Responsa for Bava Kamma 55:31

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב יהודה אמר רב לא שנו אלא שטינפו כליו במים

whereas if she was unable to save [him] by any other means there would be exemption'? — This very same thing was indeed meant to be conveyed [in the subsequent clause:] 'Provided that there were some other means at her disposal to save [him],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 147. n. 6. ');">²³</span> for were she unable to save [him] by any other means, the resort to force in her case should be considered as if exercised by an officer of the Court<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'her hand is like the hand of the officer'. ');">²⁴</span> [in the discharge of his duties] and there would be exemption.' Come and hear:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B. B. 99b. ');">²⁵</span> In the case of a public road passing through the middle of a field of an individual, who appropriates the road but gives the public another at the side of his field, the gift of the new road holds good, whereas the old one will not thereby revert to the owner of the field. Now, if you maintain that a man may take the law into his own hands for the protection of his interests, why should he not arm himself with a whip and sit there?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To keep away intruders; v. p. 147 n. 5. ');">²⁶</span> — R. Zebid thereupon said in the name of Raba: This is a precaution lest an owner [on further occasions] might substitute a round- about way<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is of course not an equitable exchange in accordance with the law. ');">²⁷</span> [for an old established road]. R. Mesharsheya even suggested that the ruling applies to an owner who actually replaced [the old existing road by] a roundabout way.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is of course not an equitable exchange in accordance with the law. ');">²⁷</span> R. Ashi said: To turn a road [from the middle] to the side [of a field] must inevitably render the road roundabout, for if for those who reside at that side it becomes more direct, for those who reside at the other side it is made far [and roundabout]. But if so, why does the gift of the new road hold good? Why can the owner not say to the public authorities: 'Take ye yours [the old path] and return me mine [the new one]'? — [That could not be done] because of Rab Judah, for Rab Judah said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.B. 12a; 26b; 60b and 100a. ');">²⁸</span> A path [once] taken possession of by the public may not be obstructed. Come and hear: If an owner leaves <i>Pe'ah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the portion of the harvest left at a corner of the field for the poor in accordance with Lev. XIX. 9; XXIII, 22; v. Glos. ');">²⁹</span> on one side of the field, whereas the poor arrive at another side and glean there, both sides are subject to the law of <i>Pe'ah</i>. Now, if you really maintain that a man may take the law into his own hands for the protection of his interests why should both sides be subject to the law of <i>Pe'ah</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus proving that even where irreparable loss is pending, as in this case, it is not permitted to take the law into his own hands. ');">³⁰</span> Why should the owner not arm himself with a whip and sit?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., keeping the poor away from the Pe'ah on the former side. ');">³¹</span> — Raba thereupon said: The meaning of 'both sides are subject to the law of <i>Pe'ah</i>' is that they are both exempt from tithing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But they will by no means belong to the poor, for the portion left on the former side remains the owner's property. ');">³²</span> as taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 94a; Ned. 44b. ');">³³</span> If a man, after having renounced the ownership of his vineyard, rises early on the following morning and cuts off the grapes,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that ownership has been re-established. ');">³⁴</span> there applies to them the laws of Peret,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.. grapes fallen off during cutting which are the share of the poor as prescribed in Lev. XIX, 10. ');">³⁵</span> 'Oleloth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Small single bunches reserved for the poor in accordance with Lev. XIX, 10, and Deut. XXIV, 21. ');">³⁶</span> 'Forgetting'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., produce forgotten in the field, belonging to the poor in accordance with Deut. XXIV, 19. ');">³⁷</span> and <i>Pe'ah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the portion of the harvest left at a corner of the field for the poor in accordance with Lev. XIX, 9; XXIII, 22; v. Glos. ');">³⁸</span> whereas there is exemption from tithing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 94a. For the law of tithing applies only to produce that has never been abandoned even for the smallest space of time; v. Rashi and Tosaf. a.l. ');">³⁹</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF HIS PITCHER BROKE ON PUBLIC GROUND AND SOMEONE SLIPPED IN THE WATER OR WAS INJURED BY THE POTSHERD HE IS LIABLE [TO COMPENSATE]. R. JUDAH SAYS: IF IT WAS DONE INTENTIONALLY HE IS LIABLE, BUT IF UNINTENTIONALLY HE IS EXEMPT. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Rab Judah said on behalf of Rab: The Mishnaic ruling refers only to garments soiled in the water.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab maintains that the Mishnah deals with a case where the water of the broken pitcher has not been abandoned, so that it still remains the chattel of the original owner who is liable for any damage caused by it ');">⁴⁰</span>

Teshuvot Maharam