Bava Kamma 26b (כו:) — the Talmud in English

Apply medicine to

b. And if

he recognized it

at the outset as a stone that was in his lap,

and

then

forgot it, stood up, and it fell;

the laws are as follows:

With regard to damages: he is liable,

for if he recognized it, all the more so is he liable.

With regard to the four types of indemnity: he is exempt,

because although he recognized it initially, forgetting it is not considered negligence sufficient to render him liable as one who is close to intentional action.

With regard to exile: he is liable, for

the verse

says: “

Unintentionally,”

which indicates that he had prior knowledge; and here too he had prior knowledge.

That is: Since he had knowledge of it initially, this is included in the category of “unintentional” for which the Torah requires exile.

With regard to Shabbat: he is exempt,

because although he recognized it, this is not “constructive labor.”

With regard to a slave: it is the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

and the Rabbis,

for ultimately he acted unintentionally, even though he had recognized it initially.

c. And if

he intended to throw it two

cubits, and did not intend to perform through this throwing any of the actions mentioned,

but threw it four

cubits, and through this one of the actions mentioned was performed:

With regard to damages:

he is all the more so

liable.

With regard to the four types of indemnity: he is exempt.

With regard to Shabbat:

he is exempt, for

“constructive

labor”

is required,

and even if, when he threw it, he said, “Let it come to rest wherever you wish,” and it came to rest at the end of four cubits—for his primary intention, namely, to throw it two cubits, was not an intention to perform a prohibited labor.

With regard to exile:

With regard to exile: he is exempt, because it is stated [Exodus 21:12]: “One who strikes a man and he dies shall surely be put to death. But one who did not lie in wait [did not ambush him and did not intend to kill him], and the Almighty caused it to come to his hand [arranged that a person should die through him], I shall designate for you a place to which he shall flee”

It follows that

“

one who did not lie in wait”

the Merciful One declared liable to exile; that is, he had no intention at all toward the side of the murdered person. And from this we learn:

excluding one who intended to throw it two

toward the murdered person

but threw it four,

who is not exempt from exile.

With regard to a slave: it is the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis,

and according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel he is exempt, since he did not intend to destroy the eye.

d. And if he intended

to throw it four

cubits

but threw it eight

cubits:

With regard to damages, he is liable,

as in the case of one who intended to throw it two and threw it four.

With regard to the four types of indemnity: he is exempt,

as in the case of one who intended to throw it two and threw it four.

With regard to Shabbat

the law is divided:

If he says: “

Let it come to rest wherever you wish,”

no,

indeed, he is liable, because there is “constructive labor” here, since he intended to throw it four cubits, which is a prohibited labor. But

if he did not

say, “Let it come to rest wherever you wish,”

he is not

liable.

With regard to exile: “

one who did not lie in wait,”

excluding one who intended to throw it four but threw it eight,

as in the case of one who intended to throw it two and threw it four.

With regard to a slave: it is the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben

Gamliel and the Rabbis,

as in the case of one who intended to throw it two and threw it four.

And

he

Rabba

further said:

If

a person

threw a vessel

belonging to him

from the roof

and it would break when it reached the ground,

but another person came and broke it with a stick

before it reached the ground:

The one who broke it

is exempt

from paying.

What is the reason?

Because

he broke a broken vessel

—[it was] a broken vessel that he broke; that is, it was destined to break.

And

he also

And

a person

threw a vessel

belonging to another

from the roof, and beneath it were

at the time it would have broken

pillows or cushions,

so that if it reached the ground it would not break,

but another person came and removed them,

the pillows and cushions, before the vessel reached them, and the vessel fell to the ground and broke,

or

even if

the thrower

himself

removed them first,

the thrower is

exempt.

What is the reason

for the thrower’s exemption? Because

at the time he threw it, his arrows were interrupted

—[at the time of the throwing, his arrows were interrupted and prevented from causing damage]; that is, as a result of his throwing, the vessel would not ultimately break until the pillows were removed. The one who removed them is not liable either, since he did not throw the vessel; his action was merely indirect causation.

And

he also

And

Rabba further said: A person threw a baby from the roof

and another person came and caught him

—while he was in the air—

with a sword,

and he died from the sword; the law of the one who killed him with the sword depends on the

dispute between Rabbi Yehuda ben

Beteira and the Rabbis.

As it was taught in a beraita: If ten people struck a person with ten sticks,

and the blow of each one was sufficient to kill,

whether

they struck him

simultaneously, or whether

they struck him

one after the other: