Bava Kamma 27b — the Talmud in English

Therefore

this teaches us

the tanna: there is no need to be concerned about this, because monetary matters do not follow the majority.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And another came, encountered it, and broke it—he is exempt”:

And the Gemara asks:

“Why,”

why is the one who encountered the barrel and damaged it

“exempt?”

After all,

“he should have”

“looked,”

looked along his path

, and gone,

and thus continued walking, and if he did not look before walking, he is one who causes damage, and he should be liable to pay the value of the barrels that he broke.

And the Gemara brings several answers.

1.

The students

said

in the house of

the study hall of

Rav,

to explain

in the name of Rav:

Our Mishna is dealing

with

a person who

fills

the

entire public domain

with

barrels,

in such a manner that it is impossible to pass through the public domain without encountering the barrels. Therefore, one who encounters these barrels and breaks them is exempt, because the owner of the barrels was negligent and caused his own damage. 2.

Shmuel said:

There is no need to establish the case as one who fills the public domain with barrels; rather, even [the case of] a single barrel, if it is situated in the public domain

in darkness,

so that it can be noticed only through much observation—regarding this

they taught

in the Mishna that one who encounters it is exempt, because he is compelled in his encountering it.

3.

Rabbi Yohanan said:

The Mishna is dealing with a barrel situated

at the corner

of the public domain, where the one who encounters it is compelled, and he is exempt for breaking it.

Rav Pappa said: “The wording of the Mishna is not precise,”

the wording of the Mishna does not accord with Rav’s explanation, who interpreted it as referring to one who encounters barrels filling the public domain, since it is impossible to notice it when a person leaves from one side of the public domain and turns sideways at a corner, to his right or to his left,

but

it is possible to interpret the Mishna only

either according to Shmuel,

who interprets it as one who encounters a barrel situated in darkness,

or according to Rabbi Yohanan,

who establishes it as a barrel situated at a corner.

Because

if

we interpret that our Mishna is dealing with one who encounters barrels filling the public domain,

as

the interpretation of

Rav,

the wording of the Mishna “And another came and encountered it” would present a difficulty:

“Why specifically”

why did the tanna need to say

“encountered,”

for

even

if he

broke

it intentionally,

also he is exempt, since the members of the public domain are permitted to clear a path for themselves on which to walk.

be exempt, since people in the public domain are permitted to clear a path for themselves to walk through?

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava:

There is no proof from the fact that “encountered” and not “broke” was mentioned in the Mishna that it is not according to Rav’s interpretation, because Rav can explain that

“the same law applies that even”

if he

broke

it intentionally, he is exempt.

And this that

is difficult to you—why

does it teach

“another came and

‘encountered’

it,” and not “broke” it?

The

answer to this is:

since he needed

since the tanna needed

to teach

the law brought in the

latter clause, “And if the owner of the barrel was injured by it, he is liable for his injury,”

and in this law the rule is

that specifically the one who

encountered the barrel

encountered

it under compulsion—the owner of the barrel is liable for his injury,

but

if he

broke

it intentionally, even though he broke it permissibly, such as when the public domain was full of barrels, nevertheless, if he was injured by the shards when he broke the barrel,

not

is the owner of the barrel liable for his injury.

What is the reason?

Because the one who broke the barrel

“is the one who injured himself.”

Therefore,

it teaches

also in the

first clause “encountered”

and did not break it intentionally.

Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi: “This is what they say in the West”

—this is what they said in the Land of Israel—

in the name of Rabbi Ulla:

What is the reason that one who encounters a barrel placed in the public domain is exempt?

“Because”

“it is not the way of people to look along roads,”

therefore, one who places his barrel in the public domain is called negligent, and the one who breaks it is exempt.

There was an incident

an incident occurred

in Nehardea,

in which a person stumbled over a barrel that had been placed in the public domain and broke it,

and Samuel obligated

the one who stumbled to pay the value of the barrel.

And likewise it occurred

in Pumbedita, and Rava obligated

the one who stumbled to pay the value of the barrel.

And now the Gemara discusses:

Granted, Samuel

obligated the one who stumbled, because he interprets what is brought in the Mishna, “And another came and stumbled over it and broke it, he is exempt”

in accordance with his teaching,

according to his position, that our Mishna is speaking of a barrel placed in darkness, where the one who stumbled over it is compelled.

But Rava,

who obligated the one who stumbled over a barrel and broke it to pay the value of the barrel,

let us say that he holds in accordance with Samuel,

can one infer from this that Rava’s opinion is like Samuel’s, and not like Ulla, who exempts the one who stumbles in every case?

Rav Pappa said:

No! Rava held like Ulla, that it is not the way of people to look carefully at the roads.

And as for what we found, that Rava obligated him to pay the value of the barrel, that incident occurred with a barrel that stood at

the corner of the oil press;

at a corner adjacent to the olive press,

, since they would place [them] in the public domain,

for such was their practice: when it was impossible to enter with the barrels into the olive press, those coming would leave their barrels in the public domain outside the olive press. And since this was their practice, the jar was found there with permission. And

it was incumbent upon him

for one walking in the area of the olive press

to look carefully

on the road

and

to

go.

And since he did not take care, Rava obligated him.

Rav Hisda sent to Rav Nahman: They said,

the Sages, that

one who

strikes his fellow with

his knee,

with the knee of the one kicking, must pay

three

sela for the value of his humiliation.

And

one who gives his fellow

a kick

with his foot, the Sages instituted that he pay

five

sela, because the humiliation caused by a kick is greater than the humiliation of a strike with the knee.

And

one who strikes his fellow with

a slap,

a donkey’s saddle, the Sages instituted that he pay

thirteen

sela.

But

one who

strikes his fellow with

the handle of a hoe,

the handle of the hoe with which they dig in the ground,

and

one who strikes

with the blade-socket of a hoe,

the iron into which the handle is inserted, the Sages did not establish a measure of how much the striker must pay, and Rav Hisda was uncertain:

what

is the amount that he is liable to pay?

He sent to him

Rav Nahman:

Hisda, Hisda,

and is

a fine

being collected in Babylonia!?

The payment for humiliation is in the category of a “fine,” since it comes in addition to payment for damage, and it is an established principle for us that a fine is collected only by an ordained court, and such courts existed only in the Land of Israel, and not in Babylonia. If so, the question does not concern practical halakha.

Tell me

tell me

the body of the incident—how did it occur,

how did this incident occur, in which one struck his fellow with the handle and blade-socket of a hoe, so that I will know how to rule in this matter.

He sent to him

Rav Hisda: This is how the incident occurred:

there was a certain well,

a water pit,

belonging to two,

which belonged to two people,

for every day one of them would draw,

each day one of them would, in turn, draw water from the well.

One came and drew water on the day that was not his,

one of them drew water on the day designated for his fellow.

His fellow said to him:

his fellow:

It is my day,

this day is my right to use the well, and you have no permission to draw.

Nevertheless, the other continued to draw water, and

he paid no attention to him,

to his fellow’s protest.

And in response to this,

he took the handle of a hoe,

he took a hoe handle and

struck him,

he struck him so that he would stop drawing water.

Rav Nahman said to him:

In this case, the striker is not obligated to pay for the humiliation that he caused his fellow; on the contrary, even if he wishes to strike him

with one hundred blows with the handle, let him strike him,

he is permitted to do so initially!

For

even according to the one who says, “A person does not administer justice for himself,”

that it is forbidden for a person to administer justice on his own, this applies only when waiting for a court’s ruling concerning his matter will not cause him a loss.

But

in a case

where, if he waits until the court rules for him, he will come to

a loss,

according to everyone,

a person administers justice for himself,

he is permitted to administer justice on his own.

And therefore it was permitted to strike the one who drew water at a time when the right to draw belonged to his fellow, since if his fellow had been required to wait until the court compelled him, the water might have run out of the well and he would have come to a loss.

And we find a dispute of amoraim concerning this:

For it was stated: Rav Yehuda said, a person does not administer judgment for himself.

But

Rav Naḥman said, a person does administer judgment for himself.

And the Gemara explains:

Where there is a loss,

in a case where, if he does not administer judgment for himself, he will suffer monetary loss,

everyone agrees,

there is no dispute in this matter,

that a person does administer judgment for himself

and he is not required to sue the one who caused the damage in court.

When they disagree

is with regard to what Rav Yehuda and Rav Naḥman disagree:

where

if he sues the one who caused the damage in court,

there is no loss,

the injured party will not come to a loss.

Rav Yehuda said,

in this case

a person does not administer judgment for himself,

and the reason is:

since there is no loss

from waiting, he must

go before the judge

to go and sue the one who caused the damage in court, and not administer judgment for himself.

And

Rav Naḥman said,

even when waiting does not cause the injured party a loss,

a person does administer judgment for himself, since

the injured party knows that the decision will be in his favor, and

when he is acting according to the law, he need not trouble himself,

he is not required to trouble himself to sue the one who caused the damage in court.

Rav Kahana raised an objection: Ben Bag Bag says,

one who sees his utensils in his fellow’s courtyard and wishes to enter the courtyard to take them, they say to him:

Do not enter your fellow’s courtyard to take what is yours,

secretly,

without the permission

of the owner of the courtyard,

lest you appear to him as a thief; rather,

enter openly and forcefully, and

break his teeth,

and say to him,

“The utensils

that are mine I am taking!”

It is explained in the words of Ben Bag Bag that a person can administer judgment for himself even where he has no loss in waiting for the court’s judgment, in accordance with Rav Naḥman.

He said to him

Rav Yehuda to Rav Kahana: