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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 29, 2016 | 讻状讙 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 29

There are a number of different ways to explain the two opinions in the mishna regarding one who breaks a jug in the public thoroughfare and one gets damaged by it. 聽Issues raised relate to – is an accident/careless behavior considered negligence or unintentional damage? 聽If one leaves items in a public space and renounces ownership, is he responsible for damage they cause? 聽Is there a difference if the items got there because he left them intentionally or if it was from the result of an accident?

驻讟讜专 诪讚讬谞讬 讗讚诐 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讚讬谞讬 砖诪讬诐

he is exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven.

讜诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讗讘谞讜 住讻讬谞讜 讜诪砖讗讜 砖讛谞讬讞谉 讘专讗砖 讙讙讜 讜谞驻诇讜 讘专讜讞 诪爪讜讬讛 讜讛讝讬拽讜 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇专讘谞谉 讘诪注诇讛 拽谞拽谞讬谉 注诇 讛讙讙 注诇 诪谞转 诇谞讙讘谉 讜谞驻诇讜 讘专讜讞 砖讗讬谞讛 诪爪讜讬讛 讜讛讝讬拽讜 砖讛讜讗 驻讟讜专

The Gemara comments: And the Rabbis concede to the opinion of Rabbi Meir in the cases of one鈥檚 stone, one鈥檚 knife, or one鈥檚 load, that if he placed them on top of his roof and they fell as a result of being blown off by a typical wind, i.e., one of ordinary force, and they caused damage, that he is liable. And Rabbi Meir concedes to the opinion of the Rabbis in the case of one who puts pitchers [kankanin] on the roof in order to dry them, and they fell as a result of being blown off by an atypical wind, i.e., one of unusual force, and they caused damage, that he is exempt. Evidently, even Rabbi Meir concedes that if one鈥檚 property causes damage due to circumstances completely beyond his control, he is exempt.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘转专转讬 驻诇讬讙讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘砖注转 谞驻讬诇讛 讜驻诇讬讙讬 诇讗讞专 谞驻讬诇讛

Accordingly, Abaye rejects Rabba鈥檚 explanation of Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement, that he deems the owner of the jug liable even if he merely attempted to take it off his shoulder and it broke, and offers another explanation. Rather, Abaye said that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree with regard to two different situations. They disagree with regard to a situation where the damage was caused at the time of the person鈥檚 fall, and they disagree with regard to a situation where the damage was caused after the person鈥檚 fall.

驻诇讬讙讬 讘砖注转 谞驻讬诇讛 讘谞转拽诇 驻讜砖注 诪专 住讘专 谞转拽诇 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗 讜诪专 住讘专 谞转拽诇 诇讗讜 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗

They disagree in a situation where the damage was caused at the time of the person鈥檚 fall, with regard to whether or not one who stumbles, thereby causing his jug to break, is considered negligent. One Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that one who stumbles is considered negligent, as his carelessness caused him to stumble. Therefore, he is liable to pay for damage caused by the shards of the jug, which broke as result of his stumbling. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that one who stumbles is not considered negligent.

驻诇讬讙讬 诇讗讞专 谞驻讬诇讛 讘诪驻拽讬专 谞讝拽讬讜 诪专 住讘专 诪驻拽讬专 谞讝拽讬讜 讞讬讬讘 讜诪专 住讘专 驻讟讜专

They disagree in a situation where the damage was caused after the person鈥檚 fall, with regard to one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property. Presumably, the owner of the jug has no interest in keeping the shards, and it is considered as though he renounced his ownership of them. One Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property is liable to pay restitution for damage caused by it, despite the fact that it no longer belongs to him. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that he is exempt from paying restitution, as it does not belong to him anymore.

讜诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 转专转讬 讛讜讞诇拽 讗讞讚 讘诪讬诐 讗讜 砖诇拽讛 讘讞专住讬转 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛讜讞诇拽 讗讞讚 讘诪讬诐 讘砖注转 谞驻讬诇讛 讗讜 砖诇拽讛 讘讞专住讬转 诇讗讞专 谞驻讬诇讛

And from where is this interpretation derived? It is derived from the fact that the mishna teaches two possible cases of damage, stating: Another person slipped in the water or was injured by the shards. This case, slipping in the water, is seemingly identical to that case, injured by the shards. Rather, is it not necessary to explain that this is what the mishna is saying: Another person slipped in the water at the time of the person鈥檚 fall, or was injured by the shards after the person鈥檚 fall?

讜诪讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘转专转讬 讘专讬讬转讗 谞诪讬 讘转专转讬

The Gemara infers: And since the dispute in the mishna is with regard to two situations, the dispute in the baraita between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis must also relate to two situations, as there too, two cases are mentioned, a case where one鈥檚 jug broke and a case where one鈥檚 camel fell. Apparently, the dispute is with regard to damage caused both at the time of the fall and after the fall. Rabbi Meir holds that one who stumbles and breaks his jug, causing damage to others, is considered negligent and that one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property is liable, and the Rabbis disagree with regard to both issues.

讘砖诇诪讗 讻讚讜 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗讜 讘砖注转 谞驻讬诇讛 讗讜 诇讗讞专 谞驻讬诇讛 讗诇讗 讙诪诇讜 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讗讞专 谞驻讬诇讛 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘诪驻拽讬专 谞讘诇转讜 讗诇讗 讘砖注转 谞驻讬诇讛 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to the case where one鈥檚 jug broke, you find these circumstances either at the time of the fall or after the fall. But with regard to the case where his camel fell, granted, you find this circumstance after the fall, when he renounces his ownership of the carcass, not considering it worth keeping, but how can you find these circumstances at the time of the fall? How can the camel鈥檚 falling be considered to be due to the owner鈥檚 negligence, possibly rendering him liable to pay for injuries caused by it?

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讻讙讜谉 讚注讘专讛 讘诪讬讗 讚专讱 砖专注转讗 讚谞讛专讗

Rav A岣 said: For example, in a case where the camel crossed through water, through the inundation [serata] of a river that overflowed its banks, and it stumbled there, the owner was negligent, as he should not have gone this way.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 讚专讻讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 讚诇讬讻讗 讚专讻讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If there was another route, and he nevertheless chose this one, he is clearly negligent according to all opinions. And if there was no other route, he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control, and he is exempt from liability according to all opinions.

讗诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚讗转拽讬诇 讜讗转拽讬诇讛 讘讬讛 讙诪诇讗

Rather, you find this circumstance in a case where the owner stumbled and the camel then stumbled on him. In this case, the Sages engage in a dispute whether or not one who stumbles is considered negligent.

诪驻拽讬专 谞讝拽讬讜 诪讗讬 诪转讻讜讬谉 讗讬讻讗

The Gemara asks: According to Abaye鈥檚 explanation that the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda is with regard to a situation where the owner of the jug renounces ownership of his hazardous property after it falls, what is the meaning of Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement that if the owner of the jug acted with intent he is liable? What intention is there after the jug fell and broke?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘诪转讻讜讬谉 诇讝讻讜转 讘讞专住讬讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讘诪转讻讜讬谉 诇讝讻讜转 讘讞专住讬讛

Rav Yosef said: It is a situation where he intends to acquire the shards of the broken jug, and he does not renounce his ownership of them. It is specifically in that case that Rabbi Yehuda holds him liable to pay for damage caused by the shards. And similarly, Rav Ashi said: It is a situation where he intends to acquire the shards.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 讘砖注转 谞驻讬诇讛 诪讞诇讜拽转

Rabbi Elazar says: The dispute in the baraita is with regard to a situation where the damage occurred at the time of the person鈥檚 fall.

讗讘诇 诇讗讞专 谞驻讬诇讛 诪讗讬 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻讟讜专 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 专讘谞谉 讚驻讟专讬

The Gemara asks: But after the fall, according to this statement, what is the halakha? Does everyone agree that the owner of the jug is exempt from liability? But isn鈥檛 there Rabbi Meir, who deems him liable, since he did not remove the shards? Rather, what is the halakha? Does everyone agree that he is liable? But aren鈥檛 there the Rabbis, who deem him exempt?

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讘砖注转 谞驻讬诇讛 讗祝 讘砖注转 谞驻讬诇讛 讜拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讚讗讘讬讬

The Gemara answers: Rather, what is the explanation of the phrase: At the time of the person鈥檚 fall? It means even at the time of the person鈥檚 fall, and it teaches us that the dispute is referring to a situation where the damage occurred after the fall and also to a situation where it occurred at the time of the fall, in accordance with Abaye鈥檚 explanation of the mishna.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讗讞专 谞驻讬诇讛 诪讞诇讜拽转

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The dispute is with regard to a situation where the damage occurred after the fall.

讗讘诇 讘砖注转 谞驻讬诇讛 诪讗讬 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻讟讜专 讜讛讗 诪讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇拽诪谉 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 谞转拽诇 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讞讬讬讘

The Gemara asks: But at the time of the person鈥檚 fall, according to this statement, what is the halakha? Does everyone agree that the owner of the jug is exempt from liability? But from the fact that Rabbi Yo岣nan says later (31a), with regard to another mishna in this chapter: Do not say that the mishna is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that one who stumbles is considered negligent, by inference it is clear that he holds that Rabbi Meir deems one who stumbles liable to pay damages. Evidently, it is not unanimously agreed upon that he is exempt.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘 讜讛讗 诪讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇拽诪谉 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 谞转拽诇 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗 诪讻诇诇 讚驻讟专讬 专讘谞谉

Rather, what is the halakha in this case? Does he say that everyone agrees that he is liable? But from the fact that Rabbi Yo岣nan says later: Do not say that the mishna is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that one who stumbles is considered negligent, by inference it is clear that he holds that the Rabbis deem him exempt.

