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

Daf Yomi

December 4, 2023 | 讻状讗 讘讻住诇讜 转砖驻状讚

  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Bava Kamma 32

The Mishna brings a case of two people who are walking in the street – one with a beam and the other with a jug, if the beam breaks the jug, is the one walking with the beam responsible? On what does it depend? Raba bar Natan asks Rav Huna a question about a husband who injures his wife while having intercourse – does he need to compensate her or not? Rav Huna answers that we can learn from our Mishna that if he is permitted to be there, he does not need to pay for damages. Rava disagrees because he compares it to one who killed someone accidentally and is obligated to go to a refuge city even though the murderer had permission to be there. In addition, the Mishna referred to a case where the damage happened without any action taken on behalf of the one carrying the beam. Reish Lakish distinguishes between a case where two cows were on the road – one walking (typical behavior) and the other was crouching (atypical behavior) and one kicked the other. In which case is the owner obligated and in which case is the owner exempt? The Gemara tries to provide support for his ruling from two of the cases in our Mishna, but both attempts are unsuccessful. What is the law if one person is running in the public domain and one is walking and they bump into each other and cause damage? What if they are both running? Is there a difference if it happens on erev Shabbat when people are permitted to run to prepare for Shabbat? If one is chopping trees in one domain and the chips fly into another domain and injure, is the one chopping obligated? A braita compares a similar case with a store owner and someone walks into the store with/without permission. What is the difference in the ruling? Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Chanina said that one is obligated for four types of payments for damages and is exempt from going to a refuge city. Was his statement qualifying the case in the braita where one was obligated or the case where one was exempt?

讜讗诐 注诪讚 讘注诇 拽讜专讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讘注诇 讞讘讬转 注诪讜讚 驻讟讜专


But if the owner of the cross beam stopped, causing the barrel to collide with the beam and break, the former is liable, since the latter had no way of anticipating that he would stop. And if he said to the owner of the barrel: Stop, he is exempt from liability for breaking the barrel.


讛讬讛 讘注诇 讞讘讬转 专讗砖讜谉 讜讘注诇 拽讜专讛 讗讞专讜谉 谞砖讘专讛 讞讘讬转 讘拽讜专讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 注诪讚 讘注诇 讞讘讬转 驻讟讜专 讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讘注诇 拽讜专讛 注诪讜讚 讞讬讬讘 讜讻谉 讝讛 讘讗 讘谞专讜 讜讝讛 讘驻砖转谞讜


Conversely, if the owner of the barrel was walking first and the owner of the cross beam last, and the barrel was broken by the cross beam, the owner of the cross beam is liable. But if owner of the barrel stopped, the owner of the cross beam is exempt from liability for breaking the barrel. And if he said to the owner of the cross beam: Stop, the owner of the cross beam is liable. And similarly, these halakhot apply in a case where this one came with his lamp and that one came with his flax, and the lamp set fire to the flax.


讙诪壮 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讛 讘专 谞转谉 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诪讝讬拽 讗转 讗砖转讜 讘转砖诪讬砖 讛诪讟讛 诪讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讘专砖讜转 拽注讘讬讚 驻讟讜专 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇注讬讜谞讬


GEMARA: Rabba bar Natan asked Rav Huna: With regard to one who causes injury to his wife during sexual intercourse, what is the halakha? Is he liable to pay damages? Is it reasoned that since he is acting in a permitted manner he is exempt, or perhaps he should pay attention and be more careful?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 砖诇讝讛 专砖讜转 诇讛诇讱 讜诇讝讛 专砖讜转 诇讛诇讱


Rav Huna said to Rabba bar Natan: You learned this halakha in the mishna concerning one person walking with a cross beam and another with a barrel, which rules that the owner of the cross beam is exempt because this one had permission to walk and that one also had permission to walk. Similarly, since the husband has permission to engage in intercourse with his wife, if he injures her in the process he is exempt.


讗诪专 专讘讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讬注专 砖讝讛 诇专砖讜转讜 谞讻谞住 讜讝讛 诇专砖讜转讜 谞讻谞住 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖谞讻谞住 诇专砖讜转 讞讘讬专讜 讜讞讬讬讘 讝讛 砖诇专砖讜转 讞讘讬专讜 谞讻谞住 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉


Rava disagreed with Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion and said: The husband is liable due to an a fortiori inference from the halakha with regard to manslaughter, as it is stated in the Torah: 鈥淎s when a man goes into the forest with his neighbor to chop wood鈥nd the head slips off the helve, and finds his neighbor, and he dies; he shall flee to one of these cities and live鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:5). And just as in the forest, where this person entered his domain and that person entered his domain, as it is the domain of the public, and nevertheless the one who kills unintentionally is considered like one who entered another鈥檚 domain and is therefore liable to be exiled to a city of refuge, then with regard to this husband, who actually enters another鈥檚 domain, all the more so is it not clear that he should be liable for the injury he causes her?


讗诇讗 讛讗 拽转谞讬 砖诇讝讛 专砖讜转 诇讛诇讱 讜诇讝讛 专砖讜转 诇讛诇讱


The Gemara raises an objection to Rava鈥檚 opinion: But what of this mishna, which teaches that the owner of the cross beam is exempt, as this one had permission to walk and that one had permission to walk, and Rav Huna inferred from here that the husband is likewise exempt.


讛转诐 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讛讻讗 讗讬讛讜 拽注讘讬讚 诪注砖讛


The Gemara answers: The two cases are different. There, in the case in the mishna, both sides were similarly walking, and the one who caused the damage is therefore exempt due to his right to walk there. By contrast, here, the husband is the only active participant in the intercourse. Therefore, since he is the one performing an action, he is liable even though he is acting with permission.


讜讛讬讗 诇讗 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜谞讻专转讜 讛谞驻砖讜转 讛注砖转 诪拽专讘 注诪诐


The Gemara asks: And is she not considered an active participant? But isn鈥檛 it written with regard to forbidden sexual intercourse: 鈥淓ven the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people鈥 (Leviticus 18:29), indicating that both the man and woman are considered to be performing an action?


讛谞讗讛 诇转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讗讬讛讜 诪注砖讛 讛讜讗 讚拽注讘讬讚


The Gemara answers: The verse is referring to the fact that they both have pleasure from the act. The woman鈥檚 pleasure is tantamount to active transgression, and she is therefore punished if she participates willfully. But with regard to a wife鈥檚 injury, he is the one who is considered to be performing an action, and he is therefore liable.


讛讬讛 讘注诇 拽讜专讛 专讗砖讜谉 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 砖转讬 驻专讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗讞转 专讘讜爪讛 讜讗讞转 诪讛诇讻转 讘注讟讛 诪讛诇讻转 讘专讘讜爪讛 驻讟讜专讛 讘注讟讛 专讘讜爪讛 讘诪讛诇讻转 讞讬讬讘转


搂 The mishna teaches: In a case where the owner of the cross beam was walking first and the owner of the barrel was walking behind him, if the barrel was broken by the cross beam, the owner of the cross beam is exempt. Reish Lakish says: If two cows were in the public domain, one of them prone and one walking, and the cow that was walking kicked the cow that was prone, its owner is exempt. If the prone cow kicked the cow that was walking, its owner is liable to pay.


诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讛讬讛 讘注诇 拽讜专讛 专讗砖讜谉 讜讘注诇 讞讘讬转 讗讞专讜谉 谞砖讘专讛 讛讞讘讬转 讘拽讜专讛 驻讟讜专 讜讗诐 注诪讚 讘注诇 拽讜专讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚讻专讘讜爪讛 讘诪讛诇讻转 讚诪讬 讜拽转谞讬 讞讬讬讘


Let us say that the mishna supports this statement, as it states: If the owner of the cross beam was first and the owner of the barrel was last, and the barrel was broken by the cross beam, he is exempt. But if the owner of the cross beam stopped, the owner of the cross beam is liable. The Gemara explains the proof: But here, it is clear that it is like a case where the prone cow kicked the cow that was walking, since the one carrying the barrel was walking and the one carrying the cross beam stopped in the public domain, causing damage to the former. And the mishna teaches in this case that the owner of the cross beam is liable.


讜转住讘专讗 讛讗 住讬讬注讬 讘注讬讗 诇讗 诪住转讬讬讗 讚诇讗 诪住讬讬注讬 讗诇讗 诪拽砖讛 谞诪讬 拽砖讬讗 讟注诪讗 讚讘注讟讛 讛讗 讛讜讝拽讛 诪诪讬诇讗 驻讟讜专 讜讛讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诪诪讬诇讗 讜拽转谞讬 讞讬讬讘


The Gemara responds: And how can you understand that reasoning? You wanted to support the statement of Reish Lakish from the mishna. Not only does it not support Reish Lakish; it even raises a difficulty to his opinion. The reason Reish Lakish stated that the owner of the prone cow is liable is that it kicked the walking cow; but if the walking cow was damaged because by itself it collided with the prone cow, he would be exempt. But the mishna discusses a case where the one carrying the barrel ran into the cross beam by himself, without the one carrying the cross beam actively hitting it, and it teaches that the owner of the cross beam is nevertheless liable.


诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚驻住拽讛 诇讗讜专讞讗 讻砖诇讚讗 讛讻讗 讻讙讜谉 讚专讘注讛 讘讞讚 讙讬住讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇讛 诇住讙讜讬讬 讘讗讬讚讱 讙讬住讗


The Gemara explains: The mishna is referring to a case where the cross beam blocked the entire width of the road like a carcass. Since the one carrying the barrel could not avoid it, the one carrying the cross beam is liable although he did not actively break the barrel. By contrast, here, Reish Lakish鈥檚 statement is referring to a case where the cow was lying down on one side of the public domain, and the other cow should have walked on the other, unobstructed side. Therefore, if the damage is caused only as a result of their collision, the owner of the prone cow is exempt.


讗诇讗 住讬驻讗 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚拽转谞讬 讛讬讛 讘注诇 讞讘讬转 专讗砖讜谉 讜讘注诇 拽讜专讛 讗讞专讜谉 谞砖讘专讛 讞讘讬转 讘拽讜专讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 注诪讚 讘注诇 讞讘讬转 驻讟讜专 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚讻诪讛诇讻转 讘专讘讜爪讛 讚诪讬 讜拽转谞讬 驻讟讜专


The Gemara suggests: Rather, it is the latter clause of the mishna that supports Reish Lakish鈥檚 statement, as it teaches: Conversely, if the owner of the barrel was walking first and the owner of the cross beam last, and the barrel was broken by the cross beam, the owner of the cross beam is liable. But if the owner of the barrel stopped, the owner of the cross beam is exempt from liability for breaking the barrel. But here, it is clear that it is like a case where the walking cow kicked the prone cow. And the mishna teaches that the owner of the cross beam is exempt, lending support to Reish Lakish鈥檚 ruling.


诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚讻讬 讗讜专讞讬讛 拽讗 诪住讙讬 讛讻讗 讗诪专讛 诇讛 谞讛讬 讚讗讬转 诇讱 专砖讜转 诇住讙讜讬讬 注诇讬 诇讘注讜讟讬 讘讬 诇讬转 诇讱 专砖讜转讗


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: The mishna exempts the one carrying the cross beam because he was walking in his normal manner when he hit the barrel. Here, perhaps the owner of the prone cow can say to the owner of the walking cow: Although you have permission to walk over me, i.e., for your cow to walk over my cow, you have no permission to kick me, i.e., for your cow to kick my cow.


诪转谞讬壮 砖谞讬诐 砖讛讬讜 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗讞讚 专抓 讜讗讞讚 诪讛诇讱 讗讜 砖讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛诐 专爪讬谉 讜讛讝讬拽讜 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 砖谞讬讛诐 驻讟讜专讬谉


MISHNA: With regard to two people who were walking in the public domain, or one who was running and another one who was walking, or who were both running, and they damaged one another, both of them are exempt.


讙诪壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讗讬住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 专抓 讞讬讬讘 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪砖讜谞讛 讜诪讜讚讛 讗讬住讬 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 砖讛讜讗 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖专抓 讘专砖讜转


GEMARA: The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Isi ben Yehuda. As it is taught in a baraita: Isi ben Yehuda says that one who runs in the public domain and causes damage is liable to pay for any damage he causes because his behavior is unusual in the public domain. And Isi concedes with regard to one who runs and causes damage at twilight on the eve of Shabbat that he is exempt, because he is running with permission.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讬住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪砖谞讛 讜转谞谉 讗讞讚 专抓 讜讗讞讚 诪讛诇讱 讗讜 砖讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛诐 专爪讬谉 驻讟讜专讬谉


Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Isi ben Yehuda. The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say this, that if one runs and causes damage he is liable? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say, as a principle, that the halakha is in accordance with an unattributed mishna? And we learned in this mishna that if one was running and the other one was walking, or if they were both running, they are exempt.


诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转


The Gemara answers: The mishna, which exempts one who was running, is referring to twilight on the eve of Shabbat, when people are permitted to run in the public domain.


诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 讗讜 砖讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛诐 专爪讬谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛砖转讗 讗讞讚 专抓 讜讗讞讚 诪讛诇讱 驻讟讜专 砖谞讬讛诐 专爪讬谉 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讞讚 专抓 讜讗讞讚 诪讛诇讱 驻讟讜专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讗讘诇 讘讞讜诇 讗讞讚 专抓 讜讗讞讚 诪讛诇讱 讞讬讬讘 砖谞讬讛诐 专爪讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讜诇 驻讟讜专讬谉


The Gemara explains: From where is it inferred that the mishna is referring to twilight on the eve of Shabbat? It is inferred from the fact that it teaches: Or who were both running, they are exempt. Why do I need this case as well? Now that the mishna teaches that if one was running and the other one was walking, the one running is exempt, is it necessary to state that he is exempt when both of them were running? Rather, this is what the mishna is saying: If one was running and the other one was walking, he is exempt. In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to twilight on the eve of Shabbat, when running in the public domain is permitted. But on a weekday, if one was running and the other one was walking, the one who was running is liable. If both were running, even on a weekday, they are exempt. This emendation explains the need to mention the case where both were running.


