Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 26, 2016 | 讻壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Kamma 26

Study Guide Bava Kamma 26. The gemara suggests all sorts of kal vahomer arguments that raise doubts on many of the halachot we have been learning. 聽However they are all rejected based on inferences from the verses in the Torah. 聽Is there a ransom payment only by keren type damages or would one also be responsible if an animal killed by trampling in the property of the one who was killed? 聽The next mishna discusses the responsibility of a person for damages. 聽He is responsible even for unintentional聽damages. 聽 Raba brings聽a list of cases where an act was done unintentionally and discusses the law for the various unintentional acts in different areas of law – damages, work on Shabbat, killing unintentionally and going to the refuge city, and a slave who goes free if you damage him.

诪讬讚讬 讻讜诇讬讛 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 驻诇讙讗 拽讗诪专讬谞谉

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鈥檚 liability to pay the full cost of the damage limits the application to damage caused in 鈥渢he field of another.鈥 We are saying only that he should be liable for half the cost of the damage there, just as with regard to Goring.

讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讞爪讜 讗转 讻住驻讜 讻住驻讜 砖诇 讝讛 讜诇讗 讻住驻讜 砖诇 讗讞专

The Gemara rejects this as well: This is also incorrect, as the verse states with regard to the payment of half the damages: 鈥淎nd divide its monetary value鈥 (Exodus 21:35). The use of the expression 鈥渋ts monetary value,鈥 and not 鈥渢he monetary value,鈥 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鈥檚 ox.

讜诇讗 转讛讗 砖谉 讜专讙诇 讞讬讬讘转 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 讗诇讗 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪拽专谉 讜诪讛 拽专谉 砖讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讞讬讬讘转 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 讗讬谞讛 诪砖诇诪转 讗诇讗 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 砖谉 讜专讙诇 砖讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 驻讟讜专讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽

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?

讗诪专 拽专讗 讬砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 诪注诇讬讗

The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to Eating and Trampling: 鈥淭he best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall pay鈥 (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.

讜诇讗 转讛讗 拽专谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讞讬讬讘 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 砖谉 讜专讙诇 砖讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 驻讟讜专讛 拽专谉 砖讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 驻讟讜专讛

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?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讬讞爪讜谉 讗讬谉 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讞诇讜拽 诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The verse states in reference to an innocuous ox: 鈥淎nd the carcass they shall also divide鈥 (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.

讜讬讛讗 讗讚诐 讞讬讬讘 讘讻讜驻专 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 砖讜专 砖讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讘讻讜驻专 讗讚诐 砖讞讬讬讘 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 讘讻讜驻专

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?

讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讻诇 讗砖专 讬讜砖转 注诇讬讜 注诇讬讜 讜诇讗 注诇 讗讚诐

The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to an ox killing a person: 鈥淗e shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is imposed upon him鈥 (Exodus 21:30). 鈥淯pon him鈥: This means upon the owner of an ox who kills a person, but not upon a person who kills another.

讜讬讛讗 砖讜专 讞讬讬讘 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讗讚诐 砖讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讻讜驻专 讞讬讬讘 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 砖讜专 砖讞讬讬讘 讘讻讜驻专 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐

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?

讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讬砖 讘注诪讬转讜 讜诇讗 砖讜专 讘注诪讬转讜

The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to this matter: 鈥淎nd if a man maims another鈥 (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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 专讙诇 砖讚专住讛 注诇 讙讘讬 转讬谞讜拽 讘讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽 诪讛讜 砖转砖诇诐 讻讜驻专 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗拽专谉 拽专谉 讻讬讜谉 讚注讘讚 转专讬 讜转诇转讗 讝诪谞讬 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗 讜诪砖诇诐 讻讜驻专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗

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.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 拽专谉 讻讜讜谞转讜 诇讛讝讬拽 讛讗讬 讗讬谉 讻讜讜谞转讜 诇讛讝讬拽

Or perhaps, should we say that the halakha with regard to Goring is more stringent, as Goring requires the animal鈥檚 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?

转讗 砖诪注 讛讻谞讬住 砖讜专讜 诇讞爪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讜谞讙讞讜 诇讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜诪转 讛砖讜专 讘住拽讬诇讛 讜讘注诇讬讜 讘讬谉 转诐 讘讬谉 诪讜注讚 诪砖诇诐 讻讜驻专 砖诇诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉

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.

讻讜驻专 砖诇诐 讘转诐 诇专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚住讘专 诇讬讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讚讗诪专 转诐 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 讻讜驻专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪专讙诇 讗诇诪讗 讗讬讻讗 讻讜驻专 讘专讙诇

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.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 转谞讗 诪谞讬讝拽讬谉 讚专讙诇 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛

Rav Shimi of Neharde鈥檃 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.

讜诇驻专讜讱 诪讛 诇谞讬讝拽讬谉 讚专讙诇 砖讻谉 讬砖谞谉 讘讗砖 诪讟诪讜谉

The Gemara asks: But if this is the basis for Rabbi Tarfon鈥檚 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.

诪讛 诇讟诪讜谉 砖讻谉 讬砖谞讜 讘讘讜专 诪讻诇讬诐

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.

诪讛 诇讻诇讬诐 砖讬砖谞谉 讘讗砖 诪讻诇讬诐 讟诪讜谞讬诐 诪讛 诇讻诇讬诐 讟诪讜谞讬诐 砖讬砖谞谉 讘讗讚诐

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鈥檃. 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.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讻讜驻专 讚专讙诇 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 讗诇诪讗 讗讬讻讗 讻讜驻专 讘专讙诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rather, isn鈥檛 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鈥 property, the owner of the animal must pay ransom.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讜驻专 讘专讙诇 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇讬讻讗 讻讜驻专 讘专讙诇 讜转谞讗 诪谞讬讝拽讬谉 讚专讙诇 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诇驻专讜讱 诪讛 诇谞讬讝拽讬谉 讚专讙诇 砖讻谉 讬砖谞谉 讘专讙诇

Rav A岣 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.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讻讜驻专 讚专讙诇 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 讗诇诪讗 讗讬讻讗 讻讜驻专 讘专讙诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rather, isn鈥檛 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讚诐 诪讜注讚 诇注讜诇诐 讘讬谉 砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 诪讝讬讚 讘讬谉 注专 讘讬谉 讬砖谉 住讬诪讗 讗转 注讬谉 讞讘讬专讜 讜砖讬讘专 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐

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鈥檚 eye or broke vessels, he must pay the full cost of the damage.

讙诪壮 拽转谞讬 住讬诪讗 讗转 注讬谉 讞讘讬专讜 讚讜诪讬讗 讚砖讬讘专 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 诪讛 讛转诐 谞讝拽 讗讬谉 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 诇讗 讗祝 住讬诪讗 讗转 注讬谉 讞讘讬专讜 谞讝拽 讗讬谉 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 诇讗

GEMARA: The Gemara infers: It teaches in the mishna: He blinded another鈥檚 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.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讜讻谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 驻爪注 转讞转 驻爪注 诇讞讬讬讘讜 注诇 讛砖讜讙讙 讻诪讝讬讚 讜注诇 讛讗讜谞住 讻专爪讜谉

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? 岣zkiyya says, and similarly, the school of 岣zkiyya taught: The verse states: 鈥淲ound for wound [petza ta岣t patza]鈥 (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.

讛讗讬 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讬转谉 爪注专 讘诪拽讜诐 谞讝拽 讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 拽专讗 驻爪注 讘驻爪注 诪讗讬 转讞转 驻爪注 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

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 岣zkiyya. 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 ta岣t in the phrase 鈥petza ta岣t patza鈥? 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.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讬转讛 讗讘谉 诪讜谞讞转 诇讜 讘讞讬拽讜 讜诇讗 讛讻讬专 讘讛 讜注诪讚 讜谞驻诇讛 诇注谞讬谉 谞讝拽讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诇注谞讬谉 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 驻讟讜专 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 诪诇讗讻转 诪讞砖讘转 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 诇注谞讬谉 讙诇讜转 驻讟讜专

Rabba says: If there was a stone lying in one鈥檚 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.

诇注谞讬谉 注讘讚 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 专讘讜 专讜驻讗 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讻讞讜诇 注讬谞讬 讜住讬诪讗讛 讞转讜专 诇讬 砖讬谞讬 讜讛驻讬诇讛 砖讬讞拽 讘讗讚讜谉 讜讬爪讗 诇讞专讜转

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鈥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.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讜砖讞转讛 注讚 砖讬转讻讜讬谉 诇砖讞转讛

By contrast, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The slave is not emancipated in these cases because the verse states: 鈥淎nd destroy it鈥 (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鈥檚 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.

讛讻讬专 讘讛 讜砖讻讞讛 讜注诪讚 讜谞驻诇讛 诇注谞讬谉 谞讝拽讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诇注谞讬谉 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 驻讟讜专 诇注谞讬谉 讙诇讜转 讞讬讬讘 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讘砖讙讙讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讬讚讬注讛 讜讛讗 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讬讚讬注讛 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 驻讟讜专 诇注谞讬谉 注讘讚 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘谞谉

All of the above cases relate to situations where the individual did not know the stone was in his lap. 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: 鈥淥ne who unwittingly strikes a person mortally鈥 (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 鈥渦nwittingly鈥 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.

谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讝专讜拽 砖转讬诐 讜讝专拽 讗专讘注 诇注谞讬谉 谞讝拽讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诇注谞讬谉 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 驻讟讜专 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 诪诇讗讻转 诪讞砖讘转 讘注讬谞谉 诇注谞讬谉 讙诇讜转 讗砖专 诇讗 爪讚讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 驻专讟 诇谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讝专讜拽 砖转讬诐 讜讝专拽 讗专讘注 诇注谞讬谉 注讘讚 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘谞谉

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: 鈥淚f a man lie not in wait鈥 (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.

谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讝专讜拽 讗专讘注 讜讝专拽 砖诪谞讛 诇注谞讬谉 谞讝拽讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诇注谞讬谉 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 驻讟讜专 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 讘讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖转专爪讛 转谞讜讞 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讙诇讜转 讗砖专 诇讗 爪讚讛 驻专讟 诇谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讝专讜拽 讗专讘注 讜讝专拽 砖诪谞讛 诇注谞讬谉 注讘讚 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘谞谉

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: 鈥淚f a man lie not in wait鈥 (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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讝专拽 讻诇讬 诪专讗砖 讛讙讙 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜砖讘专讜 讘诪拽诇 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪谞讗 转讘讬专讗 转讘专

搂 Since the Gemara cited Rabba鈥檚 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讝专拽 讻诇讬 诪专讗砖 讛讙讙 讜讛讬讜 转讞转讬讜 讻专讬诐 讗讜 讻住转讜转 讘讗 讗讞专 讜住诇拽谉 讗讜 拽讚诐 讜住诇拽谉 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚砖讚讬讬讛 驻住讜拽讬 诪驻住拽讬 讙讬专讬讛

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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讝专拽 转讬谞讜拽 诪专讗砖 讛讙讙 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜拽讘诇讜 讘住讬讬祝 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讜专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讛讻讜讛讜 注砖专讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讘注砖专讛 诪拽诇讜转 讘讬谉 讘讘转 讗讞转 讘讬谉 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讻讜诇谉

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

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Kamma 26

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 26

诪讬讚讬 讻讜诇讬讛 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 驻诇讙讗 拽讗诪专讬谞谉

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鈥檚 liability to pay the full cost of the damage limits the application to damage caused in 鈥渢he field of another.鈥 We are saying only that he should be liable for half the cost of the damage there, just as with regard to Goring.

讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讞爪讜 讗转 讻住驻讜 讻住驻讜 砖诇 讝讛 讜诇讗 讻住驻讜 砖诇 讗讞专

The Gemara rejects this as well: This is also incorrect, as the verse states with regard to the payment of half the damages: 鈥淎nd divide its monetary value鈥 (Exodus 21:35). The use of the expression 鈥渋ts monetary value,鈥 and not 鈥渢he monetary value,鈥 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鈥檚 ox.

讜诇讗 转讛讗 砖谉 讜专讙诇 讞讬讬讘转 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 讗诇讗 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪拽专谉 讜诪讛 拽专谉 砖讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讞讬讬讘转 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 讗讬谞讛 诪砖诇诪转 讗诇讗 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 砖谉 讜专讙诇 砖讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 驻讟讜专讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽

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?

讗诪专 拽专讗 讬砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 诪注诇讬讗

The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to Eating and Trampling: 鈥淭he best of his field and the best of his vineyard he shall pay鈥 (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.

讜诇讗 转讛讗 拽专谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讞讬讬讘 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 砖谉 讜专讙诇 砖讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 驻讟讜专讛 拽专谉 砖讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 驻讟讜专讛

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?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讬讞爪讜谉 讗讬谉 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讞诇讜拽 诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The verse states in reference to an innocuous ox: 鈥淎nd the carcass they shall also divide鈥 (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.

讜讬讛讗 讗讚诐 讞讬讬讘 讘讻讜驻专 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 砖讜专 砖讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讘讻讜驻专 讗讚诐 砖讞讬讬讘 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 讘讻讜驻专

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?

讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讻诇 讗砖专 讬讜砖转 注诇讬讜 注诇讬讜 讜诇讗 注诇 讗讚诐

The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to an ox killing a person: 鈥淗e shall give for the redemption of his life whatever is imposed upon him鈥 (Exodus 21:30). 鈥淯pon him鈥: This means upon the owner of an ox who kills a person, but not upon a person who kills another.

讜讬讛讗 砖讜专 讞讬讬讘 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讗讚诐 砖讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讻讜驻专 讞讬讬讘 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 砖讜专 砖讞讬讬讘 讘讻讜驻专 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐

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?

讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讬砖 讘注诪讬转讜 讜诇讗 砖讜专 讘注诪讬转讜

The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to this matter: 鈥淎nd if a man maims another鈥 (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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 专讙诇 砖讚专住讛 注诇 讙讘讬 转讬谞讜拽 讘讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽 诪讛讜 砖转砖诇诐 讻讜驻专 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗拽专谉 拽专谉 讻讬讜谉 讚注讘讚 转专讬 讜转诇转讗 讝诪谞讬 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗 讜诪砖诇诐 讻讜驻专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗

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.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 拽专谉 讻讜讜谞转讜 诇讛讝讬拽 讛讗讬 讗讬谉 讻讜讜谞转讜 诇讛讝讬拽

Or perhaps, should we say that the halakha with regard to Goring is more stringent, as Goring requires the animal鈥檚 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?

转讗 砖诪注 讛讻谞讬住 砖讜专讜 诇讞爪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讜谞讙讞讜 诇讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜诪转 讛砖讜专 讘住拽讬诇讛 讜讘注诇讬讜 讘讬谉 转诐 讘讬谉 诪讜注讚 诪砖诇诐 讻讜驻专 砖诇诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉

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.

讻讜驻专 砖诇诐 讘转诐 诇专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚住讘专 诇讬讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讚讗诪专 转诐 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 讻讜驻专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪专讙诇 讗诇诪讗 讗讬讻讗 讻讜驻专 讘专讙诇

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.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 转谞讗 诪谞讬讝拽讬谉 讚专讙诇 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛

Rav Shimi of Neharde鈥檃 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.

讜诇驻专讜讱 诪讛 诇谞讬讝拽讬谉 讚专讙诇 砖讻谉 讬砖谞谉 讘讗砖 诪讟诪讜谉

The Gemara asks: But if this is the basis for Rabbi Tarfon鈥檚 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.

诪讛 诇讟诪讜谉 砖讻谉 讬砖谞讜 讘讘讜专 诪讻诇讬诐

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.

诪讛 诇讻诇讬诐 砖讬砖谞谉 讘讗砖 诪讻诇讬诐 讟诪讜谞讬诐 诪讛 诇讻诇讬诐 讟诪讜谞讬诐 砖讬砖谞谉 讘讗讚诐

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鈥檃. 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.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讻讜驻专 讚专讙诇 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 讗诇诪讗 讗讬讻讗 讻讜驻专 讘专讙诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rather, isn鈥檛 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鈥 property, the owner of the animal must pay ransom.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讜驻专 讘专讙诇 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诇讬讻讗 讻讜驻专 讘专讙诇 讜转谞讗 诪谞讬讝拽讬谉 讚专讙诇 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诇驻专讜讱 诪讛 诇谞讬讝拽讬谉 讚专讙诇 砖讻谉 讬砖谞谉 讘专讙诇

Rav A岣 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.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讻讜驻专 讚专讙诇 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 讗诇诪讗 讗讬讻讗 讻讜驻专 讘专讙诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rather, isn鈥檛 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讚诐 诪讜注讚 诇注讜诇诐 讘讬谉 砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 诪讝讬讚 讘讬谉 注专 讘讬谉 讬砖谉 住讬诪讗 讗转 注讬谉 讞讘讬专讜 讜砖讬讘专 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐

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鈥檚 eye or broke vessels, he must pay the full cost of the damage.

讙诪壮 拽转谞讬 住讬诪讗 讗转 注讬谉 讞讘讬专讜 讚讜诪讬讗 讚砖讬讘专 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 诪讛 讛转诐 谞讝拽 讗讬谉 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 诇讗 讗祝 住讬诪讗 讗转 注讬谉 讞讘讬专讜 谞讝拽 讗讬谉 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 诇讗

GEMARA: The Gemara infers: It teaches in the mishna: He blinded another鈥檚 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.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讜讻谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 驻爪注 转讞转 驻爪注 诇讞讬讬讘讜 注诇 讛砖讜讙讙 讻诪讝讬讚 讜注诇 讛讗讜谞住 讻专爪讜谉

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? 岣zkiyya says, and similarly, the school of 岣zkiyya taught: The verse states: 鈥淲ound for wound [petza ta岣t patza]鈥 (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.

