Reference for Bava Kamma 54:17
א"ל
Tell me the actual circumstances of the case as it occurred.' He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hisda. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> thereupon dispatched him thus: There was a well belonging to two persons. It was used by them on alternate days.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. B.B. 13a. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> One of them, however, came and used it on a day not his. The other party said to him: 'This day is mine!' But as the latter paid no heed to that, he took a blade of a hoe and struck him with it. R. Nahman thereupon replied: No harm if he would have struck him a hundred times with the blade of the hoe. For even according to the view that a man may not take the law in his own hands<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., resort to force. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> for the protection of his interests, in a case where an irreparable loss is pending<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As where there is apprehension that the Court will be unable to redress the wrong done, e.g., in case all the water in the well will be used up. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> he is certainly entitled to do so. It has indeed been stated: Rab Judah said: No man may take the law into his own hands for the protection of his interests, whereas R. Nahman said: A man may take the law into his own hands for the protection of his interests. In a case where an irreparable loss is pending, no two opinions exist that he may take the law into his own hands for the protection of his interests: the difference of opinion is only where no irreparable loss is pending. Rab Judah maintains that no man may take the law into his own hands for the [alleged] protection of his interests, for since no irreparable loss is pending let him resort to the Judge; whereas R. Nahman says that a man may take the law into his own hands for the protection of his interests, for since he acts in accordance with [the prescriptions of the] law, why [need he] take the trouble [to go to Court]? R. Kahana [however] raised an objection; Ben Bag Bag said;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ab. (Sonc. ed.) p. 76. n. 7. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> Do not enter [stealthily] into thy neighbour's premises for the purpose of appropriating without his knowledge anything that even belongs to thee, lest thou wilt appear to him as a thief. Thou mayest, however, break his teeth and tell him, 'I am taking possession of what is mine.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Tosef. B.K. X. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> [Does not this prove that a man may take the law into his own hands<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it is definitely stated that he may break his teeth … [The case dealt with here is where the loss is not irreparable, otherwise, as stated above, he would be allowed to enter even without permission.] ');"><sup>21</sup></span> for the protection of his rights?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus contradicting the view of Rab Judah. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> ] — He<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab Judah. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> thereupon said