讗诇讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诪驻拽讬专 谞讝拽讬讜 讚讛讻讗 讛讜讗 讚驻讟专讬 专讘谞谉 讚讗谞讜住 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 诪驻拽讬专 谞讝拽讬讜 讚注诇诪讗 诪讞讬讬讘讬

The Gemara answers: Rather, this is what Rabbi Yo岣nan teaches us: That the circumstance in which the Rabbis deem one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property exempt is only the situation stated here, i.e., where he stumbled, as he is the victim of circumstances beyond his control. But in the general case of one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property, they deem him liable to pay for damage caused by it.

讗讬转诪专 诪驻拽讬专 谞讝拽讬讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讞讚 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讜讞讚 讗诪专 驻讟讜专

搂 It was stated: With regard to one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property that he left in the public domain, there is a dispute between the amora鈥檌m Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Elazar. One said that he is liable, and one said that he is exempt.

诇讬诪讗 诪讗谉 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜诪讗谉 讚驻讟专 讻专讘谞谉

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that the one who deems him liable holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and the one who deems him exempt holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis?

讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 诪讗谉 讚驻讟专 讻专讘谞谉 讜诪讗谉 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 诇讱 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻讟专讬 专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 讘诪驻拽讬专 谞讝拽讬讜 讚讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗谞讜住 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 诪驻拽讬专 谞讝拽讬讜 讚注诇诪讗 诪讞讬讬讘讬

The Gemara responds: No; in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, everyone agrees that one who renounces owner-ship over his hazardous property is liable. Rather, when they disagree it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. They disagree as to what the opinion of the Rabbis is. The one who deems him exempt holds that his opinion is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And the one who deems him liable could have said to you: I maintain that what I say is correct even according to the opinion of the Rabbis; the Rabbis deem one who renounces ownership over his hazardous property exempt only in the situation here, because he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control. But in a general case of one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property, they deem him liable.

转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 讗讬谞谉 讘专砖讜转讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讜注砖讗谉 讛讻转讜讘 讻讗讬诇讜 讛谉 讘专砖讜转讜 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讞诪抓 诪砖砖 砖注讜转 讜诇诪注诇讛 转住转讬讬诐

The Gemara suggests: It may be concluded that Rabbi Elazar is the one who says that he is liable, as Rabbi Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: There are two entities that are not in a person鈥檚 legal possession and nevertheless the verse rendered them as though they were in his possession with regard to certain halakhic responsibilities. And these are: A pit that he dug in the public domain and leavened bread remaining in his possession on the eve of Passover from six hours, i.e., noon, onward. Although deriving any benefit from the bread is prohibited, and it is therefore no longer in its owner鈥檚 legal possession, nevertheless he is commanded to destroy it. The Gemara concludes: It may be concluded that Rabbi Elazar is the one who says that he is liable.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讬驻讻讗 讚转谞谉 讛讛讜驻讱 讗转 讛讙诇诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讜讝拽 讘讛谉 讗讞专 讞讬讬讘 讘谞讝拽讜 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讝讻讜转 讘讛谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讝讻讜转 讘讛谉 驻讟讜专 讗诇诪讗 诪驻拽讬专 谞讝拽讬讜 驻讟讜专

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Elazar actually say this, that one who renounces ownership of his hazardous objects is liable? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say the opposite? As we learned in a mishna (30a): In the case of one who turns over dung in the public domain and another person incurred damage due to it, he is liable to pay for his damage. And Rabbi Elazar says: They taught this ruling only in a case where the one who turned over the dung intended to acquire it, but in a case where he did not intend to acquire it he is exempt. Apparently, according to Rabbi Elazar, one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property is exempt, since he is liable only if he intends to take possession of the dung, even if he moved it significantly.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 砖讛讞讝讬专讛 诇诪拽讜诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诪砖诇 讚专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇诪讜爪讗 讘讜专 诪讙讜诇讛 讜讻住讛讜 讜讞讝专 讜讙讬诇讛讜

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Rabbi Elazar was referring to a case where he returned the dung to its prior place. Therefore, he is exempt unless he intended to acquire it. Ravina said: This can be explained by means of a parable: To what is the statement of Rav Adda bar Ahava comparable? To one who finds an uncovered pit in the public domain and covers it, and then uncovers it again. Since he left the pit as he found it, he is exempt from paying damages, and the liability lies with the one who dug the pit.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪专讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诇讗 讗住转诇拽 诇讛讜 诪注砖讛 专讗砖讜谉 讛讻讗 讗住转诇拽 诇讛讜 诪注砖讛 专讗砖讜谉

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina: Is this comparable? There, in the case of the pit, the result of the initial act of digging the pit was not removed, since even when he covered the pit, the pit itself still existed. But here, the result of the initial act was removed, since once the dung was moved from its prior place, there was no longer any hazardous object there. Therefore, by returning it to its place, the hazard is created anew.

讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬 讗诇讗 诇诪讜爪讗 讘讜专 诪讙讜诇讛 讜讟诪诪讛 讜讞讝专 讜讞驻专讛 讚讗住转诇拽讜 诇讛讜 诪注砖讛 专讗砖讜谉 讜拽讬讬诪讗 诇讛 讘专砖讜转讜

Rather, it is comparable only to one who finds an uncovered pit and fills it with dirt and then digs it up again, as in this case the result of the initial act is removed, and the new pit therefore exists in his possession and he is liable. Likewise, one who moves dung in the public domain and then restores it to its prior place is deemed liable whether or not he intends to acquire it.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻砖讛驻讻讛 诇驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛

Rather, Rav Ashi said that Rabbi Elazar was referring to a case when he turned it over at a height of less than three handbreadths, which is not considered removal of the dung from its place.

