Bava Kamma 26b — the Talmud in English

And we explain further:

From where are these words derived—

that a person is liable for all these?

He said:

He explained:

Hezekiah, and likewise the tanna of the school of Hezekiah

—and so they learned in his academy—that it is derived from this, that

the verse says: “

For when men quarrel ...

a wound for a wound,”

and it is a superfluous verse, for it was already stated: “And if a man gives a blemish to his fellow, as he did, so shall it be done to him”; and it comes to teach

to make him liable for the inadvertent as for the deliberate, and for the coerced as for the willing.

And we object:

But this

verse of “a wound for a wound”

is needed

in order to teach:

to impose pain in a case of damage,

so that it should not be said: The Torah imposed liability for pain only where there is no damage, but when there is damage, he is not liable to pay for pain.

And we answer:

If so—

that the verse came only to include pain—

let the verse write: a wound

for a wound; what is “

under”

a wound? Learn from it two things:

pain in a case of damage, and a person who damages under coercion is liable for damage but not for the four matters.

Rabba said

He stated halakhic rulings in different circumstances in which the person did not intend for what occurred, and with regard to different laws: A. If

a stone was lying in his lap, and he did not recognize it

[he never knew that it was in his lap],

and he stood, and it fell

from his lap unintentionally, the law in this matter differs:

With regard to damages,

if it damaged the person or the property: he is

liable,

as is explained in our Mishna, that a person who damages is liable even in a case of inadvertence and coercion.

With regard to the four matters,

if the stone fell and injured a person: he is

exempt,

for he is liable for them only in a case of deliberate action or something close to deliberate action.

With regard to Shabbat,

if it carried it four cubits in the public domain, or if it made a wound when it fell: he is exempt from a sin-offering, for a person is liable for performing labor on Shabbat in a case of inadvertence—and because

intentional labor

the Torah prohibited,

that is, he intended to perform labor, but was inadvertent concerning it, for he thought that this labor was permitted or did not know that today was Shabbat; but one who did not intend to perform labor is not included within intentional labor.

With regard to exile,

if it killed a person [for one who kills inadvertently is exiled]: he is

exempt—

because it is stated [Numbers 35:11]: “And you shall designate for yourselves cities; cities of refuge shall they be for you, and there shall flee there the murderer who strikes a person inadvertently”; and “inadvertence” is applied only when he had knowledge at the outset,

whereas this person never knew that he had a stone in his lap.

With regard to a slave,

a Canaanite slave, if it fell from the master’s lap and knocked out the slave’s tooth or blinded his eye [by which the slave goes free]: this depends upon the

dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis,

who disagreed concerning a master who knocked out his slave’s tooth or blinded his slave’s eye unintentionally, whether the slave goes free because of this—

and as

it was taught in a beraita: If his master was a physician, and he said to him—

the slave—“

Apply medicine

to my

eye,” and the master

blinded it

while applying medicine to his eye, unintentionally; or the slave said to him: “

Extract my tooth,” and the master

knocked it out

while extracting it, this slave

outwitted the master, and went out

the slave

to freedom;

and here too he goes free according to their view.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

Since it is written [Exodus 21:26]: “And if a man strikes the eye of his slave or the eye of his maidservant and destroys it, he shall send him free for his eye,” we learn from the wording of the verse: “

and destroys it,”

until he intends

the master

to destroy it;

and according to his view, here too, with regard to the stone, he does not go free, since he did not intend.

B. And if

he recognized it

from the outset as a stone that was in his bosom,

and

then

he again forgot it, stood up, and it fell;

the laws are as follows:

Regarding damages: he is liable,

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

Regarding the four matters: he is exempt,

for although he initially recognized it, the forgetting is not considered negligence, to make him liable as one close to intentional.

Regarding exile: he is liable, for

it

the verse says: “

in error,”

which indicates that there had been knowledge, and here there had been knowledge

, meaning: since he had knowledge at the outset, this is included in “error” for which the Torah made him liable to exile.

Regarding Shabbat: he is exempt,

for although he recognized it, this is not “thoughtful labor.”

Regarding a slave: it is the dispute of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

and the Rabbis,

for in the end he acted unintentionally, even though he initially recognized it.

C. And if

he intended to throw it two

cubits, and he did not intend to perform through this throwing one of the matters mentioned,

and he threw it four

cubits, and through this one of the matters mentioned came about:

Regarding damages:

all the more so is he

liable.

Regarding the four matters: he is exempt.

Regarding Shabbat:

he is exempt, for

thoughtful

labor

we require,

and even if, when he threw it, he said, “Wherever you wish, come to rest,” and it came to rest at the end of four [cubits], for his principal thought—that it should be thrown two cubits—is not a thought for [performing] labor.

Regarding 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 he who did not lie in wait [did not ambush him and did not intend] and the Almighty caused it to come to his hand [arranged that a person should die through his hand], I shall set aside for you a place to which he shall flee.” -

For it follows that “

who did not lie in wait”

the Merciful One said

that he is liable to exile, and this means that he did not intend at all for the side of the murdered person; and we learn from this:

excluding one who intended to throw it two

toward the side of the murdered person

and threw it four,

who is not exempt through exile.

Regarding a slave: it is the dispute of 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,

and threw it eight

cubits:

Regarding damages, he is liable,

as in the case of intending [to throw it] two and throwing it four.

Regarding the four matters: he is exempt,

as in the case of intending [to throw it] two and throwing it four.

Regarding Shabbat

the law is divided:

when he says: “

Wherever you wish, come to rest,”

no,

indeed he is liable, because there is “thoughtful labor” here, since he intended to throw it four cubits, which is labor; but

if not

he said, “Wherever you wish, come to rest,”

he is not

liable.

Regarding exile: “

who did not lie in wait,”

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

as in the case of intending [to throw it] two and throwing it four.

Regarding a slave: it is the dispute of Rabban Shimon ben

Gamliel and the Rabbis,

as in the case of intending [to throw it] two and throwing it four.

And

further

Rabba said:

If

a person threw

a

vessel

belonging to him

from the top of the roof,

and when it reaches the ground it will break,

and another came and broke it with a stick

before it reached the ground:

Thus the one who broke it is

exempt

from paying.

What is the reason?

Because

he broke a broken vessel

[a broken vessel he broke], meaning: it was destined to break.

And

further

Rabba said: A person threw

a

vessel

belonging to another

from the top of the roof, and beneath it were

at the time of the breaking

pillows or cushions

in such a way that if it reached the ground it would not break,

and another came and removed them

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

or

even if

the thrower

himself

went ahead and removed them,

the thrower is

exempt.

What is the reason

the thrower is exempt? Because

at the time that he threw it, his arrows were cut off

[at the time of the throwing his arrows were interrupted and prevented from causing damage], meaning: because of his throwing, the vessel is not destined to break until the pillows are removed; and the one who removed them also cannot be held liable, for he did not throw the vessel, but merely caused it indirectly.

And

further

Rabba said: [If one] threw an infant from the top of the roof

in such a manner that when he reached the ground he would die,

and another came and caught him

while he was in the air

with a sword,

and he died because of the sword, the law of the one who killed him with the sword depends on the

dispute of Rabbi Yehuda ben

Beteira and the Rabbis.

For it was taught in a beraita: Ten people struck him with ten sticks,

and there was enough in the blow of each one of them to kill,

whether

they struck him

all at once, whether

they struck him

one after the other: