Commentary for Bava Kamma 111:24

הוציאוה לסטים לסטים חייבין:

and that even according to the judgments of Heaven he should not be liable. It was therefore indicated to us [that this is not the case]. IF THE WALL BROKE DOWN AT NIGHT OR IF ROBBERS BROKE IN etc., Rabbah said: This<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Exemption. ');">²²</span> is so only where the animal undermined the wall. What then of the case where it did not undermine the wall?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which fell down of itself. ');">²³</span> Would there then be liability? Under what circumstances? If it be assumed that the wall was sound, why then even where it did not undermine it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which fell down of itself. ');">²³</span> should there be liability? What else could the defendant have done? But if, on the other hand, the wall was shaky, why even in the case where the animal undermined it should there be exemption? Is not this a case where there is negligence<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To leave an animal behind a shaky wall which could not withstand a normal wind. ');">²⁴</span> at the beginning but [damage results from] accident<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that the animal broke through it. ');">²⁵</span> at the end? Your view is correct enough on the assumption<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 21b. ');">²⁶</span> that where there is negligence at the beginning [and damage results through] accident at the end there is exemption, but if we take the view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 21b. ');">²⁶</span> that where there is negligence at the beginning though [damage results from] accident at the end there is liability, what can be said? — This ruling of the Mishnah therefore refers to a sound wall and even to a case where it did not undermine the wall.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 327, n. 6. ');">²⁷</span> For the statement of Rabbah was made with reference to [the ruling in] the concluding clause, IF THE OWNER HAD LEFT THEM IN A SUNNY PLACE OR HANDED THEM OVER TO THE CARE OF A DEAF-MUTE, AN IDIOT OR A MINOR AND THEY GOT AWAY AND DID DAMAGE, HE WOULD BE LIABLE. Rabbah thereupon said: This would be so even where it undermined the wall. For there would be no doubt that [this would be so] where it did not undermine the wall<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But managed to escape through the door. ');">²⁸</span> as there was negligence throughout, but even where it did undermine the wall,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was very sound. ');">²⁹</span> the ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of liability. ');">³⁰</span> would also hold good. You might have said [in that case, that where it undermined the wall]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was very sound. ');">²⁹</span> it should be regarded as a case of negligence at the beginning but accident at the end.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 327, n. 8. ');">³¹</span> It was therefore indicated to us<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By Rabbah. ');">³²</span> that [it is regarded as a case of] negligence throughout, the reason being that the plaintiff might say, 'You should surely have realised that since you left it in a sunny place, it will use every possible device for the purpose of getting out. IF THE ROBBERS TOOK THEM OUT, THE ROBBERS WOULD BE LIABLE [FOR THE DAMAGE].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 324, n. 4. ');">³³</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 111:24. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.