Bava Kamma 30a — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara raises an objection:

But Rabbi Elazar did say! ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

in the name of Rabbi Yishmael:

Two things are not in a person's possession, and Scripture treats him as though they were in his possession; and one of them is a pit in the public domain. And it is proven that one who abandons his hazards is liable.

And the Gemara answers:

It is not difficult. This one is his own,

he himself held that one who abandons his hazards is exempt. And

this

from which it is implied through his words that one who abandons his hazards is liable, this is what he stated in the name of

his teacher,

Rabbi Yishmael.

Mishna:

One who pours water in the public domain,

and another was injured by it,

the one who poured it

is liable for his damage.

One who conceals a thorn and glass

in the public domain,

and one who fences his fence with thorns

when the thorns protrude into the public domain.

And

also,

a fence that fell into the public domain, and others were injured by it, he is liable for their damage.

Gemara:

Rav said:

This that we say: one who pours water in the public domain and another was injured by it is liable for his damage,

they taught this

they said so

only

at a time when

the damaged person's utensils became soiled

by the water

with water,

for then the owner of the water is liable for them under the law of his property that causes damage [under the law of an ox]. And this refers to a case in which the owner of the water did not abandon his water.

But

if

he himself

was injured, for example, he stumbled on the water and struck the ground,,

the one who poured it

is exempt,

because

the ground

of

the world caused his injury,

and the Torah made him liable under the law of a pit only when he was injured because of the pit itself. And in the Gemara above [28b] it is brought that Shmuel disagrees, and explains the Mishna as referring to damage to a person and not to damage to utensils, since we learned every obstacle from his pit, and a pit is exempt concerning utensils.

Rav Huna said to Rav:

Since according to your words this refers to one who did not abandon his water, it follows that the water that mixed with the earth and became mud still belongs to him, and if so

shall it not be

the status of the mud

only like his refuse,

just as one who throws refuse into the public domain and does not abandon it is liable for its damage, so too the owner of the water should be liable for the damage of the mud formed from his water.

And Rav answered Rav Huna:

Do you think

that you think the Mishna is speaking in a case

where the water did not run out,

and water remained mixed with the earth? No, the Mishna is dealing with one who pours water into the public domain, and

where the water did run out,

and one slipped at the place where the water was poured, which remained slippery even after the water was absorbed into the ground.

And

the Gemara raises an objection:

Why do I need two [teachings]!?

For what purpose did the Mishna repeat this law? It was already stated above: “His jug broke in the public domain, and one slipped in the water or was injured by the shards,” and Rav explained it as referring to a case where his utensils were damaged by the water, and he is liable under the law of an ox. And the Gemara answers: The Mishna needed to repeat this halakha,

one

for an obstacle that he placed

during the summer,

when he has no permission to do so.

And one

for an obstacle

during the rainy season,

when, although he has permission to do so, he is liable.

For it was taught in a beraita: All those concerning whom [the Sages] said

Sages

open

the

their gutters,

they open the pipe that leads out the liquids outside the house,

and sweep

into the public domain the refuse that accumulates inside

their caves—

During the summer they have no permission

to do so,

because he damages the public domain,

but during the rainy season they have permission.

And even though

they took it out

with permission, if they caused damage they must pay.

то, что мы говорим: если он оградил свое ограждение колючками, он обязан,

We learned in the Mishna:

One who conceals the thorn

and so on:

Rabbi Yohanan said:

This that we say, that if he fenced with thorns he is liable,

they taught this only

in a case of

projecting,

where he extended the thorns toward the public domain, in the place where people walk, and they are liable to be injured by them.

But

if they did not extend into the public domain, and the one who fenced was

receding,

he set the fence slightly inward into his domain, so that the place where the thorns protrude is within his domain,

he is exempt.

не прислоняются к стенам.

What is the reason that he is exempt?

Rav Acha, son of Rav Ika, said: Because people do not ordinarily

who walk in the public domain

rub against walls.

— свои колючки, и свое стекло в стене своего товарища, без ведома владельца стены,

The Sages taught:

A person

who conceals his thorns,

his thorns,

and his glass, inside his fellow's wall,

without the knowledge of the owner of the wall,

and the owner of the

wall

came, and demolished his wall, and it fell

the wall together with the thorns and glass

into the public domain, and they caused damage,

the thorns

the one who concealed them is liable,

for he should have anticipated that when the owner of the wall demolishes his wall, the thorns and glass would scatter and injure the public. But the owner of the wall is exempt, since the one who concealed them is considered the owner of the obstacle.

Rabbi Yohanan said,

this that we learned, that the one who concealed them is liable,

they taught this only

when he concealed them

in a weak wall,

which was standing to fall, and he should have anticipated that the wall was about to be demolished and the thorns would fall into the public domain, and it is forbidden to conceal them there.

But in a sound wall, the one who concealed them is exempt,

because he is not required to anticipate that perhaps the wall will be demolished,

and the owner of the wall is liable

to remove the thorns and glass after they fell; and if he had time to remove them and did not remove them, he is liable.

Ravina said, this indicates

that we learn from here that

one who covers

his

pit with his fellow's buckets,

without his consent,

and the owner of the

bucket

came and took

his

buckets, is liable

the owner of the pit,

because he knows that when the owner of the bucket wants his buckets, he will come and take them, and it follows that from the outset he did not cover his pit properly.

And the Gemara was astonished:

Is it obvious!?

And the Gemara answers:

You might say: there,

with regard to one who concealed his thorns, the reason that the owner of the wall is exempt

, it

is

because he did not know of it

that he had thorns inside his wall;

for had he informed him, so as to inform the owner of the thorns to take them before he demolishes his wall. Therefore, the one who concealed them must take into account that the owner of the wall will demolish his wall with the thorns inside it.