讜诪讗讬 讚讜讞拽讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗讜拽诪讬讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讛驻讻讛 诇驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讜讟注诪讗 讚讻讬 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讝讻讜转 讘讛 讛讗 讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诇讝讻讜转 讘讛 诇讗 诇讜拽诪讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪砖诇砖讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讝讻讜转 讘讛 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara asks: But according to this explanation, what forced Rabbi Elazar to interpret the mishna as referring specifically to the unique case where he turned over the dung at a height of less than three handbreadths, and consequently the reason he is liable is that he intended to acquire it, but if he does not intend to acquire it he is not liable? Let him interpret the mishna as referring to a case where he turned over the dung at a height above three handbreadths, in which case even if he did not intend to acquire it, he is liable.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽砖讬转讬讛 诪讗讬 讗专讬讗 讛驻讱 诇转谞讬 讛讙讘讬讛 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻诇 讛驻讱 诇诪讟讛 诪砖诇砖讛 讛讜讗

Rava said: What forced him was that the mishna was difficult for him. Why does it state specifically that he turned over the dung? Let it teach that he lifted the dung. Rather, learn from the fact that the mishna does not use the term: Lifted, which generally is referring to the act of lifting an object three handbreadths for the purpose of acquisition, that whenever the term turned over is used, it is referring to an act in which the object is lifted to a height of under three handbreadths from the ground.

讜诪讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 驻讟讜专

The Gemara concludes: And from the fact that Rabbi Elazar was evidently the one who said that one who renounces ownership of his hazardous object in the public domain is still liable to pay for any damage it causes, Rabbi Yo岣nan is clearly the one who said he is exempt.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞谉 讛诪爪谞讬注 讗转 讛拽讜抓 讜讗转 讛讝讻讜讻讬转 讜讛讙讜讚专 讙讚专讜 讘拽讜爪讬诐 讜讙讚专 砖谞驻诇 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讜讝拽 讘讛谉 讗讞专 讞讬讬讘 讘谞讝拽讜

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say this, that if one renounces ownership of his object he is exempt from liability for any damage it causes? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (30a): With regard to one who conceals a thorn or a piece of glass, or who puts up a fence of thorns, or who puts up a fence that subsequently fell into the public domain, and another person incurred damage due to any of these, he is liable to pay for this person鈥檚 damage.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诪驻专讬讞 讗讘诇 讘诪爪诪爪诐 驻讟讜专 诪爪诪爪诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 驻讟讜专 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转讜 诪讻诇诇 讚讞讬讜讘讗 讚讘讜专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛讜讗 讗诇诪讗 诪驻拽讬专 谞讝拽讬讜 讞讬讬讘

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to one who puts up a fence of thorns, they taught that he is liable only in a case where he projects the thorns out into the public domain, but in a case where he restricts them to his own property, he is exempt. The Gemara infers: In a case where he restricts them, what is the reason that he is exempt? Is it not because it is considered a pit on his own property? By inference, the liability in the category of Pit, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, is in the public domain, where a pit generally does not belong to the one who dug it. Apparently, Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property is liable.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诪驻拽讬专 谞讝拽讬讜 驻讟讜专 讜诪爪诪爪诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 驻讟讜专 诪砖讜诐 讚讗转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻谉 砖诇 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诇讛转讞讻讱 讘讻转诇讬诐

The Gemara answers: No, actually I could say to you that in principle, one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property is exempt. Nevertheless, one who puts up a fence of thorns is liable, because he does not renounce ownership of the thorns that protrude into the public domain. And in a case where he restricts the thorns to his own property, what is the reason he is exempt? The reason is not that he is not liable to pay for the damage of a pit in his own property, but rather because it was stated about this case that Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, said: He is exempt because it is not the typical manner of people to rub against walls, but to keep a small distance from them. Therefore, if a pedestrian is injured by the thorns, it is considered an unusual accident, for which the owner of the fence is not liable.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪砖谞讛 讜转谞谉 讛讞讜驻专 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讗讜 讞诪讜专 讜诪转 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say that one who renounces ownership of his hazardous objects is exempt? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say that in general, the halakha is in accordance with an unattributed mishna, and we learned in an unattributed mishna (50b): In the case of one who digs a pit in the public domain and an ox or a donkey fell into it and died, he is liable. This mishna is referring to one who digs a pit in the public domain, where it is not owned by the one who dug it, yet the mishna deems him liable.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara concludes: Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan is actually the one who said that one who renounces ownership of his hazardous objects is liable.

讜诪讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

The Gemara asks: And from the fact that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that he is liable, is it evident that Rabbi Elazar said that he is exempt? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say

  • 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 29

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 29

驻讟讜专 诪讚讬谞讬 讗讚诐 讜讞讬讬讘 讘讚讬谞讬 砖诪讬诐

he is exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven.

讜诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讗讘谞讜 住讻讬谞讜 讜诪砖讗讜 砖讛谞讬讞谉 讘专讗砖 讙讙讜 讜谞驻诇讜 讘专讜讞 诪爪讜讬讛 讜讛讝讬拽讜 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇专讘谞谉 讘诪注诇讛 拽谞拽谞讬谉 注诇 讛讙讙 注诇 诪谞转 诇谞讙讘谉 讜谞驻诇讜 讘专讜讞 砖讗讬谞讛 诪爪讜讬讛 讜讛讝讬拽讜 砖讛讜讗 驻讟讜专

The Gemara comments: And the Rabbis concede to the opinion of Rabbi Meir in the cases of one鈥檚 stone, one鈥檚 knife, or one鈥檚 load, that if he placed them on top of his roof and they fell as a result of being blown off by a typical wind, i.e., one of ordinary force, and they caused damage, that he is liable. And Rabbi Meir concedes to the opinion of the Rabbis in the case of one who puts pitchers [kankanin] on the roof in order to dry them, and they fell as a result of being blown off by an atypical wind, i.e., one of unusual force, and they caused damage, that he is exempt. Evidently, even Rabbi Meir concedes that if one鈥檚 property causes damage due to circumstances completely beyond his control, he is exempt.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘转专转讬 驻诇讬讙讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘砖注转 谞驻讬诇讛 讜驻诇讬讙讬 诇讗讞专 谞驻讬诇讛

Accordingly, Abaye rejects Rabba鈥檚 explanation of Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement, that he deems the owner of the jug liable even if he merely attempted to take it off his shoulder and it broke, and offers another explanation. Rather, Abaye said that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagree with regard to two different situations. They disagree with regard to a situation where the damage was caused at the time of the person鈥檚 fall, and they disagree with regard to a situation where the damage was caused after the person鈥檚 fall.

驻诇讬讙讬 讘砖注转 谞驻讬诇讛 讘谞转拽诇 驻讜砖注 诪专 住讘专 谞转拽诇 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗 讜诪专 住讘专 谞转拽诇 诇讗讜 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗

They disagree in a situation where the damage was caused at the time of the person鈥檚 fall, with regard to whether or not one who stumbles, thereby causing his jug to break, is considered negligent. One Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that one who stumbles is considered negligent, as his carelessness caused him to stumble. Therefore, he is liable to pay for damage caused by the shards of the jug, which broke as result of his stumbling. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that one who stumbles is not considered negligent.

驻诇讬讙讬 诇讗讞专 谞驻讬诇讛 讘诪驻拽讬专 谞讝拽讬讜 诪专 住讘专 诪驻拽讬专 谞讝拽讬讜 讞讬讬讘 讜诪专 住讘专 驻讟讜专

They disagree in a situation where the damage was caused after the person鈥檚 fall, with regard to one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property. Presumably, the owner of the jug has no interest in keeping the shards, and it is considered as though he renounced his ownership of them. One Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property is liable to pay restitution for damage caused by it, despite the fact that it no longer belongs to him. And one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that he is exempt from paying restitution, as it does not belong to him anymore.

讜诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 转专转讬 讛讜讞诇拽 讗讞讚 讘诪讬诐 讗讜 砖诇拽讛 讘讞专住讬转 讛讬讬谞讜 讛讱 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛讜讞诇拽 讗讞讚 讘诪讬诐 讘砖注转 谞驻讬诇讛 讗讜 砖诇拽讛 讘讞专住讬转 诇讗讞专 谞驻讬诇讛

And from where is this interpretation derived? It is derived from the fact that the mishna teaches two possible cases of damage, stating: Another person slipped in the water or was injured by the shards. This case, slipping in the water, is seemingly identical to that case, injured by the shards. Rather, is it not necessary to explain that this is what the mishna is saying: Another person slipped in the water at the time of the person鈥檚 fall, or was injured by the shards after the person鈥檚 fall?

讜诪讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘转专转讬 讘专讬讬转讗 谞诪讬 讘转专转讬

The Gemara infers: And since the dispute in the mishna is with regard to two situations, the dispute in the baraita between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis must also relate to two situations, as there too, two cases are mentioned, a case where one鈥檚 jug broke and a case where one鈥檚 camel fell. Apparently, the dispute is with regard to damage caused both at the time of the fall and after the fall. Rabbi Meir holds that one who stumbles and breaks his jug, causing damage to others, is considered negligent and that one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property is liable, and the Rabbis disagree with regard to both issues.

讘砖诇诪讗 讻讚讜 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗讜 讘砖注转 谞驻讬诇讛 讗讜 诇讗讞专 谞驻讬诇讛 讗诇讗 讙诪诇讜 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讗讞专 谞驻讬诇讛 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘诪驻拽讬专 谞讘诇转讜 讗诇讗 讘砖注转 谞驻讬诇讛 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to the case where one鈥檚 jug broke, you find these circumstances either at the time of the fall or after the fall. But with regard to the case where his camel fell, granted, you find this circumstance after the fall, when he renounces his ownership of the carcass, not considering it worth keeping, but how can you find these circumstances at the time of the fall? How can the camel鈥檚 falling be considered to be due to the owner鈥檚 negligence, possibly rendering him liable to pay for injuries caused by it?

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讻讙讜谉 讚注讘专讛 讘诪讬讗 讚专讱 砖专注转讗 讚谞讛专讗

Rav A岣 said: For example, in a case where the camel crossed through water, through the inundation [serata] of a river that overflowed its banks, and it stumbled there, the owner was negligent, as he should not have gone this way.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 讚专讻讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 讚诇讬讻讗 讚专讻讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If there was another route, and he nevertheless chose this one, he is clearly negligent according to all opinions. And if there was no other route, he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control, and he is exempt from liability according to all opinions.

讗诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚讗转拽讬诇 讜讗转拽讬诇讛 讘讬讛 讙诪诇讗

Rather, you find this circumstance in a case where the owner stumbled and the camel then stumbled on him. In this case, the Sages engage in a dispute whether or not one who stumbles is considered negligent.

诪驻拽讬专 谞讝拽讬讜 诪讗讬 诪转讻讜讬谉 讗讬讻讗

The Gemara asks: According to Abaye鈥檚 explanation that the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda is with regard to a situation where the owner of the jug renounces ownership of his hazardous property after it falls, what is the meaning of Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement that if the owner of the jug acted with intent he is liable? What intention is there after the jug fell and broke?

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘诪转讻讜讬谉 诇讝讻讜转 讘讞专住讬讛 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讘诪转讻讜讬谉 诇讝讻讜转 讘讞专住讬讛

Rav Yosef said: It is a situation where he intends to acquire the shards of the broken jug, and he does not renounce his ownership of them. It is specifically in that case that Rabbi Yehuda holds him liable to pay for damage caused by the shards. And similarly, Rav Ashi said: It is a situation where he intends to acquire the shards.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 讘砖注转 谞驻讬诇讛 诪讞诇讜拽转

Rabbi Elazar says: The dispute in the baraita is with regard to a situation where the damage occurred at the time of the person鈥檚 fall.

讗讘诇 诇讗讞专 谞驻讬诇讛 诪讗讬 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻讟讜专 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 专讘谞谉 讚驻讟专讬

The Gemara asks: But after the fall, according to this statement, what is the halakha? Does everyone agree that the owner of the jug is exempt from liability? But isn鈥檛 there Rabbi Meir, who deems him liable, since he did not remove the shards? Rather, what is the halakha? Does everyone agree that he is liable? But aren鈥檛 there the Rabbis, who deem him exempt?

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讘砖注转 谞驻讬诇讛 讗祝 讘砖注转 谞驻讬诇讛 讜拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讻讚讗讘讬讬

The Gemara answers: Rather, what is the explanation of the phrase: At the time of the person鈥檚 fall? It means even at the time of the person鈥檚 fall, and it teaches us that the dispute is referring to a situation where the damage occurred after the fall and also to a situation where it occurred at the time of the fall, in accordance with Abaye鈥檚 explanation of the mishna.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讗讞专 谞驻讬诇讛 诪讞诇讜拽转

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The dispute is with regard to a situation where the damage occurred after the fall.

讗讘诇 讘砖注转 谞驻讬诇讛 诪讗讬 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 驻讟讜专 讜讛讗 诪讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇拽诪谉 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 谞转拽诇 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗 诪讻诇诇 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讞讬讬讘

The Gemara asks: But at the time of the person鈥檚 fall, according to this statement, what is the halakha? Does everyone agree that the owner of the jug is exempt from liability? But from the fact that Rabbi Yo岣nan says later (31a), with regard to another mishna in this chapter: Do not say that the mishna is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that one who stumbles is considered negligent, by inference it is clear that he holds that Rabbi Meir deems one who stumbles liable to pay damages. Evidently, it is not unanimously agreed upon that he is exempt.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讞讬讬讘 讜讛讗 诪讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇拽诪谉 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 谞转拽诇 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗 诪讻诇诇 讚驻讟专讬 专讘谞谉

Rather, what is the halakha in this case? Does he say that everyone agrees that he is liable? But from the fact that Rabbi Yo岣nan says later: Do not say that the mishna is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that one who stumbles is considered negligent, by inference it is clear that he holds that the Rabbis deem him exempt.

讗诇讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诪驻拽讬专 谞讝拽讬讜 讚讛讻讗 讛讜讗 讚驻讟专讬 专讘谞谉 讚讗谞讜住 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 诪驻拽讬专 谞讝拽讬讜 讚注诇诪讗 诪讞讬讬讘讬

The Gemara answers: Rather, this is what Rabbi Yo岣nan teaches us: That the circumstance in which the Rabbis deem one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property exempt is only the situation stated here, i.e., where he stumbled, as he is the victim of circumstances beyond his control. But in the general case of one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property, they deem him liable to pay for damage caused by it.

