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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 27, 2016 | 讻状讗 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Bava Kamma 27

If someone throws something out a window and on its way down, someone smashes it with a baseball bat, who is responsible? 聽If someone falls off a roof onto someone, depending on what made him fall (typical or atypical wind) will affect the level of responsibility and what he needs to pay. 聽Even though people are always responsible for their actions, there is a debate among the commentaries as to whether or not there is an exemption for a situation that was completely out of one’s control. 聽The mishna says one leaves a jug in the middle of the street and someone breaks it, he is exempt. 聽If the person for hurt by it, the owner is responsible to pay for damages. 聽The rabbis of the Talmud have trouble understanding how one is not responsible for breaking someone else’s jug. 聽Four聽answers are given and those answers have important ramifications in understanding this halacha.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

驻讟讜专讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讛讗讞专讜谉 讞讬讬讘 诪驻谞讬 砖拽讬专讘 诪讬转转讜

exempt, as it is impossible to sentence any one of them to death since no one person killed the victim and there is no death penalty for partially killing a person. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: If they beat him sequentially the last one to beat him is liable for the death of the victim, because he brought the victim鈥檚 death closer. So too, in this case, although the first one threw the child, the one to impale him on his sword was the one to hasten his death, and therefore according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira he would be liable to receive the death penalty.

讘讗 砖讜专 讜拽讘诇讜 讘拽专谞讬讜 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讜专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讜谞转谉 驻讚讬谉 谞驻砖讜 讚诪讬 谞讬讝拽 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讗讜诪专 讚诪讬 诪讝讬拽

The Gemara discusses a similar scenario: If one threw a child from a roof and a forewarned ox came along and impaled the child on its horns and the child died, the question of whether or not the owner of the ox is liable to pay ransom is dependent upon the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, and the Rabbis. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse: 鈥淗e shall give for the redemption of his life鈥 (Exodus 21:30), indicates that he must pay the value of the injured party, i.e., the one who was killed. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: He must pay the value of the one responsible for the damage. Since the child that was thrown off the roof had no monetary value at the time he was gored by the ox, as it was as if he were already dead, the Rabbis would exempt the owner of the ox from paying ransom. According to Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, the owner of the ox must pay his own value to the family of the victim.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 谞驻诇 诪专讗砖 讛讙讙 讜谞转拽注 讘讗砖讛 讞讬讬讘 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 讜讘讬讘诪转讜 诇讗 拽谞讛

Rabba says another similar halakha: If a man fell from a roof and while falling was inserted into a woman due to the force of the fall, but he did not have the intention to engage in sexual intercourse, he is liable to pay the four types of indemnity. And if this woman was his yevama waiting for him to perform levirate marriage, he has not acquired her as his wife through this act of intercourse. This is true even though a levirate marriage is ordinarily effected through sexual intercourse, even if unintentional, i.e., if he thought she was someone else. Nevertheless, since in this case he did not intend to engage in intercourse at all, the levirate marriage is not effected.

讞讬讬讘 讘谞讝拽 讘爪注专 讘专讬驻讜讬 讘砖讘转 讗讘诇 讘砖转 诇讗 讚转谞谉 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛讘砖转 注讚 砖讬讛讗 诪转讻讜讬谉

The Gemara explains: What are the four types of indemnity that he is liable to pay? He is liable to pay for the damage, for the pain, for the medical costs, and for the loss of livelihood. But he is not liable to pay compensation for humiliation, as we learned in a mishna (86a): One is not liable to pay compensation for humiliation unless he intends to humiliate the injured party, and that was certainly not the case in this situation.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 谞驻诇 诪专讗砖 讛讙讙 讘专讜讞 砖讗讬谞讛 诪爪讜讬讛 讜讛讝讬拽 讜讘讬讬砖 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛谞讝拽 讜驻讟讜专 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 讘专讜讞 诪爪讜讬讛 讜讛讝讬拽 讜讘讬讬砖 讞讬讬讘 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 讜驻讟讜专 注诇 讛讘砖转 讜讗诐 谞转讛驻讱 讞讬讬讘 讗祝 注诇 讛讘砖转

And Rabba says another, similar halakha: If one fell from a roof due to an atypical wind, such that it could not have been anticipated in advance that he would fall, and while falling he caused damage and humiliated the injured party, he is liable for the damage but exempt from paying the four types of indemnity, as he did not intend to fall. If he fell due to a typical wind and caused damage and humiliated the injured party while falling, he is liable to pay the four types of indemnity, as his fall was caused by negligence. But he is nevertheless exempt from paying compensation for humiliation, as he did not intend to fall. But if he tumbled while falling so he could fall on this person in order to protect himself from the impact with the ground, he is liable to pay compensation for humiliation as well, because although he did not intend to cause shame he did intend to land on the person.

讚转谞讬讗 诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖诇讞讛 讬讚讛 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖讛讞讝讬拽讛 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讞讝讬拽讛 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讻讬讜谉 砖谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛讝讬拽 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讘讬讬砖

The halakha that one is exempt from paying compensation for humiliation unless he intended to strike his victim is as it is taught in a baraita: From the fact that it is stated: 鈥淎nd she extended her hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:11), do I not know that she took hold of something? Consequently, what is the meaning when further on in the verse it states: 鈥淎nd she took him by his genitals鈥? It is to teach you that one who intends to cause damage, even if he does not intend to humiliate the injured party, is nevertheless liable to pay compensation for humiliation.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讛谞讬讞 诇讜 讙讞诇转 注诇 诇讘讜 讜诪转 驻讟讜专 注诇 讘讙讚讜 讜谞砖专祝 讞讬讬讘

And Rabba says: If one placed a hot coal over another鈥檚 heart and the latter was burnt and died, the one who placed the coal is exempt because the victim should have removed the coal from himself, and the one who placed it there did not need to assume that the victim might not remove it. If he placed the coal on the other鈥檚 garment and the garment was burnt, he is liable to pay for the damage, as it is possible that the one whose garment was burnt thought to sue the one who placed the coal on his clothes for the cost of the garment, and that is why he did not bother to remove it.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 转谞谞讛讬 注诇 诇讘讜 讚转谞谉 讻讘砖 注诇讬讜 诇转讜讱 讛讗讜专 讗讜 诇转讜讱 讛诪讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇注诇讜转 诪砖诐 讜诪转 讞讬讬讘 讚讞驻讜 诇转讜讱 讛讗讜专 讗讜 诇转讜讱 讛诪讬诐 讜讬讻讜诇 诇注诇讜转 诪砖诐 讜诪转 驻讟讜专

Rava said: We have learned both of these rulings through intimation in mishnayot elsewhere. With regard to the case of the coal placed over his heart, the halakha is as we learned in a mishna (Sanhedrin 76b): If one held another in a fire or in water, and the victim is unable to extricate himself from there and he dies as a result, the one who attacked him is liable to receive the death penalty as a murderer. If he pushed him into fire or into the water, and the victim is able to extricate himself from there but he dies anyway, the one who attacked him is exempt from the death penalty. The case of one who places a coal on another鈥檚 chest is similar to the one where he pushes the victim into the fire or the water in a situation where the victim has the ability to escape.

讘讙讚讜 讚转谞谉 拽专注 讗转 讻住讜转讬 砖讘专 讗转 讻讚讬 讞讬讬讘 注诇 诪谞转 诇驻讟讜专 驻讟讜专

With regard to the case of one who placed a coal on the garment of another, it is as we learned in a mishna (92a): If one said to another: Tear my garment, or: Break my jug, and the other person does so, the latter is liable for the damage. But if one said to another: Tear my garment on the condition that you will be exempt from all liability, he is exempt. It is therefore clear that even when one is granted permission by the owner of an item to damage it, that does not grant him an exemption from liability for the damage caused unless that exemption was stated explicitly. Consequently, in a case where the owner did not grant permission, the one who caused the damage is certainly liable.

讘注讬 专讘讛 讛谞讬讞 讙讞诇转 注诇 诇讘 注讘讚讜 诪讛讜 讻讙讜驻讜 讚诪讬 讗讜 讻诪诪讜谞讜 讚诪讬 讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讻讙讜驻讜 讚诪讬 砖讜专讜 诪讛讜

Rabba raises a dilemma in summation of this discussion: If he placed a coal over the heart of another鈥檚 Canaanite slave and the slave died as a result, what is the halakha? Is the body of the slave comparable to the body of any other person and therefore the assailant would be exempt from liability, or is it comparable to other property owned by the master and therefore the assailant would be liable? Furthermore, if you say that the body of the slave is comparable to the body of any ordinary person, as the slave had the ability to remove the coal from himself and therefore the assailant would be exempt, what is the halakha in a case where he placed the coal on the other鈥檚 ox?

讛讚专 驻砖讟讛 注讘讚讜 讻讙讜驻讜 砖讜专讜 讻诪诪讜谞讜

After raising the dilemma Rabba then resolves it: The body of the slave is comparable to the body of any other person, as the slave possesses an intellect and should have the sense to remove the coal from himself, whereas the ox is comparable to other property.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻讬爪讚 讛专讙诇

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪谞讬讞 讗转 讛讻讚 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜谞转拽诇 讘讛 讜砖讘专讛 驻讟讜专 讜讗诐 讛讜讝拽 讘讛 讘注诇 讛讞讘讬转 讞讬讬讘 讘谞讝拽讜

MISHNA: In the case of one who places a kad, a type of vessel, in the public domain and another person comes and stumbles on it and breaks it, the other person is exempt from paying for what he broke. And if the one who stumbled incurred damage by it, the owner of the 岣vit, a type of vessel, is liable to pay restitution for his damage.

讙诪壮 驻转讞 讘讻讚 讜住讬讬诐 讘讞讘讬转

GEMARA: The mishna began its presentation of the case in reference to a kad, stating: In the case of one who places a kad, and ended it in reference to a 岣vit, stating: The owner of the 岣vit is liable.

讜转谞谉 谞诪讬 讝讛 讘讗 讘讞讘讬转讜 讜讝讛 讘讗 讘拽讜专转讜 谞砖讘专讛 讻讚讜 砖诇 讝讛 讘拽讜专转讜 砖诇 讝讛 驻讟讜专 驻转讞 讘讞讘讬转 讜住讬讬诐 讘讻讚

And we learned this interchanging of the words kad and 岣vit in a mishna (31b) as well: If two people were walking down the street, this one coming with his 岣vit and that one coming with his cross beam, and this one鈥檚 kad was broken by that one鈥檚 cross beam, the one holding the beam is exempt. Here too the mishna changed its wording, as it began its statement in reference to a 岣vit and ended it in reference to a kad.

讜转谞谉 谞诪讬 讝讛 讘讗 讘讞讘讬转讜 砖诇 讬讬谉 讜讝讛 讘讗 讘讻讚讜 砖诇 讚讘砖 谞住讚拽讛 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讚讘砖 讜砖驻讱 讝讛 讬讬谞讜 讜讛爪讬诇 讗转 讛讚讘砖 诇转讜讻讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 砖讻专讜 驻转讞 讘讻讚 讜住讬讬诐 讘讞讘讬转

And we learned this in another mishna (115a) as well: If this person came with his 岣vit of wine and that person came with his kad of honey, and the 岣vit of honey, which is more valuable, cracked, and this person poured out his wine and saved the honey by collecting it into his vessel, he receives reimbursement only for his trouble, and he cannot claim the value of the wine that he poured out since the owner of the honey did not tell him to do so. Here too the mishna changed its wording, as it began its statement in reference to a kad of honey and ended it in reference to a 岣vit of honey.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讻讚 讛讬讬谞讜 讞讘讬转 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专

Rav Pappa said: These examples show that a kad is the same as a 岣vit, and the two words are used interchangeably. With regard to what does this make a difference? This makes a difference for buying and selling. If a customer asks for a 岣vit, intending a large vessel, and the seller gives him a kad, which is a smaller vessel, the buyer cannot claim that he did not receive the item he asked for.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讗转专讗 讚讻讚讗 诇讗 拽专讜 讞讘讬转 讜讞讘讬转 诇讗 拽专讜 讻讚讗 讛讗 诇讗 拽专讜 诇讛

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances where this is relevant? If we say that it is with regard to a locale where people do not refer to a kad as a 岣vit, nor do they refer to a 岣vit as a kad, and a 岣vit is understood to be referring to a larger vessel, clearly one who asks for a 岣vit does not wish to buy a kad, as people do not call it that.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚专讜讘讗 拽专讜 诇讛 诇讻讚讗 讻讚讗 讜诇讞讘讬转讗 讞讘讬转讗 讜讗讬讻讗 谞诪讬 讚拽专讜 诇讞讘讬转讗 讻讚讗 讜诇讻讚讗 讞讘讬转讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讝讬诇 讘转专 专讜讘讗

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach that they are equivalent terms with regard to a locale where most people call a kad a kad and a 岣vit a 岣vit, i.e., most people use the term kad for the smaller vessel and the term 岣vit for the larger one, and there are also those who call a 岣vit a kad and a kad a 岣vit, not distinguishing between the two terms. Lest you say that the halakha follows the majority and the seller and the buyer must accept this distinction,

拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬谉 讛讜诇讻讬谉 讘诪诪讜谉 讗讞专 讛专讜讘

the mishna teaches us that the court does not follow the majority with regard to monetary matters, and in cases of uncertainty the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.

讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜谞转拽诇 讘讛 讜砖讘专讛 驻讟讜专 讗诪讗讬 驻讟讜专 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇注讬讜谞讬 讜诪讬讝诇

搂 The mishna teaches concerning the vessel placed in the public domain: If another person came and stumbled on it and broke it, he is exempt. The Gemara asks: Why is he exempt? Although this happened in the public domain, he should examine the road and then continue walking.

讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讘诪诪诇讗 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讻讜诇讛 讞讘讬讜转 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘讗驻讬诇讛 砖谞讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讘拽专谉 讝讜讬转

The Sages of the school of Rav said in the name of Rav: The ruling of the mishna is taught with regard to one who placed not just one barrel in the road, but rather filled the entire public domain with barrels, blocking the path. Since the public domain belongs to everyone, a pedestrian is entitled to traverse the road even if it necessitates breaking the vessels. Shmuel says: The ruling of the mishna is taught with regard to a case where he broke it in the dark. Therefore, he could not have avoided breaking the barrel by examining the road in front of him. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The ruling of the mishna is taught with regard to a case where the barrel was placed at the corner of the road, and so the pedestrian could not have seen it, as he rounded the corner, before stumbling on it.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 讚讬拽讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗诇讗 讗讜 讻砖诪讜讗诇 讗讜 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗讬 讻专讘 诪讗讬 讗专讬讗 谞转拽诇 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讘专 谞诪讬

Rav Pappa said: The mishna is precise only according to either the explanation of Shmuel or that of Rabbi Yo岣nan, but not that of Rav. As, if the mishna is explained in accordance with the explanation of Rav, what is the reason it refers specifically to a case where one stumbled on the barrel? Even if he broke the barrel intentionally he should not be liable to pay, as the owner of the barrel had no right to block the public road.

讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 砖讘专 讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 谞转拽诇 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讘注讬 诇诪转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜讗诐 讛讜讝拽 讘讛 讘注诇 讞讘讬转 讞讬讬讘 讘谞讝拽讜 讚讚讜拽讗 谞转拽诇 讗讘诇 砖讘专 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讝讬拽 讗谞驻砖讬讛 拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 谞转拽诇

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava in defense of Rav鈥檚 explanation: The same is true even if he broke the barrel intentionally. And as for this fact, that the tanna of the mishna teaches a case where he stumbled, it is because he wants to teach in the last clause: And if he incurred damage due to the vessel, the owner of the 岣vit is liable to pay for his damage. As this ruling applies specifically when he stumbled, but if he broke the barrel intentionally and incurred damage in the process, the owner of the barrel is not required to compensate him. What is the reason for this? Although the pedestrian had the right to break the barrel, it is he who damaged himself, by not being careful while breaking it. Therefore, in the first clause the mishna teaches a case where he stumbled. Accordingly, the mishna鈥檚 wording is precise according to Rav鈥檚 explanation as well.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 注讜诇讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻谉 砖诇 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诇讛转讘讜谞谉 讘讚专讻讬诐

Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi that this is what they say in the West, Eretz Yisrael, in the name of Rabbi Ulla, in explanation of the mishna: Even if the barrel is clearly visible, one who stumbles on it is exempt from liability because the typical manner of people is not to examine the roads, as they assume that the road is unobstructed. Therefore, one who breaks an item placed in the road as a result of not watching is not liable to pay restitution.

讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讜讞讬讬讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讜讞讬讬讘 专讘讗

The Gemara relates: There was an incident in Neharde鈥檃 where a pedestrian stumbled on a jug in an open area and broke it, and Shmuel deemed him liable to pay for the damage. A similar incident took place in Pumbedita, and Rava deemed the person liable to pay.

讘砖诇诪讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讻砖诪注转讬讛 讗诇讗 专讘讗 诇讬诪讗 讻砖诪讜讗诇 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: Granted, Shmuel ruled in accordance with his halakhic opinion that the exemption stated in the mishna refers specifically to a case where one stumbles in the dark, as otherwise he is liable for breaking the barrel, since he should have examined the road. But with regard to Rava, shall we say that he holds in accordance with Shmuel鈥檚 opinion that one who breaks an item in the public domain is exempt from paying for it only if it was dark?

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 拽专谞讗 讚注爪专讗 讛讜讬 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讘专砖讜转 拽注讘讚讬 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇注讬讜谞讬 讜诪讬讝诇

Rav Pappa said: That inference is not necessary, as this incident was at the corner where there was an olive press [de鈥檃tzera], where it is known that people put their jugs down while waiting for oil. Consequently, since they were acting with permission, a pedestrian should examine the road and then continue walking.

砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 诇专讻讜讘讛 砖诇砖 讜诇讘注讬讟讛 讞诪砖 讜诇住谞讜拽专转 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 诇驻谞讚讗 讚诪专讗 讜诇拽讜驻讬谞讗 讚诪专讗 诪讗讬

Rav 岣sda sent the following question to Rav Na岣an: The Sages said that when one strikes another, humiliating him, the judges determine liability according to the following formula: For kneeing [rekhuva] him, he must pay three sela; for kicking, five; and for punching [velisnokeret] him, thirteen. The Gemara asks: If so for hitting him with the handle of a hoe [demara] and for hitting him with the top [ulkofina] of a hoe, what amount is one liable to pay him?

砖诇讞 诇讬讛 讞住讚讗 讞住讚讗 拽谞住讗 拽讗 诪讙讘讬转 讘讘讘诇 讗讬诪讗 诇讬 讙讜驻讗 讚注讜讘讚讗 讛讬讻讬 讛讜讛

Rav Na岣an sent him the following response: 岣sda, 岣sda, are you collecting a fine for humiliation in Babylonia, where judges are not authorized to collect fines? Tell me how the incident itself transpired.

砖诇讞 诇讬讛 讚讛讛讜讗 讙专讙讜转讗 讚讘讬 转专讬 讚讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讛讜讛 讚诇讬 讞讚 诪谞讬讬讛讜 讗转讗 讞讚 拽讗 讚诇讬 讘讬讜诪讗 讚诇讗 讚讬诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬讜诪讗 讚讬讚讬 讛讜讗 诇讗 讗砖讙讞 讘讬讛 砖拽诇 驻谞讚讗 讚诪专讗 诪讞讬讬讛

Rav 岣sda sent him in response: There is a certain cistern belonging to two people whose arrangement was to alternate its use so that every day one of them would draw from it in turn. It happened that one of them came and was drawing water on a day that was not his turn. His co-owner said to him: This is my day to draw, not yours. His colleague did not pay attention to him. The person whose turn it was therefore took the handle of a hoe and struck the person who was stealing his water, who then sued for damages.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讛 驻谞讚讬 讘驻谞讚讗 诇诪讞讬讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讬谞讗 诇谞驻砖讬讛 讘诪拽讜诐 驻住讬讚讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讬谞讗 诇谞驻砖讬讛

Rav Na岣an said to him: In that case, he was right to do so, and he should have hit him even a hundred times with the hoe. Even according to the one who says that a person may not take justice into his own hands but should go to court, in a case where there would be a loss involved if no immediate action is taken, a person may take justice into his own hands.

讚讗转诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讬谞讗 诇谞驻砖讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讬谞讗 诇谞驻砖讬讛

This is as it was stated, that Rav Yehuda says: A person may not take justice into his own hands, whereas Rav Na岣an says: A person may take justice into his own hands.

讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 驻住讬讚讗 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讬谞讗 诇谞驻砖讬讛 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 驻住讬讚讗 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讬谞讗 诇谞驻砖讬讛 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬讻讗 驻住讬讚讗 诇讬讝讬诇 拽诪讬讛 讚讬讬谞讗 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讬谞讗 诇谞驻砖讬讛 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讘讚讬谉 注讘讬讚 诇讗 讟专讞

Where there is an imminent loss that will be suffered if the injured party does not take action, everyone agrees that a person may take justice into his own hands. They disagree only when there is no imminent loss that will be suffered. Rav Yehuda says that a person may not take justice into his own hands, because since there is no loss, he should go before the judge to have him enforce the law. Rav Na岣an says that a person may take justice into his own hands. Since he is acting lawfully, as he is clearly in the right, he need not trouble himself to go before the judge to have him enforce the law.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘谉 讘讙 讘讙 讗讜诪专 讗诇 转讬讻谞住 诇讞爪专 讞讘专讱 诇讬讟讜诇 讗转 砖诇讱 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 砖诪讗 转专讗讛 注诇讬讜 讻讙谞讘 讗诇讗 砖讘讜专 讗转 砖讬谞讬讜 讜讗诪讜专 诇讜 砖诇讬 讗谞讬 谞讜讟诇

Rav Kahana raises an objection to Rav Yehuda鈥檚 opinion based on a baraita: Ben Bag Bag says: Do not enter another person鈥檚 courtyard secretly to take what is rightfully yours without permission, lest you appear to him as a thief trying to steal his property. Rather, break his teeth, i.e., take it by force, and say to him: I am taking what is mine. Evidently one may take justice into his own hands.

讗诪专 诇讬讛

Rav Yehuda said to him:

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 27

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 27

驻讟讜专讬谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讛讗讞专讜谉 讞讬讬讘 诪驻谞讬 砖拽讬专讘 诪讬转转讜

exempt, as it is impossible to sentence any one of them to death since no one person killed the victim and there is no death penalty for partially killing a person. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: If they beat him sequentially the last one to beat him is liable for the death of the victim, because he brought the victim鈥檚 death closer. So too, in this case, although the first one threw the child, the one to impale him on his sword was the one to hasten his death, and therefore according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira he would be liable to receive the death penalty.

讘讗 砖讜专 讜拽讘诇讜 讘拽专谞讬讜 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讜专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讜谞转谉 驻讚讬谉 谞驻砖讜 讚诪讬 谞讬讝拽 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讗 讗讜诪专 讚诪讬 诪讝讬拽

The Gemara discusses a similar scenario: If one threw a child from a roof and a forewarned ox came along and impaled the child on its horns and the child died, the question of whether or not the owner of the ox is liable to pay ransom is dependent upon the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, and the Rabbis. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse: 鈥淗e shall give for the redemption of his life鈥 (Exodus 21:30), indicates that he must pay the value of the injured party, i.e., the one who was killed. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, says: He must pay the value of the one responsible for the damage. Since the child that was thrown off the roof had no monetary value at the time he was gored by the ox, as it was as if he were already dead, the Rabbis would exempt the owner of the ox from paying ransom. According to Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, the owner of the ox must pay his own value to the family of the victim.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 谞驻诇 诪专讗砖 讛讙讙 讜谞转拽注 讘讗砖讛 讞讬讬讘 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 讜讘讬讘诪转讜 诇讗 拽谞讛

Rabba says another similar halakha: If a man fell from a roof and while falling was inserted into a woman due to the force of the fall, but he did not have the intention to engage in sexual intercourse, he is liable to pay the four types of indemnity. And if this woman was his yevama waiting for him to perform levirate marriage, he has not acquired her as his wife through this act of intercourse. This is true even though a levirate marriage is ordinarily effected through sexual intercourse, even if unintentional, i.e., if he thought she was someone else. Nevertheless, since in this case he did not intend to engage in intercourse at all, the levirate marriage is not effected.

讞讬讬讘 讘谞讝拽 讘爪注专 讘专讬驻讜讬 讘砖讘转 讗讘诇 讘砖转 诇讗 讚转谞谉 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛讘砖转 注讚 砖讬讛讗 诪转讻讜讬谉

The Gemara explains: What are the four types of indemnity that he is liable to pay? He is liable to pay for the damage, for the pain, for the medical costs, and for the loss of livelihood. But he is not liable to pay compensation for humiliation, as we learned in a mishna (86a): One is not liable to pay compensation for humiliation unless he intends to humiliate the injured party, and that was certainly not the case in this situation.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 谞驻诇 诪专讗砖 讛讙讙 讘专讜讞 砖讗讬谞讛 诪爪讜讬讛 讜讛讝讬拽 讜讘讬讬砖 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛谞讝拽 讜驻讟讜专 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 讘专讜讞 诪爪讜讬讛 讜讛讝讬拽 讜讘讬讬砖 讞讬讬讘 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 讜驻讟讜专 注诇 讛讘砖转 讜讗诐 谞转讛驻讱 讞讬讬讘 讗祝 注诇 讛讘砖转

And Rabba says another, similar halakha: If one fell from a roof due to an atypical wind, such that it could not have been anticipated in advance that he would fall, and while falling he caused damage and humiliated the injured party, he is liable for the damage but exempt from paying the four types of indemnity, as he did not intend to fall. If he fell due to a typical wind and caused damage and humiliated the injured party while falling, he is liable to pay the four types of indemnity, as his fall was caused by negligence. But he is nevertheless exempt from paying compensation for humiliation, as he did not intend to fall. But if he tumbled while falling so he could fall on this person in order to protect himself from the impact with the ground, he is liable to pay compensation for humiliation as well, because although he did not intend to cause shame he did intend to land on the person.

讚转谞讬讗 诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖诇讞讛 讬讚讛 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖讛讞讝讬拽讛 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛讞讝讬拽讛 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讻讬讜谉 砖谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讛讝讬拽 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讘讬讬砖

The halakha that one is exempt from paying compensation for humiliation unless he intended to strike his victim is as it is taught in a baraita: From the fact that it is stated: 鈥淎nd she extended her hand鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:11), do I not know that she took hold of something? Consequently, what is the meaning when further on in the verse it states: 鈥淎nd she took him by his genitals鈥? It is to teach you that one who intends to cause damage, even if he does not intend to humiliate the injured party, is nevertheless liable to pay compensation for humiliation.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讛谞讬讞 诇讜 讙讞诇转 注诇 诇讘讜 讜诪转 驻讟讜专 注诇 讘讙讚讜 讜谞砖专祝 讞讬讬讘

And Rabba says: If one placed a hot coal over another鈥檚 heart and the latter was burnt and died, the one who placed the coal is exempt because the victim should have removed the coal from himself, and the one who placed it there did not need to assume that the victim might not remove it. If he placed the coal on the other鈥檚 garment and the garment was burnt, he is liable to pay for the damage, as it is possible that the one whose garment was burnt thought to sue the one who placed the coal on his clothes for the cost of the garment, and that is why he did not bother to remove it.

讗诪专 专讘讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 转谞谞讛讬 注诇 诇讘讜 讚转谞谉 讻讘砖 注诇讬讜 诇转讜讱 讛讗讜专 讗讜 诇转讜讱 讛诪讬诐 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇注诇讜转 诪砖诐 讜诪转 讞讬讬讘 讚讞驻讜 诇转讜讱 讛讗讜专 讗讜 诇转讜讱 讛诪讬诐 讜讬讻讜诇 诇注诇讜转 诪砖诐 讜诪转 驻讟讜专

Rava said: We have learned both of these rulings through intimation in mishnayot elsewhere. With regard to the case of the coal placed over his heart, the halakha is as we learned in a mishna (Sanhedrin 76b): If one held another in a fire or in water, and the victim is unable to extricate himself from there and he dies as a result, the one who attacked him is liable to receive the death penalty as a murderer. If he pushed him into fire or into the water, and the victim is able to extricate himself from there but he dies anyway, the one who attacked him is exempt from the death penalty. The case of one who places a coal on another鈥檚 chest is similar to the one where he pushes the victim into the fire or the water in a situation where the victim has the ability to escape.

讘讙讚讜 讚转谞谉 拽专注 讗转 讻住讜转讬 砖讘专 讗转 讻讚讬 讞讬讬讘 注诇 诪谞转 诇驻讟讜专 驻讟讜专

With regard to the case of one who placed a coal on the garment of another, it is as we learned in a mishna (92a): If one said to another: Tear my garment, or: Break my jug, and the other person does so, the latter is liable for the damage. But if one said to another: Tear my garment on the condition that you will be exempt from all liability, he is exempt. It is therefore clear that even when one is granted permission by the owner of an item to damage it, that does not grant him an exemption from liability for the damage caused unless that exemption was stated explicitly. Consequently, in a case where the owner did not grant permission, the one who caused the damage is certainly liable.

讘注讬 专讘讛 讛谞讬讞 讙讞诇转 注诇 诇讘 注讘讚讜 诪讛讜 讻讙讜驻讜 讚诪讬 讗讜 讻诪诪讜谞讜 讚诪讬 讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讻讙讜驻讜 讚诪讬 砖讜专讜 诪讛讜

Rabba raises a dilemma in summation of this discussion: If he placed a coal over the heart of another鈥檚 Canaanite slave and the slave died as a result, what is the halakha? Is the body of the slave comparable to the body of any other person and therefore the assailant would be exempt from liability, or is it comparable to other property owned by the master and therefore the assailant would be liable? Furthermore, if you say that the body of the slave is comparable to the body of any ordinary person, as the slave had the ability to remove the coal from himself and therefore the assailant would be exempt, what is the halakha in a case where he placed the coal on the other鈥檚 ox?

讛讚专 驻砖讟讛 注讘讚讜 讻讙讜驻讜 砖讜专讜 讻诪诪讜谞讜

After raising the dilemma Rabba then resolves it: The body of the slave is comparable to the body of any other person, as the slave possesses an intellect and should have the sense to remove the coal from himself, whereas the ox is comparable to other property.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻讬爪讚 讛专讙诇

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪谞讬讞 讗转 讛讻讚 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜谞转拽诇 讘讛 讜砖讘专讛 驻讟讜专 讜讗诐 讛讜讝拽 讘讛 讘注诇 讛讞讘讬转 讞讬讬讘 讘谞讝拽讜

MISHNA: In the case of one who places a kad, a type of vessel, in the public domain and another person comes and stumbles on it and breaks it, the other person is exempt from paying for what he broke. And if the one who stumbled incurred damage by it, the owner of the 岣vit, a type of vessel, is liable to pay restitution for his damage.

讙诪壮 驻转讞 讘讻讚 讜住讬讬诐 讘讞讘讬转

GEMARA: The mishna began its presentation of the case in reference to a kad, stating: In the case of one who places a kad, and ended it in reference to a 岣vit, stating: The owner of the 岣vit is liable.

讜转谞谉 谞诪讬 讝讛 讘讗 讘讞讘讬转讜 讜讝讛 讘讗 讘拽讜专转讜 谞砖讘专讛 讻讚讜 砖诇 讝讛 讘拽讜专转讜 砖诇 讝讛 驻讟讜专 驻转讞 讘讞讘讬转 讜住讬讬诐 讘讻讚

And we learned this interchanging of the words kad and 岣vit in a mishna (31b) as well: If two people were walking down the street, this one coming with his 岣vit and that one coming with his cross beam, and this one鈥檚 kad was broken by that one鈥檚 cross beam, the one holding the beam is exempt. Here too the mishna changed its wording, as it began its statement in reference to a 岣vit and ended it in reference to a kad.

讜转谞谉 谞诪讬 讝讛 讘讗 讘讞讘讬转讜 砖诇 讬讬谉 讜讝讛 讘讗 讘讻讚讜 砖诇 讚讘砖 谞住讚拽讛 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讚讘砖 讜砖驻讱 讝讛 讬讬谞讜 讜讛爪讬诇 讗转 讛讚讘砖 诇转讜讻讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 砖讻专讜 驻转讞 讘讻讚 讜住讬讬诐 讘讞讘讬转

And we learned this in another mishna (115a) as well: If this person came with his 岣vit of wine and that person came with his kad of honey, and the 岣vit of honey, which is more valuable, cracked, and this person poured out his wine and saved the honey by collecting it into his vessel, he receives reimbursement only for his trouble, and he cannot claim the value of the wine that he poured out since the owner of the honey did not tell him to do so. Here too the mishna changed its wording, as it began its statement in reference to a kad of honey and ended it in reference to a 岣vit of honey.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讻讚 讛讬讬谞讜 讞讘讬转 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专