讛讗讬 诪讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讬转谉 爪注专 讘诪拽讜诐 谞讝拽 讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 拽专讗 驻爪注 讘驻爪注 诪讗讬 转讞转 驻爪注 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

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 岣zkiyya. 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 ta岣t in the phrase 鈥petza ta岣t patza鈥? 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.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讬转讛 讗讘谉 诪讜谞讞转 诇讜 讘讞讬拽讜 讜诇讗 讛讻讬专 讘讛 讜注诪讚 讜谞驻诇讛 诇注谞讬谉 谞讝拽讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诇注谞讬谉 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 驻讟讜专 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 诪诇讗讻转 诪讞砖讘转 讗住专讛 转讜专讛 诇注谞讬谉 讙诇讜转 驻讟讜专

Rabba says: If there was a stone lying in one鈥檚 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.

诇注谞讬谉 注讘讚 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 专讘讜 专讜驻讗 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讻讞讜诇 注讬谞讬 讜住讬诪讗讛 讞转讜专 诇讬 砖讬谞讬 讜讛驻讬诇讛 砖讬讞拽 讘讗讚讜谉 讜讬爪讗 诇讞专讜转

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鈥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.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讜砖讞转讛 注讚 砖讬转讻讜讬谉 诇砖讞转讛

By contrast, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The slave is not emancipated in these cases because the verse states: 鈥淎nd destroy it鈥 (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鈥檚 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.

讛讻讬专 讘讛 讜砖讻讞讛 讜注诪讚 讜谞驻诇讛 诇注谞讬谉 谞讝拽讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诇注谞讬谉 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 驻讟讜专 诇注谞讬谉 讙诇讜转 讞讬讬讘 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讘砖讙讙讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讬讚讬注讛 讜讛讗 讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讬讚讬注讛 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 驻讟讜专 诇注谞讬谉 注讘讚 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘谞谉

All of the above cases relate to situations where the individual did not know the stone was in his lap. 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: 鈥淥ne who unwittingly strikes a person mortally鈥 (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 鈥渦nwittingly鈥 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.

谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讝专讜拽 砖转讬诐 讜讝专拽 讗专讘注 诇注谞讬谉 谞讝拽讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诇注谞讬谉 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 驻讟讜专 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 诪诇讗讻转 诪讞砖讘转 讘注讬谞谉 诇注谞讬谉 讙诇讜转 讗砖专 诇讗 爪讚讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 驻专讟 诇谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讝专讜拽 砖转讬诐 讜讝专拽 讗专讘注 诇注谞讬谉 注讘讚 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘谞谉

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: 鈥淚f a man lie not in wait鈥 (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.

谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讝专讜拽 讗专讘注 讜讝专拽 砖诪谞讛 诇注谞讬谉 谞讝拽讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诇注谞讬谉 讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 驻讟讜专 诇注谞讬谉 砖讘转 讘讗讜诪专 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖转专爪讛 转谞讜讞 讗讬谉 讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 诇注谞讬谉 讙诇讜转 讗砖专 诇讗 爪讚讛 驻专讟 诇谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讝专讜拽 讗专讘注 讜讝专拽 砖诪谞讛 诇注谞讬谉 注讘讚 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘谞谉

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: 鈥淚f a man lie not in wait鈥 (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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讝专拽 讻诇讬 诪专讗砖 讛讙讙 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜砖讘专讜 讘诪拽诇 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪谞讗 转讘讬专讗 转讘专

搂 Since the Gemara cited Rabba鈥檚 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讝专拽 讻诇讬 诪专讗砖 讛讙讙 讜讛讬讜 转讞转讬讜 讻专讬诐 讗讜 讻住转讜转 讘讗 讗讞专 讜住诇拽谉 讗讜 拽讚诐 讜住诇拽谉 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘注讬讚谞讗 讚砖讚讬讬讛 驻住讜拽讬 诪驻住拽讬 讙讬专讬讛

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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讝专拽 转讬谞讜拽 诪专讗砖 讛讙讙 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜拽讘诇讜 讘住讬讬祝 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讜专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讛讻讜讛讜 注砖专讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讘注砖专讛 诪拽诇讜转 讘讬谉 讘讘转 讗讞转 讘讬谉 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讻讜诇谉

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

Scroll To Top