讗讬转诪专 诪驻拽讬专 谞讝拽讬讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讞讚 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讜讞讚 讗诪专 驻讟讜专

搂 It was stated: With regard to one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property that he left in the public domain, there is a dispute between the amora鈥檌m Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Elazar. One said that he is liable, and one said that he is exempt.

诇讬诪讗 诪讗谉 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜诪讗谉 讚驻讟专 讻专讘谞谉

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that the one who deems him liable holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and the one who deems him exempt holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis?

讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 诪讗谉 讚驻讟专 讻专讘谞谉 讜诪讗谉 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 诇讱 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻讟专讬 专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 讘诪驻拽讬专 谞讝拽讬讜 讚讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗谞讜住 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 诪驻拽讬专 谞讝拽讬讜 讚注诇诪讗 诪讞讬讬讘讬

The Gemara responds: No; in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, everyone agrees that one who renounces owner-ship over his hazardous property is liable. Rather, when they disagree it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. They disagree as to what the opinion of the Rabbis is. The one who deems him exempt holds that his opinion is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And the one who deems him liable could have said to you: I maintain that what I say is correct even according to the opinion of the Rabbis; the Rabbis deem one who renounces ownership over his hazardous property exempt only in the situation here, because he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control. But in a general case of one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property, they deem him liable.

转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 砖谞讬 讚讘专讬诐 讗讬谞谉 讘专砖讜转讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讜注砖讗谉 讛讻转讜讘 讻讗讬诇讜 讛谉 讘专砖讜转讜 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讞诪抓 诪砖砖 砖注讜转 讜诇诪注诇讛 转住转讬讬诐

The Gemara suggests: It may be concluded that Rabbi Elazar is the one who says that he is liable, as Rabbi Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: There are two entities that are not in a person鈥檚 legal possession and nevertheless the verse rendered them as though they were in his possession with regard to certain halakhic responsibilities. And these are: A pit that he dug in the public domain and leavened bread remaining in his possession on the eve of Passover from six hours, i.e., noon, onward. Although deriving any benefit from the bread is prohibited, and it is therefore no longer in its owner鈥檚 legal possession, nevertheless he is commanded to destroy it. The Gemara concludes: It may be concluded that Rabbi Elazar is the one who says that he is liable.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讬驻讻讗 讚转谞谉 讛讛讜驻讱 讗转 讛讙诇诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讜讝拽 讘讛谉 讗讞专 讞讬讬讘 讘谞讝拽讜 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讝讻讜转 讘讛谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讝讻讜转 讘讛谉 驻讟讜专 讗诇诪讗 诪驻拽讬专 谞讝拽讬讜 驻讟讜专

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Elazar actually say this, that one who renounces ownership of his hazardous objects is liable? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say the opposite? As we learned in a mishna (30a): In the case of one who turns over dung in the public domain and another person incurred damage due to it, he is liable to pay for his damage. And Rabbi Elazar says: They taught this ruling only in a case where the one who turned over the dung intended to acquire it, but in a case where he did not intend to acquire it he is exempt. Apparently, according to Rabbi Elazar, one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property is exempt, since he is liable only if he intends to take possession of the dung, even if he moved it significantly.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 砖讛讞讝讬专讛 诇诪拽讜诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诪砖诇 讚专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇诪讜爪讗 讘讜专 诪讙讜诇讛 讜讻住讛讜 讜讞讝专 讜讙讬诇讛讜

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: Rabbi Elazar was referring to a case where he returned the dung to its prior place. Therefore, he is exempt unless he intended to acquire it. Ravina said: This can be explained by means of a parable: To what is the statement of Rav Adda bar Ahava comparable? To one who finds an uncovered pit in the public domain and covers it, and then uncovers it again. Since he left the pit as he found it, he is exempt from paying damages, and the liability lies with the one who dug the pit.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪专讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诇讗 讗住转诇拽 诇讛讜 诪注砖讛 专讗砖讜谉 讛讻讗 讗住转诇拽 诇讛讜 诪注砖讛 专讗砖讜谉

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina: Is this comparable? There, in the case of the pit, the result of the initial act of digging the pit was not removed, since even when he covered the pit, the pit itself still existed. But here, the result of the initial act was removed, since once the dung was moved from its prior place, there was no longer any hazardous object there. Therefore, by returning it to its place, the hazard is created anew.

讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬 讗诇讗 诇诪讜爪讗 讘讜专 诪讙讜诇讛 讜讟诪诪讛 讜讞讝专 讜讞驻专讛 讚讗住转诇拽讜 诇讛讜 诪注砖讛 专讗砖讜谉 讜拽讬讬诪讗 诇讛 讘专砖讜转讜

Rather, it is comparable only to one who finds an uncovered pit and fills it with dirt and then digs it up again, as in this case the result of the initial act is removed, and the new pit therefore exists in his possession and he is liable. Likewise, one who moves dung in the public domain and then restores it to its prior place is deemed liable whether or not he intends to acquire it.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讻砖讛驻讻讛 诇驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛

Rather, Rav Ashi said that Rabbi Elazar was referring to a case when he turned it over at a height of less than three handbreadths, which is not considered removal of the dung from its place.

