Commentary for Bava Kamma 95:19

ואזדו לטעמייהו דאמר רבא ואיתימא רב פפא

or the owner of the premises suffers injury through him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. the trespasser, by stumbling over him. ');">²⁸</span> there would be liability;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Upon the trespasser. ');">²⁹</span> and if the owner of the premises injured him, there would be no liability. R. Papa thereupon said: This ruling applies only where the owner had not noticed him. For if he had noticed him, the owner of the premises by injuring him would render himself liable, as the trespasser would be entitled to say to him: 'Though you have the right to eject me, you have no right to injure me.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 124. ');">³⁰</span> These authorities<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. Raba and R. Papa. ');">³¹</span> followed the line of reasoning [adopted by them elsewhere], for Raba or, as others read, R. Papa stated:

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 95:19. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.