵי לַהּ? אַלְמָא אִיכָּא כּוֹפֶר בְּרֶגֶל! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from it that since the halakhot of the ransom payment with regard to Goring cannot be deduced from the halakhot of damages with regard to Trampling, the tanna derived his a fortiori inference based on the halakhot of ransom in a case of Trampling, and therefore it may be concluded that apparently there is ransom in a case of Trampling? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that this is so. Consequently, in the case of a child trampled to death by Trampling while on his parents’ property, the owner of the animal must pay ransom.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא מִדִּפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא – דְּאִיכָּא כּוֹפֶר בְּרֶגֶל; דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ לֵיכָּא כּוֹפֶר בְּרֶגֶל – וְתַנָּא מִנְּזָקִין דְּרֶגֶל מַיְיתֵי לַהּ, לִפְרוֹךְ: מָה לִנְזָקִין דְּרֶגֶל – שֶׁכֵּן יֶשְׁנָן בְּרֶגֶל!
Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: So too, it is reasonable to say that there is an obligation to pay ransom in a case of Trampling, as, if it enters your mind to say that there is no obligation to pay ransom in a case of Trampling, and the tanna derived his a fortiori inference from damage caused by Trampling, let the Gemara refute it in this way: What is notable about damage caused by Trampling? It is notable in that these same halakhot apply to Trampling, while there is no obligation to pay ransom in a case of Trampling. In other words, it would be possible to derive the obligation to pay a full ransom where a person was killed by the Goring of an innocuous ox while on the property of the victim only if there is also an obligation to pay ransom where the person was killed by Trampling.
אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ מִכּוֹפֶר דְּרֶגֶל מַיְיתֵי לַהּ? אַלְמָא אִיכָּא כּוֹפֶר בְּרֶגֶל! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from it that an a fortiori inference must be based on the obligation to pay ransom in a case of Trampling, and therefore it may be concluded that evidently, there is an obligation to pay ransom in a case of Trampling? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that this is so.
מַתְנִי׳ אָדָם מוּעָד לְעוֹלָם – בֵּין שׁוֹגֵג בֵּין מֵזִיד, בֵּין עֵר בֵּין יָשֵׁן. סִימֵּא אֶת עֵין חֲבֵירוֹ וְשִׁיבֵּר אֶת הַכֵּלִים – מְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם.
MISHNA: The legal status of a person is always that of one forewarned. Therefore, whether the damage was unintentional or intentional, whether he was awake while he caused the damage or asleep, whether he blinded another’s eye or broke vessels, he must pay the full cost of the damage.
גְּמָ׳ קָתָנֵי ״סִימֵּא אֶת עֵין חֲבֵירוֹ״ דּוּמְיָא דְּ״שִׁיבֵּר אֶת הַכֵּלִים״; מָה הָתָם – נֶזֶק אִין, אַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים לָא; אַף סִימֵּא אֶת עֵין חֲבֵירוֹ – נֶזֶק אִין, אַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים לָא.
GEMARA: The Gemara infers: It teaches in the mishna: He blinded another’s eye, and presumably this is similar to the other example: Broke vessels. From this it can be inferred that just as there, in the case of the broken vessels, yes, one must pay for the damage he caused but he does not pay the four types of indemnity, so too, in a case where he blinds another, yes, he must pay for the damage he caused, but he does not pay the four types of indemnity, since he caused the injury while asleep or unintentionally.
מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי חִזְקִיָּה, אָמַר קְרָא: ״פֶּצַע תַּחַת פָּצַע״ – לְחַיְּיבוֹ עַל הַשּׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד, וְעַל הָאוֹנֶס כְּרָצוֹן.
With regard to the halakha that one must pay the full cost of the damage in a case where there was no intent to cause damage, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Ḥizkiyya says, and similarly, the school of Ḥizkiyya taught: The verse states: “Wound for wound [petza taḥat patza]” (Exodus 21:25). This phrase is superfluous, as the Torah states elsewhere (see Leviticus 24:19) that one is liable to pay compensation when injuring another. This verse serves to render him liable to pay for the unintentional damage just as he pays for the intentional damage; and he pays for damage caused by accident just as he pays for damage caused willingly.
הַאי מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לִיתֵּן צַעַר בִּמְקוֹם נֶזֶק! אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב קְרָא: ״פֶּצַע בְּפָצַע״; מַאי ״תַּחַת פָּצַע״ – שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.