讜诪讗讬 讚讜讞拽讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗讜拽诪讬讛 讻讙讜谉 砖讛驻讻讛 诇驻讞讜转 诪砖诇砖讛 讜讟注诪讗 讚讻讬 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讝讻讜转 讘讛 讛讗 讗讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 诇讝讻讜转 讘讛 诇讗 诇讜拽诪讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪砖诇砖讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 谞转讻讜讬谉 诇讝讻讜转 讘讛 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara asks: But according to this explanation, what forced Rabbi Elazar to interpret the mishna as referring specifically to the unique case where he turned over the dung at a height of less than three handbreadths, and consequently the reason he is liable is that he intended to acquire it, but if he does not intend to acquire it he is not liable? Let him interpret the mishna as referring to a case where he turned over the dung at a height above three handbreadths, in which case even if he did not intend to acquire it, he is liable.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽砖讬转讬讛 诪讗讬 讗专讬讗 讛驻讱 诇转谞讬 讛讙讘讬讛 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻诇 讛驻讱 诇诪讟讛 诪砖诇砖讛 讛讜讗

Rava said: What forced him was that the mishna was difficult for him. Why does it state specifically that he turned over the dung? Let it teach that he lifted the dung. Rather, learn from the fact that the mishna does not use the term: Lifted, which generally is referring to the act of lifting an object three handbreadths for the purpose of acquisition, that whenever the term turned over is used, it is referring to an act in which the object is lifted to a height of under three handbreadths from the ground.

讜诪讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 驻讟讜专

The Gemara concludes: And from the fact that Rabbi Elazar was evidently the one who said that one who renounces ownership of his hazardous object in the public domain is still liable to pay for any damage it causes, Rabbi Yo岣nan is clearly the one who said he is exempt.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞谉 讛诪爪谞讬注 讗转 讛拽讜抓 讜讗转 讛讝讻讜讻讬转 讜讛讙讜讚专 讙讚专讜 讘拽讜爪讬诐 讜讙讚专 砖谞驻诇 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讜讝拽 讘讛谉 讗讞专 讞讬讬讘 讘谞讝拽讜

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say this, that if one renounces ownership of his object he is exempt from liability for any damage it causes? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (30a): With regard to one who conceals a thorn or a piece of glass, or who puts up a fence of thorns, or who puts up a fence that subsequently fell into the public domain, and another person incurred damage due to any of these, he is liable to pay for this person鈥檚 damage.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诪驻专讬讞 讗讘诇 讘诪爪诪爪诐 驻讟讜专 诪爪诪爪诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 驻讟讜专 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讬讛 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转讜 诪讻诇诇 讚讞讬讜讘讗 讚讘讜专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讛讜讗 讗诇诪讗 诪驻拽讬专 谞讝拽讬讜 讞讬讬讘

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to one who puts up a fence of thorns, they taught that he is liable only in a case where he projects the thorns out into the public domain, but in a case where he restricts them to his own property, he is exempt. The Gemara infers: In a case where he restricts them, what is the reason that he is exempt? Is it not because it is considered a pit on his own property? By inference, the liability in the category of Pit, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, is in the public domain, where a pit generally does not belong to the one who dug it. Apparently, Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property is liable.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诪驻拽讬专 谞讝拽讬讜 驻讟讜专 讜诪爪诪爪诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 驻讟讜专 诪砖讜诐 讚讗转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻谉 砖诇 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诇讛转讞讻讱 讘讻转诇讬诐

The Gemara answers: No, actually I could say to you that in principle, one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property is exempt. Nevertheless, one who puts up a fence of thorns is liable, because he does not renounce ownership of the thorns that protrude into the public domain. And in a case where he restricts the thorns to his own property, what is the reason he is exempt? The reason is not that he is not liable to pay for the damage of a pit in his own property, but rather because it was stated about this case that Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, said: He is exempt because it is not the typical manner of people to rub against walls, but to keep a small distance from them. Therefore, if a pedestrian is injured by the thorns, it is considered an unusual accident, for which the owner of the fence is not liable.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪砖谞讛 讜转谞谉 讛讞讜驻专 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜谞驻诇 诇转讜讻讜 砖讜专 讗讜 讞诪讜专 讜诪转 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say that one who renounces ownership of his hazardous objects is exempt? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say that in general, the halakha is in accordance with an unattributed mishna, and we learned in an unattributed mishna (50b): In the case of one who digs a pit in the public domain and an ox or a donkey fell into it and died, he is liable. This mishna is referring to one who digs a pit in the public domain, where it is not owned by the one who dug it, yet the mishna deems him liable.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara concludes: Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan is actually the one who said that one who renounces ownership of his hazardous objects is liable.

讜诪讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 驻讟讜专 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

The Gemara asks: And from the fact that Rabbi Yo岣nan said that he is liable, is it evident that Rabbi Elazar said that he is exempt? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say

Scroll To Top