Rav Pappa said: These examples show that a kad is the same as a 岣vit, and the two words are used interchangeably. With regard to what does this make a difference? This makes a difference for buying and selling. If a customer asks for a 岣vit, intending a large vessel, and the seller gives him a kad, which is a smaller vessel, the buyer cannot claim that he did not receive the item he asked for.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讗转专讗 讚讻讚讗 诇讗 拽专讜 讞讘讬转 讜讞讘讬转 诇讗 拽专讜 讻讚讗 讛讗 诇讗 拽专讜 诇讛

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances where this is relevant? If we say that it is with regard to a locale where people do not refer to a kad as a 岣vit, nor do they refer to a 岣vit as a kad, and a 岣vit is understood to be referring to a larger vessel, clearly one who asks for a 岣vit does not wish to buy a kad, as people do not call it that.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚专讜讘讗 拽专讜 诇讛 诇讻讚讗 讻讚讗 讜诇讞讘讬转讗 讞讘讬转讗 讜讗讬讻讗 谞诪讬 讚拽专讜 诇讞讘讬转讗 讻讚讗 讜诇讻讚讗 讞讘讬转讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讝讬诇 讘转专 专讜讘讗

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to teach that they are equivalent terms with regard to a locale where most people call a kad a kad and a 岣vit a 岣vit, i.e., most people use the term kad for the smaller vessel and the term 岣vit for the larger one, and there are also those who call a 岣vit a kad and a kad a 岣vit, not distinguishing between the two terms. Lest you say that the halakha follows the majority and the seller and the buyer must accept this distinction,

拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬谉 讛讜诇讻讬谉 讘诪诪讜谉 讗讞专 讛专讜讘

the mishna teaches us that the court does not follow the majority with regard to monetary matters, and in cases of uncertainty the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.

讜讘讗 讗讞专 讜谞转拽诇 讘讛 讜砖讘专讛 驻讟讜专 讗诪讗讬 驻讟讜专 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇注讬讜谞讬 讜诪讬讝诇

搂 The mishna teaches concerning the vessel placed in the public domain: If another person came and stumbled on it and broke it, he is exempt. The Gemara asks: Why is he exempt? Although this happened in the public domain, he should examine the road and then continue walking.

讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讘诪诪诇讗 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讻讜诇讛 讞讘讬讜转 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘讗驻讬诇讛 砖谞讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讘拽专谉 讝讜讬转

The Sages of the school of Rav said in the name of Rav: The ruling of the mishna is taught with regard to one who placed not just one barrel in the road, but rather filled the entire public domain with barrels, blocking the path. Since the public domain belongs to everyone, a pedestrian is entitled to traverse the road even if it necessitates breaking the vessels. Shmuel says: The ruling of the mishna is taught with regard to a case where he broke it in the dark. Therefore, he could not have avoided breaking the barrel by examining the road in front of him. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The ruling of the mishna is taught with regard to a case where the barrel was placed at the corner of the road, and so the pedestrian could not have seen it, as he rounded the corner, before stumbling on it.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 讚讬拽讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗诇讗 讗讜 讻砖诪讜讗诇 讗讜 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗讬 讻专讘 诪讗讬 讗专讬讗 谞转拽诇 讗驻讬诇讜 砖讘专 谞诪讬

Rav Pappa said: The mishna is precise only according to either the explanation of Shmuel or that of Rabbi Yo岣nan, but not that of Rav. As, if the mishna is explained in accordance with the explanation of Rav, what is the reason it refers specifically to a case where one stumbled on the barrel? Even if he broke the barrel intentionally he should not be liable to pay, as the owner of the barrel had no right to block the public road.

讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 砖讘专 讜讛讗讬 讚拽转谞讬 谞转拽诇 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讘注讬 诇诪转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜讗诐 讛讜讝拽 讘讛 讘注诇 讞讘讬转 讞讬讬讘 讘谞讝拽讜 讚讚讜拽讗 谞转拽诇 讗讘诇 砖讘专 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讝讬拽 讗谞驻砖讬讛 拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 谞转拽诇

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava in defense of Rav鈥檚 explanation: The same is true even if he broke the barrel intentionally. And as for this fact, that the tanna of the mishna teaches a case where he stumbled, it is because he wants to teach in the last clause: And if he incurred damage due to the vessel, the owner of the 岣vit is liable to pay for his damage. As this ruling applies specifically when he stumbled, but if he broke the barrel intentionally and incurred damage in the process, the owner of the barrel is not required to compensate him. What is the reason for this? Although the pedestrian had the right to break the barrel, it is he who damaged himself, by not being careful while breaking it. Therefore, in the first clause the mishna teaches a case where he stumbled. Accordingly, the mishna鈥檚 wording is precise according to Rav鈥檚 explanation as well.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 注讜诇讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻谉 砖诇 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诇讛转讘讜谞谉 讘讚专讻讬诐

Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi that this is what they say in the West, Eretz Yisrael, in the name of Rabbi Ulla, in explanation of the mishna: Even if the barrel is clearly visible, one who stumbles on it is exempt from liability because the typical manner of people is not to examine the roads, as they assume that the road is unobstructed. Therefore, one who breaks an item placed in the road as a result of not watching is not liable to pay restitution.

讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讘谞讛专讚注讗 讜讞讬讬讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讜讞讬讬讘 专讘讗

The Gemara relates: There was an incident in Neharde鈥檃 where a pedestrian stumbled on a jug in an open area and broke it, and Shmuel deemed him liable to pay for the damage. A similar incident took place in Pumbedita, and Rava deemed the person liable to pay.

