Commentary for Bava Metzia 164:5

למימרא דסבר ר' מאיר נתקל לאו פושע הוא והתניא נשברה כדו ולא סילקו נפלה גמלו ולא העמידה רבי מאיר מחייב בהזיקן וחכמים אומרים פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים וקיימא לן דבנתקל פושע פליגי

But it has been taught: If his pitcher was broken, and he did not remove it; or if his camel fell down, and he did not raise it up — R. Meir holds him liable for any damage they may cause; whilst the Sages rule: He is exempt by laws of man, but liable by the laws of Heaven;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.K. 29a. ');">⁸</span> and it is an established fact that they differ on the question whether stumbling amounts to negligence!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Meir maintains that it does; consequently, if his pitcher broke — due to his stumbling or any other similar cause — he is culpably negligent. and therefore liable for damages. Thus this contradicts his ruling in the Mishnah! ');">⁹</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 164:5. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.