The Gemara asks: But this verse is necessary in order to indicate that one must pay compensation for pain, even in a case where he pays compensation for damage caused by the injury. Consequently, it seems that that verse cannot also be the source of the principle derived by the school of Ḥizkiyya. The Gemara answers: If it is so that the superfluous phrase is intended to teach only that, then let the verse write: Petza befatza, which carries the same meaning. What, then, is meant by the superfluous word taḥat in the phrase “petza taḥat patza”? It indicates that we must derive two conclusions from it: That one is liable to pay for pain even in a case where he pays compensation for damage, and that he is liable for unintentional damage as he is for intentional damage, and for damage caused by accident as for damage caused willingly.
אָמַר רַבָּה: הָיְתָה אֶבֶן מוּנַּחַת לוֹ בְּחֵיקוֹ וְלֹא הִכִּיר בָּהּ, וְעָמַד וְנָפְלָה; לְעִנְיַן נְזָקִין – חַיָּיב, לְעִנְיַן אַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים – פָּטוּר, לְעִנְיַן שַׁבָּת – מְלֶאכֶת מַחְשֶׁבֶת אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה, לְעִנְיַן גָּלוּת – פָּטוּר,
§ Rabba says: If there was a stone lying in one’s lap and he was unaware of it, and he arose and it fell and caused damage, with regard to damages he is liable to pay the full cost of the damage caused by the stone. With regard to the four types of indemnity, he is exempt. With regard to Shabbat, if the falling stone caused him to violate one of the prohibited categories of labor; for example, if the stone fell from a private domain to the public domain, he is exempt. The reason is that the Torah prohibited only planned, constructive labor on Shabbat, and he did not plan to perform this labor. With regard to exile, the punishment prescribed for one who unintentionally but negligently kills another, were this stone to kill someone he is exempt, as the incident is deemed accidental.
לְעִנְיַן עֶבֶד – פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבָּנַן. דְּתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה רַבּוֹ רוֹפֵא, וְאָמַר לוֹ: ״כְּחוֹל עֵינִי״, וְסִימְּאָהּ; ״חֲתוֹר לִי שִׁינִּי״, וְהִפִּילָהּ – שִׂיחֵק בָּאָדוֹן, וְיָצָא לְחֵרוּת.
With regard to a Canaanite slave whose tooth was destroyed or eye was blinded by the stone, potentially enabling the slave to earn his freedom (see Exodus 21:26–27), this is the subject of a dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:25): If the master was a doctor and the slave said to him: Paint the lid of my eye in order to heal it, and the master blinded it during the procedure, or if the slave requested from his master: Scrape my tooth in order to heal it, and the master knocked out the tooth while scraping it, the slave has mocked the master, as he is emancipated due to the act of the master himself.
רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: ״וְשִׁחֲתָהּ״ – עַד שֶׁיִּתְכַּוֵּין לְשַׁחֲתָהּ.
By contrast, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The slave is not emancipated in these cases because the verse states: “And destroy it” (Exodus 21:26), from which it is derived that the slave is emancipated only in a case where the master intends to destroy the eye or the tooth, but not if he intended to heal the slave. So too, in the case where a stone fell and accidentally blinded a slave’s eye or knocked out his tooth, according to the Rabbis the slave would be emancipated and according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel he would not. All of the above cases relate to situations where the individual did not know the stone was in his lap.
הִכִּיר בָּהּ וּשְׁכֵחָהּ, וְעָמַד וְנָפְלָה; לְעִנְיַן נְזָקִין – חַיָּיב. לְעִנְיַן אַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים – פָּטוּר. לְעִנְיַן גָּלוּת – חַיָּיב, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״בִּשְׁגָגָה״ – מִכְּלָל דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ יְדִיעָה, וְהָא הַוְיָא לֵיהּ יְדִיעָה. לְעִנְיַן שַׁבָּת – פָּטוּר. לְעִנְיַן עֶבֶד – פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבָּנַן.
If he was initially aware of it but forgot about it and he arose and it fell, with regard to damages he is certainly liable, being that he is liable even if he was unaware of the stone. With regard to the four types of indemnity, here too he is exempt, as he did not intend to cause injury. With regard to exile he is liable, as the verse states: “One who unwittingly strikes a person mortally” (Numbers 35:11), indicating by inference that the assailant had some previous awareness, and in this case he was in fact previously aware of the stone in his lap. The term “unwittingly” is employed to describe someone who possessed knowledge of the potential transgression then forgot about it. With regard to Shabbat he is exempt, as this was not a planned, constructive labor. With regard to a slave, the same dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis applies.