讘砖诇诪讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讻砖诪注转讬讛 讗诇讗 专讘讗 诇讬诪讗 讻砖诪讜讗诇 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: Granted, Shmuel ruled in accordance with his halakhic opinion that the exemption stated in the mishna refers specifically to a case where one stumbles in the dark, as otherwise he is liable for breaking the barrel, since he should have examined the road. But with regard to Rava, shall we say that he holds in accordance with Shmuel鈥檚 opinion that one who breaks an item in the public domain is exempt from paying for it only if it was dark?

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 拽专谞讗 讚注爪专讗 讛讜讬 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讘专砖讜转 拽注讘讚讬 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇注讬讜谞讬 讜诪讬讝诇

Rav Pappa said: That inference is not necessary, as this incident was at the corner where there was an olive press [de鈥檃tzera], where it is known that people put their jugs down while waiting for oil. Consequently, since they were acting with permission, a pedestrian should examine the road and then continue walking.

砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛专讬 讗诪专讜 诇专讻讜讘讛 砖诇砖 讜诇讘注讬讟讛 讞诪砖 讜诇住谞讜拽专转 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 诇驻谞讚讗 讚诪专讗 讜诇拽讜驻讬谞讗 讚诪专讗 诪讗讬

Rav 岣sda sent the following question to Rav Na岣an: The Sages said that when one strikes another, humiliating him, the judges determine liability according to the following formula: For kneeing [rekhuva] him, he must pay three sela; for kicking, five; and for punching [velisnokeret] him, thirteen. The Gemara asks: If so for hitting him with the handle of a hoe [demara] and for hitting him with the top [ulkofina] of a hoe, what amount is one liable to pay him?

砖诇讞 诇讬讛 讞住讚讗 讞住讚讗 拽谞住讗 拽讗 诪讙讘讬转 讘讘讘诇 讗讬诪讗 诇讬 讙讜驻讗 讚注讜讘讚讗 讛讬讻讬 讛讜讛

Rav Na岣an sent him the following response: 岣sda, 岣sda, are you collecting a fine for humiliation in Babylonia, where judges are not authorized to collect fines? Tell me how the incident itself transpired.

砖诇讞 诇讬讛 讚讛讛讜讗 讙专讙讜转讗 讚讘讬 转专讬 讚讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讛讜讛 讚诇讬 讞讚 诪谞讬讬讛讜 讗转讗 讞讚 拽讗 讚诇讬 讘讬讜诪讗 讚诇讗 讚讬诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讬讜诪讗 讚讬讚讬 讛讜讗 诇讗 讗砖讙讞 讘讬讛 砖拽诇 驻谞讚讗 讚诪专讗 诪讞讬讬讛

Rav 岣sda sent him in response: There is a certain cistern belonging to two people whose arrangement was to alternate its use so that every day one of them would draw from it in turn. It happened that one of them came and was drawing water on a day that was not his turn. His co-owner said to him: This is my day to draw, not yours. His colleague did not pay attention to him. The person whose turn it was therefore took the handle of a hoe and struck the person who was stealing his water, who then sued for damages.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讛 驻谞讚讬 讘驻谞讚讗 诇诪讞讬讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讬谞讗 诇谞驻砖讬讛 讘诪拽讜诐 驻住讬讚讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讬谞讗 诇谞驻砖讬讛

Rav Na岣an said to him: In that case, he was right to do so, and he should have hit him even a hundred times with the hoe. Even according to the one who says that a person may not take justice into his own hands but should go to court, in a case where there would be a loss involved if no immediate action is taken, a person may take justice into his own hands.

讚讗转诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讬谞讗 诇谞驻砖讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讬谞讗 诇谞驻砖讬讛

This is as it was stated, that Rav Yehuda says: A person may not take justice into his own hands, whereas Rav Na岣an says: A person may take justice into his own hands.

讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 驻住讬讚讗 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讬谞讗 诇谞驻砖讬讛 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讬讻讗 驻住讬讚讗 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讬谞讗 诇谞驻砖讬讛 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬讻讗 驻住讬讚讗 诇讬讝讬诇 拽诪讬讛 讚讬讬谞讗 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 注讘讬讚 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讬谞讗 诇谞驻砖讬讛 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讘讚讬谉 注讘讬讚 诇讗 讟专讞

Where there is an imminent loss that will be suffered if the injured party does not take action, everyone agrees that a person may take justice into his own hands. They disagree only when there is no imminent loss that will be suffered. Rav Yehuda says that a person may not take justice into his own hands, because since there is no loss, he should go before the judge to have him enforce the law. Rav Na岣an says that a person may take justice into his own hands. Since he is acting lawfully, as he is clearly in the right, he need not trouble himself to go before the judge to have him enforce the law.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘谉 讘讙 讘讙 讗讜诪专 讗诇 转讬讻谞住 诇讞爪专 讞讘专讱 诇讬讟讜诇 讗转 砖诇讱 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 砖诪讗 转专讗讛 注诇讬讜 讻讙谞讘 讗诇讗 砖讘讜专 讗转 砖讬谞讬讜 讜讗诪讜专 诇讜 砖诇讬 讗谞讬 谞讜讟诇

Rav Kahana raises an objection to Rav Yehuda鈥檚 opinion based on a baraita: Ben Bag Bag says: Do not enter another person鈥檚 courtyard secretly to take what is rightfully yours without permission, lest you appear to him as a thief trying to steal his property. Rather, break his teeth, i.e., take it by force, and say to him: I am taking what is mine. Evidently one may take justice into his own hands.

讗诪专 诇讬讛

Rav Yehuda said to him:

Scroll To Top