чтобы уведомить владельца колючек и тот забрал их до того, как владелец стены разрушит свою стену. Поэтому тот, кто спрятал колючки, должен был принять во внимание, что владелец стены разрушит свою стену вместе с находящимися внутри колючками.

But here,

when he covers his pit with another’s buckets,

for

the owner of the bucket

knew of it,

that there was a pit beneath the bucket, I would have said that

he should have informed him

the owner of the pit before he takes his buckets.

It teaches us,

that the owner of the bucket is permitted to take his buckets and does not need to inform the owner of the pit, and the owner of the pit is liable.

The Sages taught: The early pious ones used to conceal

their

thorns and their glass, inside

the soil of

their fields,

so that they could never cause damage.

And they would make them three handbreadths deep, so that they would not impede

the

plow.

Rav Sheshet threw them into the fire,

he threw them into the fire.

Rava threw them into the Tigris,

he threw them into the Tigris River.

Rav Yehuda said: One who wishes to be pious

—one who wishes to be called pious—

should fulfill matters of damages.

Rava said,

one who wishes to be called pious must fulfill

matters of the Fathers.

And some say,

he must be exact with

matters of blessings.

Mishna:

One who takes out his straw [

the grain remaining from the sheaves after threshing]

and stubble [

what remains attached to the ground after reaping]

into the public domain

so that they become

manure

when they decay,

and another was harmed by them, he is liable for his damage.

The reason is explained in the Gemara: even at the time when manure is taken out, it is not permitted to take out straw and stubble, since they are especially slippery; but it is permitted to take out manure that is not slippery at the time when manure is taken out.

.

And whoever is first

to acquire

them acquires them,

because the Sages penalized one who leaves an obstacle in the public domain.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says:

It is not only one who takes out straw and stubble who is liable, but

all those who cause damage in the public domain and cause harm,

such as one who takes out manure at the time when manure is taken out,

are liable to pay. And whoever is first to acquire them acquires them.

One who turns over the dung,

the dung of cattle lying ownerless

in the public domain,

acquires it and it is his,

and

if

another was harmed by it,

the one who turned it over

is liable

for its damage.

Gemara:

It was stated in the Mishna: One who takes out his straw and stubble into the public domain for manure, and another was harmed by them, is liable.

And the Gemara discusses this:

Let us say that our Mishna is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says:

It is the way of people to transfer manure that accumulated during the rainy season in the courtyard to the field, in order to improve the soil.

And at the time of taking out

the

manure

from the courtyard to the field,

a person takes out his manure into the public domain and gathers it

he collects it

every thirty days,

from the time of taking it out,

so that it will be trampled by the feet of people and the feet of animals,

and will be fit for fertilizing.

For on this condition Joshua distributed the Land.

It follows from Rabbi Yehuda’s words that one who takes out his manure at the time when manure is taken out, if it causes damage, is exempt, whereas the Mishna did not distinguish between one who takes it out at the time when manure is taken out and one who takes it out at a time other than the time of taking it out; it follows that in every case the one who takes it out is liable.

And the Gemara rejects this: The Mishna can in fact be speaking even of one who took out his straw and stubble with permission, such as at the time when manure is taken out, and

even if you say,

say that our Mishna is also

Rabbi Yehuda’s,

there is no difficulty, since

Rabbi Yehuda agrees that if it causes damage, he pays for what he damaged,

despite having permission to do so.

And the Gemara is astonished:

But did we not learn: Rabbi Yehuda says,

a camel laden with flax that passed beside a shop whose lamp was burning at its entrance, and the flax caught fire, the owner of the lamp is liable to pay. But if the flax was burned

by a Hanukkah lamp,

the owner of the lamp is

exempt, because it is

burning there

with permission.

Is it not so

that Rabbi Yehuda’s intention in exempting him “because it is with permission” is

because

he has

the permission of the court

to place the lamp in the public domain? It follows that one who places an obstacle in the public domain with the permission of the court, if a person is injured by it, the one who placed it is exempt. And how did the Gemara state that Rabbi Yehuda concedes that one who places an obstacle with the permission of the court, if it causes damage, is liable?

The Gemara answers:

No,

Rabbi Yehuda does not intend that one who places a Hanukkah lamp is exempt for its damages because it is with the permission of the court, but

because of the permission of a mitzva,

since it is a mitzva to place a Hanukkah lamp in the public domain.

as

for it was taught: Rabbi Yehuda says: In the case of a Hanukkah lamp, he is exempt because it is the permission of a mitzva.

And in a place where there is a mitzva to place fire in the public domain, if a person is injured by it, the one who placed it is exempt. This is not so with one who places an obstacle in the public domain at the time of taking out refuse: even though he is permitted to take it out, if a person is injured by it, he is liable.

And the Gemara once again brings proof that Rabbi Yehuda also exempts one who places an obstacle with the permission of the court.

Come and hear: All those whom they said are permitted to damage in the public domain,

such as those who open their sewers and sweep out their caves,

if they caused damage, are liable to pay. But Rabbi Yehuda exempts.

And if so, it follows that our Mishna, which made one who took out his straw and hay for refuse and they caused damage liable, is not according to Rav Yehuda.

The Gemara rejects this:

Rav Naḥman said:

Rabbi Yehuda is speaking of one who takes out his straw and hay at the time of taking out refuse, when he was permitted to do so; therefore, if a person was injured by them, he is exempt from its damages.

But in

the Mishna

it is speaking of one who takes out his straw and hay

not at the time of taking out refuse,

when he has no permission to do so,

and

if so, our Mishna is also according to

Rabbi Yehuda,

since Rabbi Yehuda too concedes that one who takes something out not at the time of taking out refuse is liable.