נִתְכַּוֵּין לִזְרוֹק שְׁתַּיִם, וְזָרַק אַרְבַּע; לְעִנְיַן נְזָקִין – חַיָּיב. לְעִנְיַן אַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים – פָּטוּר. לְעִנְיַן שַׁבָּת – מְלֶאכֶת מַחְשֶׁבֶת בָּעֵינַן. לְעִנְיַן גָּלוּת – ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא צָדָה״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, פְּרָט לְנִתְכַּוֵּין לִזְרוֹק שְׁתַּיִם וְזָרַק אַרְבַּע. לְעִנְיַן עֶבֶד – פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבָּנַן.
In a case where he intended to throw the stone, and he intended to throw it for a distance of only two cubits but instead he threw it a distance of four cubits, as it went farther than he wanted it to go, with regard to damages he is liable. With regard to the four types of indemnity he is exempt. With regard to Shabbat he is exempt, as we require planned, constructive labor as a condition for liability. With regard to exile he is liable, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: “If a man lie not in wait” (Exodus 21:13), which serves to exclude from the death penalty a situation where one intended to throw the stone for two cubits but he actually threw it for four cubits, as he did not intend to kill, so he is exiled. With regard to a slave, the same dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis applies.
נִתְכַּוֵּין לִזְרוֹק אַרְבַּע, וְזָרַק שְׁמֹנֶה; לְעִנְיַן נְזָקִין – חַיָּיב. לְעִנְיַן אַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים – פָּטוּר. לְעִנְיַן שַׁבָּת – בְּאוֹמֵר ״כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁתִּרְצֶה תָּנוּחַ״, אִין; אִי לָא, לָא. לְעִנְיַן גָּלוּת – ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא צָדָה״, פְּרָט לְנִתְכַּוֵּין לִזְרוֹק אַרְבַּע וְזָרַק שְׁמֹנֶה. לְעִנְיַן עֶבֶד – פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבָּנַן.
And if he intended to throw the stone four cubits but instead he threw it eight cubits, with regard to damages he is liable. With regard to the four types of indemnity he is exempt. With regard to Shabbat, if he said to himself when he threw the stone that he would be satisfied wherever it may land, then yes, he is liable, as he intended to throw it a distance of four cubits, which is the minimum necessary to violate the prohibited labor of carrying in the public domain. If he did not throw the stone aimlessly but rather had selected a target that was four cubits away, then he is not liable as he did not perform the precise planned, constructive labor that he had intended. With regard to exile, the Torah states: “If a man lie not in wait” (Exodus 21:13), which serves to exclude from the death penalty a situation where one intended to throw it four cubits but he actually threw it eight cubits, as he did not intend to kill, so he is exiled. With regard to a slave, the same dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis applies.
וְאָמַר רַבָּה: זָרַק כְּלִי מֵרֹאשׁ הַגָּג, וּבָא אַחֵר וּשְׁבָרוֹ בְּמַקֵּל – פָּטוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? מָנָא תְּבִירָא תָּבַר.
§ Since the Gemara cited Rabba’s comments about various actions for which the perpetrator is liable with regard to certain matters but exempt with regard to others, the Gemara cites similar rulings: And Rabba says: If one threw a vessel, such as an earthenware jug, from a roof and another came along and broke it with a stick during its descent, the latter is exempt from liability. What is the reason? It is because he broke a broken vessel, meaning that once the vessel was thrown from the roof it was clear that it would be broken upon landing, and therefore it is considered as if it were already broken and the one who broke it while it was still in the air is not liable.
וְאָמַר רַבָּה: זָרַק כְּלִי מֵרֹאשׁ הַגָּג, וְהָיוּ תַּחְתָּיו כָּרִים אוֹ כְסָתוֹת; בָּא אַחֵר וְסִלְּקָן, אוֹ קָדַם [הוּא] וְסִלְּקָן – פָּטוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? בְּעִידָּנָא דְּשַׁדְיֵיהּ – פַּסּוֹקֵי מְפַסְּקִי גִּירֵיהּ.
And Rabba says: If one threw a vessel from a roof and there were cushions or blankets below so that if the vessel would land on them it would not break, and then another came and removed the cushions or blankets, or if the individual who threw the vessel went quickly before it landed and removed the cushions or blankets himself, and as a result the vessel shattered, the one who threw the vessel is exempt from liability even though the vessel broke as a consequence of his actions. What is the reason? At the time that he threw the vessel, his arrows were stopped, i.e., what he did at the time he threw the vessel, which is an act comparable to the shooting of an arrow, did not have the capacity to break the vessel. Therefore, he is not viewed as having broken the vessel, and is exempt.
וְאָמַר רַבָּה: זָרַק תִּינוֹק מֵרֹאשׁ הַגָּג, וּבָא אַחֵר וְקִבְּלוֹ בְּסַיִיף – פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא וְרַבָּנַן. דְּתַנְיָא: הִכּוּהוּ עֲשָׂרָה בְּנֵי אָדָם בַּעֲשָׂרָה מַקְלוֹת – בֵּין בְּבַת אַחַת בֵּין בָּזֶה אַחַר זֶה, כּוּלָּן
And Rabba says: If one threw a child from a roof and another came along and impaled him on his sword and the child died, the question of who is liable to receive the death penalty for killing the child is dependent upon the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira and the Rabbis. As it is taught in a baraita: If ten people beat a victim with ten sticks, whether they did so simultaneously or sequentially, they are all
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Richmond, CA, United States
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
Richmond, CA, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Teaneck, United States
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
Los Angeles, United States
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
Raanana, Israel
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Bava Kamma 26
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ?! Χ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ!
The Gemara asks: Are we saying that based on the a fortiori inference one should have to pay the full cost of the damage caused in the public domain for Eating and Trampling? That would be false, as the verse indicating oneβs liability to pay the full cost of the damage limits the application to damage caused in βthe field of another.β We are saying only that he should be liable for half the cost of the damage there, just as with regard to Goring.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¦ΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ‘Φ°Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ΄ β ΧΦΌΦ·Χ‘Φ°Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ‘Φ°Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅Χ¨.
The Gemara rejects this as well: This is also incorrect, as the verse states with regard to the payment of half the damages: βAnd divide its monetary valueβ (Exodus 21:35). The use of the expression βits monetary value,β and not βthe monetary value,β emphasizes that it is specifically the price of this ox that caused damage classified as Goring whose money will be divided, i.e., the owner of the ox will be obligated to pay half the cost of the damage, but not the price of another, i.e., not in other cases of damage caused by oneβs ox.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ§ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ β ΧΦ΄Χ§ΦΌΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ§ΦΌΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ; ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧΧΦΆΧͺ β ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ§ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§; Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧΦΆΧ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ§ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§?
The Gemara suggests a derivation from a different inference: And let one be held liable to pay only half the cost of the damage caused by Eating and Trampling even if the incident took place on the property of the injured party. This can be inferred via an a fortiori inference drawn from Goring, as follows: And if for damage classified as Goring, which is governed by a stricter halakha, as one is held liable for damage classified as Goring even if it occurs in the public domain, yet one nevertheless pays only half the cost of the damage caused on the property of the injured party, then with regard to damage classified as Eating and Trampling, which are governed by more lenient halakhot, as one is completely exempt from liability for damage caused in the public domain, is it not right that he should have to pay only half the cost of the damage caused on the property of the injured party?
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ΄ β ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ.
The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to Eating and Trampling: βThe best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall payβ (Exodus 22:4). The intent of the verse is to emphasize that the owner of the ox pays a proper, meaning complete, amount of payment, and not half the cost of the damage.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ§ΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ β ΧΦ΄Χ§ΦΌΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨; ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧΦΆΧ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ§ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ β ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ; Χ§ΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ§ ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ?
The Gemara suggests a derivation from a different inference: And let one not be held liable at all with regard to damage classified as Goring in the public domain. This can be inferred via an a fortiori inference, as follows: And if for damage classified as Eating and Trampling, for which one is liable to pay the full cost of the damage for incidents that took place on the property of the injured party, one is completely exempt for damage caused in the public domain, then with regard to damage classified as Goring, which is governed by a more lenient halakha, as one is held liable for only half the cost of the damage caused on the property of the injured party, is it not right that one should be exempt in the public domain?
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΆΧΦ±Χ¦ΧΦΌΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ§ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan said: The verse states in reference to an innocuous ox: βAnd the carcass they shall also divideβ (Exodus 21:35), to indicate that there is no difference with regard to the payment of half the cost of the damage, whether the damage occurs in a public domain or whether it occurs on private property.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ€ΦΆΧ¨ β ΧΦ΄Χ§ΦΌΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨; ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ€ΦΆΧ¨; ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ€ΦΆΧ¨?
The Gemara suggests a derivation from a different inference: And let a person who inadvertently kills another be liable to pay ransom. This can be inferred via an a fortiori inference, as follows: And if the owner of an ox, who is not liable to pay the four types of indemnity, i.e., pain, medical costs, loss of livelihood, and humiliation, if his ox injures a person, is nevertheless liable to pay ransom if it killed someone, then with regard to a person, who is liable to pay the four types of indemnity if he injures another, is it not right that he should be liable to pay ransom if he were to kill him?
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ²Χ©ΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦ·Χͺ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧΧ΄; Χ΄Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ.
The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to an ox killing a person: βHe shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is imposed upon himβ (Exodus 21:30). βUpon himβ: This means upon the owner of an ox who kills a person, but not upon a person who kills another.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ΄Χ§ΦΌΦ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨; ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ€ΦΆΧ¨ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ; Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ€ΦΆΧ¨ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ?
The Gemara suggests the reverse derivation: And let the owner of an ox that injured a person be liable to pay the four types of indemnity. This can be inferred via an a fortiori inference, as follows: And if a person, who is not obligated to pay ransom if he kills someone, is nevertheless liable to pay four types of indemnity if he injures another, then with regard to the owner of an ox, who is liable to pay ransom, is it not right that he should also be liable to pay the four types of indemnity?
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΧΦΉΧ΄ β ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΧΦΉ.
The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to this matter: βAnd if a man maims anotherβ (Leviticus 24:19), from which it can be derived that this halakha applies when a man harms another person but not when an ox harms another person.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ: Χ¨ΦΆΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΉΧ§ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ§, ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ Χ©ΧΦΆΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ€ΦΆΧ¨? ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ: ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ β Χ§ΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΦ·Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧͺΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ β ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ€ΦΆΧ¨; ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ;
Β§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to Trampling, in the case of an animal that tramples a child in the courtyard of the injured party and kills the child, what is the halakha with regard to the liability of the owner of the animal to pay ransom? The Gemara explains the different sides of the question: Do we say that this halakha is just as it is with regard to Goring? Accordingly, just as with regard to Goring, once an animal has gored two or three times this becomes defined as its usual manner and therefore it is deemed forewarned and the owner must pay ransom in the event that it kills a person by an act classified as Goring, here too it is not different, as with regard to the category of Trampling the owner is deemed forewarned from the start and he must therefore pay ransom.
ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, Χ§ΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ§, ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ§?
Or perhaps, should we say that the halakha with regard to Goring is more stringent, as Goring requires the animalβs intent to cause damage, and that is why the owner must pay ransom in the event of a death; but in a case of Trampling, where there is no intent to cause damage, the owner would be exempt from paying ransom?
ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’: ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ‘ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧͺ, ΧΦΌΧ Φ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χͺ; ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¨ β ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ‘Φ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ β ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ€ΦΆΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ; ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°Χ€ΧΦΉΧ.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution to this dilemma from a baraita: If one brought his ox into the courtyard of a homeowner without his permission, and it gored the homeowner and he died, the ox is killed by stoning and the owner of the ox is obligated to pay the full amount of the ransom, regardless of whether the animal was innocuous or forewarned. This is the statement of Rabbi Tarfon.
ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ€ΦΆΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°Χ€ΧΦΉΧ β ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ? ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ²Χ¦Φ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ€ΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ§ΦΌΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦ΅Χ¨ΦΆΧΦΆΧ? ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ€ΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΆΧΦΆΧ!
The Gemara proceeds to clarify: From where does Rabbi Tarfon derive that with regard to an innocuous ox the owner must also pay the full amount of the ransom? Is it not because he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says that the owner of an innocuous ox that killed a person pays half the ransom if the incident took place in the public domain? And he derived this ruling via an a fortiori inference from the halakhot of Trampling: And if in a case of Trampling, for which one is exempted entirely from liability when it occurs in the public domain, one must nevertheless pay the full ransom if the incident took place on the property of the injured party, with regard to Goring, for which one must pay half the ransom when it occurs in the public domain, is it not right that one should be obligated to pay full ransom for an incident that took place on the property of the injured party? Evidently, it is clear that there is a ransom payment in the case of Trampling.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄Χ ΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ: ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΄Χ ΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ.