讗诪专 诪专 讜诪讜讚讛 讗讬住讬 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 砖讛讜讗 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖专抓 讘专砖讜转 讘注专讘 砖讘转 诪讗讬 讘专砖讜转 讗讬讻讗


The Master said above: And Isi concedes with regard to one who runs and causes damage at twilight on the eve of Shabbat that he is exempt, because he is running with permission. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that running at twilight on the eve of Shabbat is considered to be with permission?


讻讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗


The Gemara answers: It is like that which Rabbi 岣nina would say, as Rabbi 岣nina would say at twilight on the eve of Shabbat:


讘讜讗讜 讜谞爪讗 诇拽专讗转 讻诇讛 诪诇讻转讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇拽专讗转 砖讘转 讻诇讛 诪诇讻转讗 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诪转注讟祝 讜拽讗讬 讜讗诪专 讘讜讗讬 讻诇讛 讘讜讗讬 讻诇讛


Come and let us go out to greet the bride, the queen. And some say that this is what he would say: Come and let us go out to greet Shabbat, the bride, the queen. Rabbi Yannai would wrap himself in his tallit and stand at the eve of Shabbat at twilight, saying: Come, bride; come, bride. Similarly, it is appropriate for one to run out in honor of Shabbat.


诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讘拽注 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讝讬拽 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讛讝讬拽 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讛讝讬拽 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讗讞专 讞讬讬讘


MISHNA: With regard to one who was chopping wood in the public domain and a chip flew off and caused damage in the private property of another person, or one who was chopping wood in his private property and caused damage in the public domain, or one who was chopping wood in his private property and caused damage in the private property of another, in all these cases he is liable.


讙诪壮 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 转谞讗 讛诪讘拽注 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讛讝讬拽 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讚砖讻讬讞讬 专讘讬诐 讗讘诇 诪专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 专讘讬诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讗


GEMARA: The Gemara comments: And it is necessary for the mishna to teach that he is liable in all these cases because in each one there is a novel element. As if it had taught only the case of one who was chopping wood in his private property and caused damage in the public domain, it might have been reasoned that he is liable, despite the fact that he was working in his private property, because it is common for the multitudes to be there. But if a chip flew from the public domain to another person鈥檚 private property, where it is not common for the multitudes to be, one might say that he is not liable. Therefore, it is necessary to teach this case as well.


讜讗讬 转谞讗 诪专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诪砖讜诐 讚诪注讬拽专讗 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 注讘讬讚 讗讘诇 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚讘专砖讜转 注讘讬讚 讗讬诪讗 诇讗


And conversely, if it had taught that he is liable where the chip flew from the public domain to another鈥檚 private property, it might have been reasoned that he is liable because at the outset he was acting without permission by chopping wood in the public domain. But if it flew from his private property to the public domain, since he was acting with permission by chopping wood in his private property, one might say that he is not liable. Therefore, it is necessary to teach both cases.


讜讗讬 转谞讗 讛谞讱 转专转讬 讛讗 诪砖讜诐 讚砖讻讬讞讬 专讘讬诐 讜讛讗 诪砖讜诐 讚砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讗讘诇 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讗讞专 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 专讘讬诐 讜诪注讬拽专讗 讘专砖讜转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗


And if the mishna had taught only that he is liable in these two cases, it might have been reasoned that in this case, where the damage was caused in the public domain, he is liable because it is common for the multitudes to be there, and in that case, where he was chopping in the public domain, he is liable because he was acting without permission. But in the last case, where the chip flew from his private property to another鈥檚 private property, where neither of the above reasons applies, as it is not common for the multitudes to be in the place where the damage was caused and he was acting with permission at the outset, one might say he is not liable. Therefore, it is necessary for the mishna to teach all these cases.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛谞讻谞住 诇讞谞讜转讜 砖诇 谞讙专 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讜谞转讝讛 讘拽注转 讜讟驻讞讛 注诇 驻谞讬讜 讜诪转 驻讟讜专 讜讗诐 谞讻谞住 讘专砖讜转 讞讬讬讘


The Sages taught (Tosefta 6:25): With regard to one who entered the workshop of a carpenter without the latter鈥檚 permission, and a chip of wood flew off and hit him in the face and he died, the carpenter is exempt. But if he entered the shop with permission, the carpenter is liable.


诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讬讬讘 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 讜驻讟讜专 诪讙诇讜转


The Gemara asks: What does the baraita mean when it rules that the carpenter is liable? Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina says: If the other person was injured, he is liable to pay four types of indemnity that one who injures another must pay. These are: Cost of the damage, pain, medical costs, and loss of livelihood. But if the one who entered was killed, he is exempt from exile.


诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讚讜诪讛 诇讬注专 讬注专 讝讛 诇专砖讜转讜 谞讻谞住 讜讝讛 诇专砖讜转讜 谞讻谞住 讝讛 诇专砖讜转 讞讘讬专讜 谞讻谞住


The Gemara explains that he is exempt because this case is not similar to the case of a forest, which is the archetypal case stated in the Torah requiring one who kills unintentionally to be exiled, as it is written: 鈥淎s when a man goes into the forest with his neighbor to chop wood, and his hand fetches a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slips off the helve, and finds his neighbor, and he dies鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:5). This is because in the case of the forest, both this one entered his domain and that one entered his domain, as anyone may use the public domain, whereas in this case, the victim entered another鈥檚 property. Therefore, the carpenter is not exiled.


讗诪专 专讘讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讬注专 讝讛 诇讚注转讜 谞讻谞住 讜讝讛 诇讚注转讜 谞讻谞住 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖谞讻谞住 诇讚注转 讞讘讬专讜 讜讙讜诇讛 讝讛 砖诇讚注转 讞讘讬专讜 谞讻谞住 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉


Rava said: On the contrary; it can be inferred a fortiori that he is exiled. And if in the case of the forest, where this one entered of his own accord and that one entered of his own accord, neither asking for the other鈥檚 permission, nevertheless the victim is considered like one who entered with the other鈥檚 consent and therefore the one who kills unintentionally is exiled, all the more so is it not clear that in this case, where the victim entered another鈥檚 workshop with his consent, the carpenter should be exiled?


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 驻讟讜专 诪讙诇讜转 讚诇讗 住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘讙诇讜转 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 诇讬讛 砖讜讙讙 拽专讜讘 诇诪讝讬讚


Rather, Rava said: What is the reason he is exempt from exile? As exile is not sufficient for him, and this is the reason of Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina, who exempts him from exile: Because it is an unintentional killing that is approaching intentional manslaughter. The purpose of exile is to atone for one who kills another completely unintentionally; if he was exceedingly negligent, exile is not sufficient to atone for him.


诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讛讜住讬祝 诇讜 专爪讜注讛 讗讞转 讜诪转 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讜诇讛 注诇 讬讚讜 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚砖讜讙讙 拽专讜讘 诇诪讝讬讚 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讘注讬 讗住讜拽讬 讗讚注转讬讛 讚诪讬讬转讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讘讞讚讗 专爪讜注讛 讜拽转谞讬 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讜诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讚讟注讬 讘诪谞讬谞讗


Rava raises an objection to his own explanation from a mishna: If one is sentenced to be flogged in court and the doctors assessed that he would be able to endure only a certain number of lashes, but the one administering the lashes added one lash to his punishment and he died, the agent of the court is exiled on account of him (Makkot 22b). But here, it is clear that it is a case of an unintentional killing that is approaching intentional manslaughter, as it should have entered his mind that people can die by one additional lash. And the tanna teaches that the agent of the court is exiled. Rav Shimi of Neharde鈥檃 said in response: It is a case where he erred in the counting, which is not considered approaching intentional manslaughter.


讟驻讞 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘住谞讚诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讟讜 讛讜讗 诪谞讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讙讚讜诇 砖讘讚讬讬谞讬谉 拽讜专讗 讜讛砖谞讬 诪讜谞讛 讜讛砖诇讬砖讬 讗讜诪专 讛讻讛讜


Rava slapped Rav Shimi on his sandal, a gesture of disparagement, and said to him: Is that to say that the one administering the lashes is the one who counts them? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that the eldest of the judges recites the verses that are read to a person while he receives lashes, and the second judge counts, and the third says to the one administering the lashes: Strike him? Accordingly, it is not the one administering the lashes who erred in counting.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讚讟注讛 讚讬讬谞讗 讙讜驻讬讛


Rather, Rav Shimi of Neharde鈥檃 said: It is a case where the judge himself erred in counting, and the one administering the lashes did not notice this error and meted out an extra lash, causing the person to die. It is therefore considered a completely unintentional killing. Consequently, he is exiled.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讝讜专拽 讗转 讛讗讘谉 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛专讙 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讜诇讛 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚砖讜讙讙 拽专讜讘 诇诪讝讬讚 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗住讜拽讬 讗讚注转讬讛 讚讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 砖讻讬讞讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讜拽转谞讬 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讜诇讛


The Gemara raises an objection from another mishna: With regard to one who throws a stone into the public domain and kills someone, he is exiled. But here, it is clear that it is a case of an unintentional killing that is approaching intentional manslaughter, as it should have entered his mind that people are commonly found in the public domain. And the tanna teaches that he is exiled.


讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讘住讜转专 讗转 讻讜转诇讜


Rav Shmuel bar Yitz岣k said: It is not a case where one threw a stone into the public domain for no purpose, but rather where he demolishes his wall, which borders on the public domain, and stones fall into the public domain. Therefore, it is not considered to be approaching intentional manslaughter.


讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 注讬讜谞讬 讘住讜转专 讘诇讬诇讛


The Gemara questions this assertion: Nevertheless, he should have paid attention to see if there was anyone there, and therefore it should be considered an unintentional killing that approaches intentional manslaughter. The Gemara answers: It is a case where he demolishes the wall at night.


讘诇讬诇讛 谞诪讬 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 注讬讜谞讬 讘住讜转专 讗转 讻讜转诇讜 讘讬讜诐 诇讗砖驻讛


The Gemara asks: Even at night, he should also have paid attention to see if there was anyone there. The Gemara suggests an alternative interpretation: It is a case where he demolishes his wall during the day into a garbage dump, where people are not commonly found.


讛讗讬 讗砖驻讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚砖讻讬讞讬 专讘讬诐 诪讝讬讚 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 专讘讬诐 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗


The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this garbage dump? If it is a garbage dump where the multitudes are commonly found, it is considered intentional manslaughter. And if the multitudes are not commonly found there, he should be considered not only one who kills unintentionally, but a victim of circumstances beyond his control, since he could not have anticipated that someone would be there. Therefore, he should be exempt from exile.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 [诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讗诇讗] 讘讗砖驻讛 讛注砖讜讬讛 诇讛驻谞讜转 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讗讬谞讛 注砖讜讬讛 诇讛驻谞讜转 讘讬讜诐 讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪讬拽专讬 讜讬转讬讘 诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讛讜讬 讚讛讗 讗讬谞讛 注砖讜讬讛 诇讛驻谞讜转 讘讬讜诐 讗谞讜住 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 讚讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讚诪讬拽专讬 讜讬转讬讘


Rav Pappa said: This halakha is necessary only in the case of a garbage dump where people are given to relieve themselves at night and are not given to relieve themselves during the day, as it is near the public domain. But there are those who chance by and sit there for this purpose even during the day. On the one hand, he is not one who kills intentionally, as people are not given to relieve themselves there during the day. On the other hand, he is not a victim of circumstances beyond his control either, as there are those who chance by and sit there. Therefore, he is considered one who kills unintentionally and is liable to be exiled.


专讘 驻驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗专讬砖讗 讛谞讻谞住 诇讞谞讜转讜 砖诇 谞讙专 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讜谞转讝讛 诇讜 讘拽注转 讜讟驻讞讛 诇讜 注诇 驻谞讬讜 讜诪转 驻讟讜专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讬讬讘 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 讜驻讟讜专 诪讙诇讜转


Rav Pappa taught in the name of Rava that this aforementioned statement of Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina is in reference not to the latter clause of the baraita but is in reference to the first clause: With regard to one who enters the workshop of a carpenter without permission, and a chip of wood flies off and strikes him in the face and he dies, the carpenter is exempt. In reference to this clause Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina says: If the one who entered was merely injured, the carpenter is liable to pay four types of indemnity. But if the one who entered was killed, he is exempt from exile.


诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗专讬砖讗 讜诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗专讬砖讗 讗讘诇 讗住讬驻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讘专砖讜转 讞讬讬讘 讙诇讜转


The Gemara comments: With regard to the one who teaches this statement in reference to the last clause of the baraita, where one enters with permission, all the more so would he teach it in reference to the first clause, where one enters without permission. But the one who teaches this statement in reference to the first clause teaches it only in reference to that clause. But in the case of the last clause, since he entered with permission the carpenter is liable to go into exile.


讜诪讬 讞讬讬讘 讙诇讜转 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛谞讻谞住 诇讞谞讜转讜 砖诇 谞驻讞 讜谞转讝讛 谞讬爪讜爪讜转 讜讟驻讞讛 诇讜 注诇 驻谞讬讜 讜诪转 驻讟讜专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 谞讻谞住 讘专砖讜转


The Gemara asks: But is he liable to go into exile when the victim had permission to enter? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that with regard to one who enters the workshop of a welder, and sparks [nitzotzot] fly off and strike him in his face and he dies, the welder is exempt, and this is the halakha even if the victim entered with permission?


讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘砖讜诇讬讗 讚谞驻讞讬 砖讜诇讬讗 讚谞驻讞讬 诇诪拽讟诇讗 拽讗讬 讻砖专讘讜 诪住专讛讘 讘讜 诇爪讗转 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讗


The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here, in this baraita? We are dealing with the welder鈥檚 apprentice who enters his workshop. The Gemara asks: Does the welder鈥檚 apprentice stand to be killed, i.e., is it permitted to kill him? The Gemara answers: It is a case where his mentor is urging him to leave, and he does not leave.


讜诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讜 诪住专讛讘 讘讜 诇爪讗转 诇诪讬拽讟诇讬讛 拽讗讬 讻住讘讜专 讬爪讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讞专 谞诪讬


The Gemara asks: And because his mentor is urging him to leave, does he stand to be killed? The welder should be careful until his apprentice leaves. The Gemara answers: The welder thought that he had already left when the accident happened. The Gemara asks: If so, why establish that the baraita refers specifically to an apprentice? The welder would be exempt if it were any other person also.


  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Copy of One week at a time (1)

Bava Kamma: 28-34 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn a person鈥檚 liability if one puts objects in the public domain. Is the person responsible...
talking talmud_square

Bava Kamma 32: Damages and Unexpected Parallels

3 new mishnayot: the first, about the damage of a person with a barrel and the other with a beam,...

Bava Kamma 32

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 32

讜讗诐 注诪讚 讘注诇 拽讜专讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讘注诇 讞讘讬转 注诪讜讚 驻讟讜专


But if the owner of the cross beam stopped, causing the barrel to collide with the beam and break, the former is liable, since the latter had no way of anticipating that he would stop. And if he said to the owner of the barrel: Stop, he is exempt from liability for breaking the barrel.


讛讬讛 讘注诇 讞讘讬转 专讗砖讜谉 讜讘注诇 拽讜专讛 讗讞专讜谉 谞砖讘专讛 讞讘讬转 讘拽讜专讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 注诪讚 讘注诇 讞讘讬转 驻讟讜专 讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讘注诇 拽讜专讛 注诪讜讚 讞讬讬讘 讜讻谉 讝讛 讘讗 讘谞专讜 讜讝讛 讘驻砖转谞讜


Conversely, if the owner of the barrel was walking first and the owner of the cross beam last, and the barrel was broken by the cross beam, the owner of the cross beam is liable. But if owner of the barrel stopped, the owner of the cross beam is exempt from liability for breaking the barrel. And if he said to the owner of the cross beam: Stop, the owner of the cross beam is liable. And similarly, these halakhot apply in a case where this one came with his lamp and that one came with his flax, and the lamp set fire to the flax.


讙诪壮 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讛 讘专 谞转谉 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诪讝讬拽 讗转 讗砖转讜 讘转砖诪讬砖 讛诪讟讛 诪讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讘专砖讜转 拽注讘讬讚 驻讟讜专 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇注讬讜谞讬


GEMARA: Rabba bar Natan asked Rav Huna: With regard to one who causes injury to his wife during sexual intercourse, what is the halakha? Is he liable to pay damages? Is it reasoned that since he is acting in a permitted manner he is exempt, or perhaps he should pay attention and be more careful?


讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 砖诇讝讛 专砖讜转 诇讛诇讱 讜诇讝讛 专砖讜转 诇讛诇讱


Rav Huna said to Rabba bar Natan: You learned this halakha in the mishna concerning one person walking with a cross beam and another with a barrel, which rules that the owner of the cross beam is exempt because this one had permission to walk and that one also had permission to walk. Similarly, since the husband has permission to engage in intercourse with his wife, if he injures her in the process he is exempt.


讗诪专 专讘讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讬注专 砖讝讛 诇专砖讜转讜 谞讻谞住 讜讝讛 诇专砖讜转讜 谞讻谞住 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖谞讻谞住 诇专砖讜转 讞讘讬专讜 讜讞讬讬讘 讝讛 砖诇专砖讜转 讞讘讬专讜 谞讻谞住 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉


Rava disagreed with Rav Huna鈥檚 opinion and said: The husband is liable due to an a fortiori inference from the halakha with regard to manslaughter, as it is stated in the Torah: 鈥淎s when a man goes into the forest with his neighbor to chop wood鈥nd the head slips off the helve, and finds his neighbor, and he dies; he shall flee to one of these cities and live鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:5). And just as in the forest, where this person entered his domain and that person entered his domain, as it is the domain of the public, and nevertheless the one who kills unintentionally is considered like one who entered another鈥檚 domain and is therefore liable to be exiled to a city of refuge, then with regard to this husband, who actually enters another鈥檚 domain, all the more so is it not clear that he should be liable for the injury he causes her?


讗诇讗 讛讗 拽转谞讬 砖诇讝讛 专砖讜转 诇讛诇讱 讜诇讝讛 专砖讜转 诇讛诇讱


The Gemara raises an objection to Rava鈥檚 opinion: But what of this mishna, which teaches that the owner of the cross beam is exempt, as this one had permission to walk and that one had permission to walk, and Rav Huna inferred from here that the husband is likewise exempt.


讛转诐 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讻讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讛讻讗 讗讬讛讜 拽注讘讬讚 诪注砖讛


The Gemara answers: The two cases are different. There, in the case in the mishna, both sides were similarly walking, and the one who caused the damage is therefore exempt due to his right to walk there. By contrast, here, the husband is the only active participant in the intercourse. Therefore, since he is the one performing an action, he is liable even though he is acting with permission.


讜讛讬讗 诇讗 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜谞讻专转讜 讛谞驻砖讜转 讛注砖转 诪拽专讘 注诪诐


The Gemara asks: And is she not considered an active participant? But isn鈥檛 it written with regard to forbidden sexual intercourse: 鈥淓ven the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people鈥 (Leviticus 18:29), indicating that both the man and woman are considered to be performing an action?


讛谞讗讛 诇转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬转 诇讛讜 讗讬讛讜 诪注砖讛 讛讜讗 讚拽注讘讬讚


The Gemara answers: The verse is referring to the fact that they both have pleasure from the act. The woman鈥檚 pleasure is tantamount to active transgression, and she is therefore punished if she participates willfully. But with regard to a wife鈥檚 injury, he is the one who is considered to be performing an action, and he is therefore liable.


讛讬讛 讘注诇 拽讜专讛 专讗砖讜谉 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 砖转讬 驻专讜转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗讞转 专讘讜爪讛 讜讗讞转 诪讛诇讻转 讘注讟讛 诪讛诇讻转 讘专讘讜爪讛 驻讟讜专讛 讘注讟讛 专讘讜爪讛 讘诪讛诇讻转 讞讬讬讘转


搂 The mishna teaches: In a case where the owner of the cross beam was walking first and the owner of the barrel was walking behind him, if the barrel was broken by the cross beam, the owner of the cross beam is exempt. Reish Lakish says: If two cows were in the public domain, one of them prone and one walking, and the cow that was walking kicked the cow that was prone, its owner is exempt. If the prone cow kicked the cow that was walking, its owner is liable to pay.


诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讛讬讛 讘注诇 拽讜专讛 专讗砖讜谉 讜讘注诇 讞讘讬转 讗讞专讜谉 谞砖讘专讛 讛讞讘讬转 讘拽讜专讛 驻讟讜专 讜讗诐 注诪讚 讘注诇 拽讜专讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚讻专讘讜爪讛 讘诪讛诇讻转 讚诪讬 讜拽转谞讬 讞讬讬讘


Let us say that the mishna supports this statement, as it states: If the owner of the cross beam was first and the owner of the barrel was last, and the barrel was broken by the cross beam, he is exempt. But if the owner of the cross beam stopped, the owner of the cross beam is liable. The Gemara explains the proof: But here, it is clear that it is like a case where the prone cow kicked the cow that was walking, since the one carrying the barrel was walking and the one carrying the cross beam stopped in the public domain, causing damage to the former. And the mishna teaches in this case that the owner of the cross beam is liable.


讜转住讘专讗 讛讗 住讬讬注讬 讘注讬讗 诇讗 诪住转讬讬讗 讚诇讗 诪住讬讬注讬 讗诇讗 诪拽砖讛 谞诪讬 拽砖讬讗 讟注诪讗 讚讘注讟讛 讛讗 讛讜讝拽讛 诪诪讬诇讗 驻讟讜专 讜讛讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诪诪讬诇讗 讜拽转谞讬 讞讬讬讘


The Gemara responds: And how can you understand that reasoning? You wanted to support the statement of Reish Lakish from the mishna. Not only does it not support Reish Lakish; it even raises a difficulty to his opinion. The reason Reish Lakish stated that the owner of the prone cow is liable is that it kicked the walking cow; but if the walking cow was damaged because by itself it collided with the prone cow, he would be exempt. But the mishna discusses a case where the one carrying the barrel ran into the cross beam by himself, without the one carrying the cross beam actively hitting it, and it teaches that the owner of the cross beam is nevertheless liable.


诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚驻住拽讛 诇讗讜专讞讗 讻砖诇讚讗 讛讻讗 讻讙讜谉 讚专讘注讛 讘讞讚 讙讬住讗 讗讬讘注讬 诇讛 诇住讙讜讬讬 讘讗讬讚讱 讙讬住讗


The Gemara explains: The mishna is referring to a case where the cross beam blocked the entire width of the road like a carcass. Since the one carrying the barrel could not avoid it, the one carrying the cross beam is liable although he did not actively break the barrel. By contrast, here, Reish Lakish鈥檚 statement is referring to a case where the cow was lying down on one side of the public domain, and the other cow should have walked on the other, unobstructed side. Therefore, if the damage is caused only as a result of their collision, the owner of the prone cow is exempt.


讗诇讗 住讬驻讗 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚拽转谞讬 讛讬讛 讘注诇 讞讘讬转 专讗砖讜谉 讜讘注诇 拽讜专讛 讗讞专讜谉 谞砖讘专讛 讞讘讬转 讘拽讜专讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 注诪讚 讘注诇 讞讘讬转 驻讟讜专 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚讻诪讛诇讻转 讘专讘讜爪讛 讚诪讬 讜拽转谞讬 驻讟讜专


The Gemara suggests: Rather, it is the latter clause of the mishna that supports Reish Lakish鈥檚 statement, as it teaches: Conversely, if the owner of the barrel was walking first and the owner of the cross beam last, and the barrel was broken by the cross beam, the owner of the cross beam is liable. But if the owner of the barrel stopped, the owner of the cross beam is exempt from liability for breaking the barrel. But here, it is clear that it is like a case where the walking cow kicked the prone cow. And the mishna teaches that the owner of the cross beam is exempt, lending support to Reish Lakish鈥檚 ruling.


诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚讻讬 讗讜专讞讬讛 拽讗 诪住讙讬 讛讻讗 讗诪专讛 诇讛 谞讛讬 讚讗讬转 诇讱 专砖讜转 诇住讙讜讬讬 注诇讬 诇讘注讜讟讬 讘讬 诇讬转 诇讱 专砖讜转讗


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: The mishna exempts the one carrying the cross beam because he was walking in his normal manner when he hit the barrel. Here, perhaps the owner of the prone cow can say to the owner of the walking cow: Although you have permission to walk over me, i.e., for your cow to walk over my cow, you have no permission to kick me, i.e., for your cow to kick my cow.


诪转谞讬壮 砖谞讬诐 砖讛讬讜 诪讛诇讻讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讗讞讚 专抓 讜讗讞讚 诪讛诇讱 讗讜 砖讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛诐 专爪讬谉 讜讛讝讬拽讜 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 砖谞讬讛诐 驻讟讜专讬谉


MISHNA: With regard to two people who were walking in the public domain, or one who was running and another one who was walking, or who were both running, and they damaged one another, both of them are exempt.


讙诪壮 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讗讬住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 专抓 讞讬讬讘 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 诪砖讜谞讛 讜诪讜讚讛 讗讬住讬 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 砖讛讜讗 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖专抓 讘专砖讜转


GEMARA: The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Isi ben Yehuda. As it is taught in a baraita: Isi ben Yehuda says that one who runs in the public domain and causes damage is liable to pay for any damage he causes because his behavior is unusual in the public domain. And Isi concedes with regard to one who runs and causes damage at twilight on the eve of Shabbat that he is exempt, because he is running with permission.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讬住讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 讻住转诐 诪砖谞讛 讜转谞谉 讗讞讚 专抓 讜讗讞讚 诪讛诇讱 讗讜 砖讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛诐 专爪讬谉 驻讟讜专讬谉


Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Isi ben Yehuda. The Gemara asks: And did Rabbi Yo岣nan actually say this, that if one runs and causes damage he is liable? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say, as a principle, that the halakha is in accordance with an unattributed mishna? And we learned in this mishna that if one was running and the other one was walking, or if they were both running, they are exempt.


诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转


The Gemara answers: The mishna, which exempts one who was running, is referring to twilight on the eve of Shabbat, when people are permitted to run in the public domain.


诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 讗讜 砖讛讬讜 砖谞讬讛诐 专爪讬谉 驻讟讜专讬谉 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛砖转讗 讗讞讚 专抓 讜讗讞讚 诪讛诇讱 驻讟讜专 砖谞讬讛诐 专爪讬谉 诪讬讘注讬讗 讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讞讚 专抓 讜讗讞讚 诪讛诇讱 驻讟讜专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 讗讘诇 讘讞讜诇 讗讞讚 专抓 讜讗讞讚 诪讛诇讱 讞讬讬讘 砖谞讬讛诐 专爪讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞讜诇 驻讟讜专讬谉


The Gemara explains: From where is it inferred that the mishna is referring to twilight on the eve of Shabbat? It is inferred from the fact that it teaches: Or who were both running, they are exempt. Why do I need this case as well? Now that the mishna teaches that if one was running and the other one was walking, the one running is exempt, is it necessary to state that he is exempt when both of them were running? Rather, this is what the mishna is saying: If one was running and the other one was walking, he is exempt. In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to twilight on the eve of Shabbat, when running in the public domain is permitted. But on a weekday, if one was running and the other one was walking, the one who was running is liable. If both were running, even on a weekday, they are exempt. This emendation explains the need to mention the case where both were running.


讗诪专 诪专 讜诪讜讚讛 讗讬住讬 讘注专讘 砖讘转 讘讬谉 讛砖诪砖讜转 砖讛讜讗 驻讟讜专 诪驻谞讬 砖专抓 讘专砖讜转 讘注专讘 砖讘转 诪讗讬 讘专砖讜转 讗讬讻讗


The Master said above: And Isi concedes with regard to one who runs and causes damage at twilight on the eve of Shabbat that he is exempt, because he is running with permission. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that running at twilight on the eve of Shabbat is considered to be with permission?


讻讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗


The Gemara answers: It is like that which Rabbi 岣nina would say, as Rabbi 岣nina would say at twilight on the eve of Shabbat:


讘讜讗讜 讜谞爪讗 诇拽专讗转 讻诇讛 诪诇讻转讗 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诇拽专讗转 砖讘转 讻诇讛 诪诇讻转讗 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 诪转注讟祝 讜拽讗讬 讜讗诪专 讘讜讗讬 讻诇讛 讘讜讗讬 讻诇讛


Come and let us go out to greet the bride, the queen. And some say that this is what he would say: Come and let us go out to greet Shabbat, the bride, the queen. Rabbi Yannai would wrap himself in his tallit and stand at the eve of Shabbat at twilight, saying: Come, bride; come, bride. Similarly, it is appropriate for one to run out in honor of Shabbat.


诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讘拽注 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讝讬拽 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讛讝讬拽 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讛讝讬拽 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讗讞专 讞讬讬讘


MISHNA: With regard to one who was chopping wood in the public domain and a chip flew off and caused damage in the private property of another person, or one who was chopping wood in his private property and caused damage in the public domain, or one who was chopping wood in his private property and caused damage in the private property of another, in all these cases he is liable.


讙诪壮 讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 转谞讗 讛诪讘拽注 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讛讝讬拽 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讚砖讻讬讞讬 专讘讬诐 讗讘诇 诪专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 专讘讬诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讗


GEMARA: The Gemara comments: And it is necessary for the mishna to teach that he is liable in all these cases because in each one there is a novel element. As if it had taught only the case of one who was chopping wood in his private property and caused damage in the public domain, it might have been reasoned that he is liable, despite the fact that he was working in his private property, because it is common for the multitudes to be there. But if a chip flew from the public domain to another person鈥檚 private property, where it is not common for the multitudes to be, one might say that he is not liable. Therefore, it is necessary to teach this case as well.


讜讗讬 转谞讗 诪专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诪砖讜诐 讚诪注讬拽专讗 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 注讘讬讚 讗讘诇 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讚讘专砖讜转 注讘讬讚 讗讬诪讗 诇讗


And conversely, if it had taught that he is liable where the chip flew from the public domain to another鈥檚 private property, it might have been reasoned that he is liable because at the outset he was acting without permission by chopping wood in the public domain. But if it flew from his private property to the public domain, since he was acting with permission by chopping wood in his private property, one might say that he is not liable. Therefore, it is necessary to teach both cases.


讜讗讬 转谞讗 讛谞讱 转专转讬 讛讗 诪砖讜诐 讚砖讻讬讞讬 专讘讬诐 讜讛讗 诪砖讜诐 讚砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讗讘诇 诪专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讗讞专 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 专讘讬诐 讜诪注讬拽专讗 讘专砖讜转 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗


And if the mishna had taught only that he is liable in these two cases, it might have been reasoned that in this case, where the damage was caused in the public domain, he is liable because it is common for the multitudes to be there, and in that case, where he was chopping in the public domain, he is liable because he was acting without permission. But in the last case, where the chip flew from his private property to another鈥檚 private property, where neither of the above reasons applies, as it is not common for the multitudes to be in the place where the damage was caused and he was acting with permission at the outset, one might say he is not liable. Therefore, it is necessary for the mishna to teach all these cases.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛谞讻谞住 诇讞谞讜转讜 砖诇 谞讙专 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讜谞转讝讛 讘拽注转 讜讟驻讞讛 注诇 驻谞讬讜 讜诪转 驻讟讜专 讜讗诐 谞讻谞住 讘专砖讜转 讞讬讬讘


The Sages taught (Tosefta 6:25): With regard to one who entered the workshop of a carpenter without the latter鈥檚 permission, and a chip of wood flew off and hit him in the face and he died, the carpenter is exempt. But if he entered the shop with permission, the carpenter is liable.


诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讬讬讘 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 讜驻讟讜专 诪讙诇讜转


The Gemara asks: What does the baraita mean when it rules that the carpenter is liable? Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina says: If the other person was injured, he is liable to pay four types of indemnity that one who injures another must pay. These are: Cost of the damage, pain, medical costs, and loss of livelihood. But if the one who entered was killed, he is exempt from exile.


诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讚讜诪讛 诇讬注专 讬注专 讝讛 诇专砖讜转讜 谞讻谞住 讜讝讛 诇专砖讜转讜 谞讻谞住 讝讛 诇专砖讜转 讞讘讬专讜 谞讻谞住


The Gemara explains that he is exempt because this case is not similar to the case of a forest, which is the archetypal case stated in the Torah requiring one who kills unintentionally to be exiled, as it is written: 鈥淎s when a man goes into the forest with his neighbor to chop wood, and his hand fetches a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slips off the helve, and finds his neighbor, and he dies鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:5). This is because in the case of the forest, both this one entered his domain and that one entered his domain, as anyone may use the public domain, whereas in this case, the victim entered another鈥檚 property. Therefore, the carpenter is not exiled.


讗诪专 专讘讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讬注专 讝讛 诇讚注转讜 谞讻谞住 讜讝讛 诇讚注转讜 谞讻谞住 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖谞讻谞住 诇讚注转 讞讘讬专讜 讜讙讜诇讛 讝讛 砖诇讚注转 讞讘讬专讜 谞讻谞住 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉


Rava said: On the contrary; it can be inferred a fortiori that he is exiled. And if in the case of the forest, where this one entered of his own accord and that one entered of his own accord, neither asking for the other鈥檚 permission, nevertheless the victim is considered like one who entered with the other鈥檚 consent and therefore the one who kills unintentionally is exiled, all the more so is it not clear that in this case, where the victim entered another鈥檚 workshop with his consent, the carpenter should be exiled?


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 驻讟讜专 诪讙诇讜转 讚诇讗 住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘讙诇讜转 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 诇讬讛 砖讜讙讙 拽专讜讘 诇诪讝讬讚


Rather, Rava said: What is the reason he is exempt from exile? As exile is not sufficient for him, and this is the reason of Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina, who exempts him from exile: Because it is an unintentional killing that is approaching intentional manslaughter. The purpose of exile is to atone for one who kills another completely unintentionally; if he was exceedingly negligent, exile is not sufficient to atone for him.


诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讛讜住讬祝 诇讜 专爪讜注讛 讗讞转 讜诪转 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讜诇讛 注诇 讬讚讜 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚砖讜讙讙 拽专讜讘 诇诪讝讬讚 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讘注讬 讗住讜拽讬 讗讚注转讬讛 讚诪讬讬转讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讘讞讚讗 专爪讜注讛 讜拽转谞讬 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讜诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讚讟注讬 讘诪谞讬谞讗


Rava raises an objection to his own explanation from a mishna: If one is sentenced to be flogged in court and the doctors assessed that he would be able to endure only a certain number of lashes, but the one administering the lashes added one lash to his punishment and he died, the agent of the court is exiled on account of him (Makkot 22b). But here, it is clear that it is a case of an unintentional killing that is approaching intentional manslaughter, as it should have entered his mind that people can die by one additional lash. And the tanna teaches that the agent of the court is exiled. Rav Shimi of Neharde鈥檃 said in response: It is a case where he erred in the counting, which is not considered approaching intentional manslaughter.


讟驻讞 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘住谞讚诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讟讜 讛讜讗 诪谞讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讙讚讜诇 砖讘讚讬讬谞讬谉 拽讜专讗 讜讛砖谞讬 诪讜谞讛 讜讛砖诇讬砖讬 讗讜诪专 讛讻讛讜


Rava slapped Rav Shimi on his sandal, a gesture of disparagement, and said to him: Is that to say that the one administering the lashes is the one who counts them? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that the eldest of the judges recites the verses that are read to a person while he receives lashes, and the second judge counts, and the third says to the one administering the lashes: Strike him? Accordingly, it is not the one administering the lashes who erred in counting.


讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讚讟注讛 讚讬讬谞讗 讙讜驻讬讛


Rather, Rav Shimi of Neharde鈥檃 said: It is a case where the judge himself erred in counting, and the one administering the lashes did not notice this error and meted out an extra lash, causing the person to die. It is therefore considered a completely unintentional killing. Consequently, he is exiled.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讝讜专拽 讗转 讛讗讘谉 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛专讙 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讜诇讛 讜讛讗 讛讻讗 讚砖讜讙讙 拽专讜讘 诇诪讝讬讚 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗住讜拽讬 讗讚注转讬讛 讚讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 砖讻讬讞讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讜拽转谞讬 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讜诇讛


The Gemara raises an objection from another mishna: With regard to one who throws a stone into the public domain and kills someone, he is exiled. But here, it is clear that it is a case of an unintentional killing that is approaching intentional manslaughter, as it should have entered his mind that people are commonly found in the public domain. And the tanna teaches that he is exiled.


讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讘住讜转专 讗转 讻讜转诇讜


Rav Shmuel bar Yitz岣k said: It is not a case where one threw a stone into the public domain for no purpose, but rather where he demolishes his wall, which borders on the public domain, and stones fall into the public domain. Therefore, it is not considered to be approaching intentional manslaughter.


讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 注讬讜谞讬 讘住讜转专 讘诇讬诇讛


The Gemara questions this assertion: Nevertheless, he should have paid attention to see if there was anyone there, and therefore it should be considered an unintentional killing that approaches intentional manslaughter. The Gemara answers: It is a case where he demolishes the wall at night.


讘诇讬诇讛 谞诪讬 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 注讬讜谞讬 讘住讜转专 讗转 讻讜转诇讜 讘讬讜诐 诇讗砖驻讛


The Gemara asks: Even at night, he should also have paid attention to see if there was anyone there. The Gemara suggests an alternative interpretation: It is a case where he demolishes his wall during the day into a garbage dump, where people are not commonly found.


讛讗讬 讗砖驻讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚砖讻讬讞讬 专讘讬诐 诪讝讬讚 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 专讘讬诐 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗


The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this garbage dump? If it is a garbage dump where the multitudes are commonly found, it is considered intentional manslaughter. And if the multitudes are not commonly found there, he should be considered not only one who kills unintentionally, but a victim of circumstances beyond his control, since he could not have anticipated that someone would be there. Therefore, he should be exempt from exile.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 [诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讗诇讗] 讘讗砖驻讛 讛注砖讜讬讛 诇讛驻谞讜转 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讗讬谞讛 注砖讜讬讛 诇讛驻谞讜转 讘讬讜诐 讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪讬拽专讬 讜讬转讬讘 诪讝讬讚 诇讗 讛讜讬 讚讛讗 讗讬谞讛 注砖讜讬讛 诇讛驻谞讜转 讘讬讜诐 讗谞讜住 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 讚讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讚诪讬拽专讬 讜讬转讬讘


Rav Pappa said: This halakha is necessary only in the case of a garbage dump where people are given to relieve themselves at night and are not given to relieve themselves during the day, as it is near the public domain. But there are those who chance by and sit there for this purpose even during the day. On the one hand, he is not one who kills intentionally, as people are not given to relieve themselves there during the day. On the other hand, he is not a victim of circumstances beyond his control either, as there are those who chance by and sit there. Therefore, he is considered one who kills unintentionally and is liable to be exiled.


专讘 驻驻讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗专讬砖讗 讛谞讻谞住 诇讞谞讜转讜 砖诇 谞讙专 砖诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讜谞转讝讛 诇讜 讘拽注转 讜讟驻讞讛 诇讜 注诇 驻谞讬讜 讜诪转 驻讟讜专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讞讬讬讘 讘讗专讘注讛 讚讘专讬诐 讜驻讟讜专 诪讙诇讜转


Rav Pappa taught in the name of Rava that this aforementioned statement of Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina is in reference not to the latter clause of the baraita but is in reference to the first clause: With regard to one who enters the workshop of a carpenter without permission, and a chip of wood flies off and strikes him in the face and he dies, the carpenter is exempt. In reference to this clause Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina says: If the one who entered was merely injured, the carpenter is liable to pay four types of indemnity. But if the one who entered was killed, he is exempt from exile.


诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗专讬砖讗 讜诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗专讬砖讗 讗讘诇 讗住讬驻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讘专砖讜转 讞讬讬讘 讙诇讜转


The Gemara comments: With regard to the one who teaches this statement in reference to the last clause of the baraita, where one enters with permission, all the more so would he teach it in reference to the first clause, where one enters without permission. But the one who teaches this statement in reference to the first clause teaches it only in reference to that clause. But in the case of the last clause, since he entered with permission the carpenter is liable to go into exile.


讜诪讬 讞讬讬讘 讙诇讜转 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛谞讻谞住 诇讞谞讜转讜 砖诇 谞驻讞 讜谞转讝讛 谞讬爪讜爪讜转 讜讟驻讞讛 诇讜 注诇 驻谞讬讜 讜诪转 驻讟讜专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 谞讻谞住 讘专砖讜转


The Gemara asks: But is he liable to go into exile when the victim had permission to enter? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that with regard to one who enters the workshop of a welder, and sparks [nitzotzot] fly off and strike him in his face and he dies, the welder is exempt, and this is the halakha even if the victim entered with permission?


讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘砖讜诇讬讗 讚谞驻讞讬 砖讜诇讬讗 讚谞驻讞讬 诇诪拽讟诇讗 拽讗讬 讻砖专讘讜 诪住专讛讘 讘讜 诇爪讗转 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讗


The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here, in this baraita? We are dealing with the welder鈥檚 apprentice who enters his workshop. The Gemara asks: Does the welder鈥檚 apprentice stand to be killed, i.e., is it permitted to kill him? The Gemara answers: It is a case where his mentor is urging him to leave, and he does not leave.


讜诪砖讜诐 讚专讘讜 诪住专讛讘 讘讜 诇爪讗转 诇诪讬拽讟诇讬讛 拽讗讬 讻住讘讜专 讬爪讗 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讞专 谞诪讬


The Gemara asks: And because his mentor is urging him to leave, does he stand to be killed? The welder should be careful until his apprentice leaves. The Gemara answers: The welder thought that he had already left when the accident happened. The Gemara asks: If so, why establish that the baraita refers specifically to an apprentice? The welder would be exempt if it were any other person also.


Scroll To Top