Rav Shimi of Nehardeβa said: It is possible to explain that the tanna derived his a fortiori inference from damage caused by Trampling: And if in a case of Trampling, for which one is completely exempt from liability when it happens in the public domain, one pays the full cost of the damage done on the property of the injured party, with regard to Goring, for which one must pay half the ransom payment if the ox kills a person in the public domain, is it not right that one would certainly be obligated to pay the full ransom if the person was killed on his own property? According to this reasoning there is no indication that one pays a ransom payment in the case of a child that was killed by Trampling.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧΦ°: ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΆΧΦΆΧ β Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧ©ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ! ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ.
The Gemara asks: But if this is the basis for Rabbi Tarfonβs opinion, let the Gemara refute it in this way: What can be learned about ransom from damage caused by Trampling? These same halakhot apply to Fire; nevertheless, there is no obligation to pay ransom when a person is killed by Fire, as was stated explicitly in a baraita above (10a). Consequently, the attempt to derive an a fortiori inference about ransom from Trampling is obviously flawed. The Gemara answers: The a fortiori inference can be based on the damage to concealed articles caused by Trampling on the property of the injured party. One would be exempt for damage such as this if it were caused by Fire.
ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ β Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧ©ΧΦ°Χ ΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨! ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
The Gemara responds to this challenge with a different one: What is notable about damage to concealed articles caused by Trampling? It is notable in that these same halakhot apply to the category of Pit, but nevertheless there is no ransom paid if a person is killed by a pit. Consequently, an attempt to derive an a fortiori inference about ransom from this halakha is obviously flawed. The Gemara answers: The a fortiori inference can be based on damage caused to vessels by Trampling on the property of the injured party. One would be exempt for damage of this nature if it were caused by a pit.
ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ β Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΆΧ©ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ! ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ Φ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ Φ΄ΧΧ β Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΆΧ©ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ!
The Gemara rejects this as well: What is notable about damage caused to vessels by Trampling? It is notable in that these same halakhot apply to the category of Fire. The Gemara answers: The a fortiori inference can be based on damage caused to concealed vessels by Trampling. In this case, one would be liable for Trampling but exempt from liability for both Fire and Pit, so this can be the basis for the ransom payment, via the a fortiori inference stated by Rav Shimi of Nehardeβa. The Gemara rejects this as well: What is notable about damage caused to concealed vessels by Trampling? It is notable in that these same halakhot apply to the category of Man, as a person is liable for damage to these items but does not pay ransom if he inadvertently kills another person.
ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ€ΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ? ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ€ΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΆΧΦΆΧ! Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌ.
Rather, isnβt it correct to conclude from it that since the halakhot of the ransom payment with regard to Goring cannot be deduced from the halakhot of damages with regard to Trampling, the tanna derived his a fortiori inference based on the halakhot of ransom in a case of Trampling, and therefore it may be concluded that apparently there is ransom in a case of Trampling? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that this is so. Consequently, in the case of a child trampled to death by Trampling while on his parentsβ property, the owner of the animal must pay ransom.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ β ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ€ΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΆΧΦΆΧ; ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ€ΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΆΧΦΆΧ β ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ, ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧΦ°: ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΆΧΦΆΧ β Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧ©ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΆΧΦΆΧ!
Rav AαΈ₯a of Difti said to Ravina: So too, it is reasonable to say that there is an obligation to pay ransom in a case of Trampling, as, if it enters your mind to say that there is no obligation to pay ransom in a case of Trampling, and the tanna derived his a fortiori inference from damage caused by Trampling, let the Gemara refute it in this way: What is notable about damage caused by Trampling? It is notable in that these same halakhot apply to Trampling, while there is no obligation to pay ransom in a case of Trampling. In other words, it would be possible to derive the obligation to pay a full ransom where a person was killed by the Goring of an innocuous ox while on the property of the victim only if there is also an obligation to pay ransom where the person was killed by Trampling.
ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ€ΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ? ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ€ΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΆΧΦΆΧ! Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌ.
Rather, isnβt it correct to conclude from it that an a fortiori inference must be based on the obligation to pay ransom in a case of Trampling, and therefore it may be concluded that evidently, there is an obligation to pay ransom in a case of Trampling? The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that this is so.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ Χ’Φ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΅Χ. Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ Χ’Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ.
MISHNA: The legal status of a person is always that of one forewarned. Therefore, whether the damage was unintentional or intentional, whether he was awake while he caused the damage or asleep, whether he blinded anotherβs eye or broke vessels, he must pay the full cost of the damage.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ Χ΄Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ Χ’Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ΄ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ΄Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧ΄; ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ β Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ; ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ Χ’Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉ β Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ.
GEMARA: The Gemara infers: It teaches in the mishna: He blinded anotherβs eye, and presumably this is similar to the other example: Broke vessels. From this it can be inferred that just as there, in the case of the broken vessels, yes, one must pay for the damage he caused but he does not pay the four types of indemnity, so too, in a case where he blinds another, yes, he must pay for the damage he caused, but he does not pay the four types of indemnity, since he caused the injury while asleep or unintentionally.
ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ: Χ΄Χ€ΦΌΦΆΧ¦Φ·Χ’ ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ¦Φ·Χ’Χ΄ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΧΦΉ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ ΦΆΧ‘ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ¦ΧΦΉΧ.
With regard to the halakha that one must pay the full cost of the damage in a case where there was no intent to cause damage, the Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? αΈ€izkiyya says, and similarly, the school of αΈ€izkiyya taught: The verse states: βWound for wound [petza taαΈ₯at patza]β (Exodus 21:25). This phrase is superfluous, as the Torah states elsewhere (see Leviticus 24:19) that one is liable to pay compensation when injuring another. This verse serves to render him liable to pay for the unintentional damage just as he pays for the intentional damage; and he pays for damage caused by accident just as he pays for damage caused willingly.
ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ¦Φ·Χ’Φ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ§! ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ: Χ΄Χ€ΦΌΦΆΧ¦Φ·Χ’ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧ¦Φ·Χ’Χ΄; ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ΄ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ¦Φ·Χ’Χ΄ β Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ.
The Gemara asks: But this verse is necessary in order to indicate that one must pay compensation for pain, even in a case where he pays compensation for damage caused by the injury. Consequently, it seems that that verse cannot also be the source of the principle derived by the school of αΈ€izkiyya. The Gemara answers: If it is so that the superfluous phrase is intended to teach only that, then let the verse write: Petza befatza, which carries the same meaning. What, then, is meant by the superfluous word taαΈ₯at in the phrase βpetza taαΈ₯at patzaβ? It indicates that we must derive two conclusions from it: That one is liable to pay for pain even in a case where he pays compensation for damage, and that he is liable for unintentional damage as he is for intentional damage, and for damage caused by accident as for damage caused willingly.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ§ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ€Φ°ΧΦΈΧ; ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ, ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ β Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ β ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ‘Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧͺ β Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨,
Β§ Rabba says: If there was a stone lying in oneβs lap and he was unaware of it, and he arose and it fell and caused damage, with regard to damages he is liable to pay the full cost of the damage caused by the stone. With regard to the four types of indemnity, he is exempt. With regard to Shabbat, if the falling stone caused him to violate one of the prohibited categories of labor; for example, if the stone fell from a private domain to the public domain, he is exempt. The reason is that the Torah prohibited only planned, constructive labor on Shabbat, and he did not plan to perform this labor. With regard to exile, the punishment prescribed for one who unintentionally but negligently kills another, were this stone to kill someone he is exempt, as the incident is deemed accidental.
ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ β Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ. ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉ Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ€Φ΅Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΧΦΉ: Χ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ’Φ΅ΧΧ Φ΄ΧΧ΄, ΧΦ°Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΌ; Χ΄ΧΦ²ΧͺΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ΄, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ β Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅Χ§ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ¨ΧΦΌΧͺ.
With regard to a Canaanite slave whose tooth was destroyed or eye was blinded by the stone, potentially enabling the slave to earn his freedom (see Exodus 21:26β27), this is the subject of a dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 9:25): If the master was a doctor and the slave said to him: Paint the lid of my eye in order to heal it, and the master blinded it during the procedure, or if the slave requested from his master: Scrape my tooth in order to heal it, and the master knocked out the tooth while scraping it, the slave has mocked the master, as he is emancipated due to the act of the master himself.
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧΦΌΧ΄ β Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ.
By contrast, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The slave is not emancipated in these cases because the verse states: βAnd destroy itβ (Exodus 21:26), from which it is derived that the slave is emancipated only in a case where the master intends to destroy the eye or the tooth, but not if he intended to heal the slave. So too, in the case where a stone fell and accidentally blinded a slaveβs eye or knocked out his tooth, according to the Rabbis the slave would be emancipated and according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel he would not. All of the above cases relate to situations where the individual did not know the stone was in his lap.
ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ€Φ°ΧΦΈΧ; ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ. ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ β Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨. ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧͺ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ β Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨. ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ β Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ.
If he was initially aware of it but forgot about it and he arose and it fell, with regard to damages he is certainly liable, being that he is liable even if he was unaware of the stone. With regard to the four types of indemnity, here too he is exempt, as he did not intend to cause injury. With regard to exile he is liable, as the verse states: βOne who unwittingly strikes a person mortallyβ (Numbers 35:11), indicating by inference that the assailant had some previous awareness, and in this case he was in fact previously aware of the stone in his lap. The term βunwittinglyβ is employed to describe someone who possessed knowledge of the potential transgression then forgot about it. With regard to Shabbat he is exempt, as this was not a planned, constructive labor. With regard to a slave, the same dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis applies.
Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ§ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ§ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’; ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ. ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ β Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨. ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ β ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ Φ·Χ. ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧͺ β Χ΄ΧΦ²Χ©ΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΉΧ Χ¦ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ΄ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ, Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ§ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ§ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’. ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ β Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ.
In a case where he intended to throw the stone, and he intended to throw it for a distance of only two cubits but instead he threw it a distance of four cubits, as it went farther than he wanted it to go, with regard to damages he is liable. With regard to the four types of indemnity he is exempt. With regard to Shabbat he is exempt, as we require planned, constructive labor as a condition for liability. With regard to exile he is liable, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: βIf a man lie not in waitβ (Exodus 21:13), which serves to exclude from the death penalty a situation where one intended to throw the stone for two cubits but he actually threw it for four cubits, as he did not intend to kill, so he is exiled. With regard to a slave, the same dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis applies.
Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ§ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ§ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΦΆΧ; ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ. ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ β Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨. ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺ β ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ Χ΄ΧΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧͺΦΌΦ΄Χ¨Φ°Χ¦ΦΆΧ ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χ΄, ΧΦ΄ΧΧ; ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧͺ β Χ΄ΧΦ²Χ©ΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΉΧ Χ¦ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ΄, Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ§ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ§ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΦΆΧ. ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ β Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ.
And if he intended to throw the stone four cubits but instead he threw it eight cubits, with regard to damages he is liable. With regard to the four types of indemnity he is exempt. With regard to Shabbat, if he said to himself when he threw the stone that he would be satisfied wherever it may land, then yes, he is liable, as he intended to throw it a distance of four cubits, which is the minimum necessary to violate the prohibited labor of carrying in the public domain. If he did not throw the stone aimlessly but rather had selected a target that was four cubits away, then he is not liable as he did not perform the precise planned, constructive labor that he had intended. With regard to exile, the Torah states: βIf a man lie not in waitβ (Exodus 21:13), which serves to exclude from the death penalty a situation where one intended to throw it four cubits but he actually threw it eight cubits, as he did not intend to kill, so he is exiled. With regard to a slave, the same dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis applies.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ§ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅Χ¨ΦΉΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦ΅Χ β Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨.
Β§ Since the Gemara cited Rabbaβs comments about various actions for which the perpetrator is liable with regard to certain matters but exempt with regard to others, the Gemara cites similar rulings: And Rabba says: If one threw a vessel, such as an earthenware jug, from a roof and another came along and broke it with a stick during its descent, the latter is exempt from liability. What is the reason? It is because he broke a broken vessel, meaning that once the vessel was thrown from the roof it was clear that it would be broken upon landing, and therefore it is considered as if it were already broken and the one who broke it while it was still in the air is not liable.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ§ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅Χ¨ΦΉΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°Χ‘ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉΧͺ; ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ°Χ‘Φ΄ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ, ΧΧΦΉ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ·Χ [ΧΧΦΌΧ] ΧΦ°Χ‘Φ΄ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ β Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ β Χ€ΦΌΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΧΦΉΧ§Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ§Φ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ.
And Rabba says: If one threw a vessel from a roof and there were cushions or blankets below so that if the vessel would land on them it would not break, and then another came and removed the cushions or blankets, or if the individual who threw the vessel went quickly before it landed and removed the cushions or blankets himself, and as a result the vessel shattered, the one who threw the vessel is exempt from liability even though the vessel broke as a consequence of his actions. What is the reason? At the time that he threw the vessel, his arrows were stopped, i.e., what he did at the time he threw the vessel, which is an act comparable to the shooting of an arrow, did not have the capacity to break the vessel. Therefore, he is not viewed as having broken the vessel, and is exempt.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ§ ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΉΧ§ ΧΦ΅Χ¨ΦΉΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ‘Φ·ΧΦ΄ΧΧ£ β Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ. ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΧΦΌ Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺ β ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧ
And Rabba says: If one threw a child from a roof and another came along and impaled him on his sword and the child died, the question of who is liable to receive the death penalty for killing the child is dependent upon the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira and the Rabbis. As it is taught in a baraita: If ten people beat a victim with ten sticks, whether they did so simultaneously or sequentially, they are all
