Bava Kamma 27

Chapter 27

א ולא קבל עליו שמירת נזקיו
1 but not responsibility for any damage [that it may do].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the lender still remains liable for any damage his ox may do. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב אי הכי אימא סיפא נפרצה בלילה או שפרצוה לסטים ויצתה והזיקה פטור הא ביום חייב הא לא קבל עליו שמירת נזקיו
2 If so, explain the concluding clause: 'If a wall broke open at night, or if robbers took it by force and it went out and did damage, there is exemption.' From this it may surely be inferred that [if this had happened] in the daytime, the borrower would have been liable. Why so, if he did not take upon himself responsibility for any damage [that it may do]? — The meaning must be as follows: [But] if he has taken upon himself responsibility for damage [that it may do], he would be liable to compensate, yet, if a wall broke open at night, or if robbers took it by force and it went out and did damage there is exemption [in such a case].
ג הכי קאמר אם קבל עליו שמירת נזקיו חייב נפרצה בלילה או שפרצוה לסטים ויצתה והזיקה פטור
3 Is it really so?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That R. Eleazar exempts Tooth and Foot doing damage in jointly owned premises. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ד איני והא תני רב יוסף חצר השותפים והפונדק חייב בהן על השן ועל הרגל תיובתא דרבי אלעזר
4 Did not R. Joseph learn: In the case of jointly owned premises or an inn, there is liability for Tooth and for Foot? Is not this a refutation of R. Eleazar? — R. Eleazar may answer you as follows: Do you really think so? Are Baraithas not divided [in their opinions] on the matter?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And my view is supported by one of them. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ה אמר לך רבי אלעזר ותסברא מתניתא מי לא פליגי והתניא ארבעה כללות היה ר' שמעון בן אלעזר אומר בנזקין כל שהוא רשות לניזק ולא למזיק חייב בכל דמזיק ולא לניזק פטור מכל
5 For it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosef. B.K. I, 6. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ו לזה ולזה כגון חצר השותפים והבקעה פטור בה על השן ועל הרגל על הנגיחה ועל הנגיפה ועל הנשיכה ועל הרביצה ועל הבעיטה תם משלם חצי נזק מועד משלם נזק שלם
6 'Four general rules were stated by R. Simeon b. Eleazar to apply to the laws of torts: [In the case of damage done in] premises owned by the plaintiff and not at all by the defendant, there is liability in all; if owned by the defendant and not at all by the plaintiff, there is total exemption; but if owned by the one and the other, e.g., jointly owned premises or a valley, there is exemption for Tooth and for Foot, whereas for goring, pushing, biting, falling down, and kicking, <i>Tam</i> pays half-damages and <i>Mu'ad</i> pays full damages; if not owned by the one and the other, e.g., premises not belonging to them both, there is liability for Tooth and for Foot, whereas for goring, pushing, biting, falling down, and kicking, <i>Tam</i> pays half-damages and <i>Mu'ad</i> pays full damages.' It has thus been taught here that in the case of jointly owned premises or a valley there is exemption for Tooth and Foot.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus fully supporting the view of R. Eleazar and contradicting the teaching of R. Joseph's Baraitha. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ז לא לזה ולא לזה כגון חצר שאינו של שניהם חייב בו על השן ועל הרגל על הנגיחה ועל הנשיכה ועל הנגיפה ועל הרביצה ועל הבעיטה תם משלם חצי נזק מועד משלם נזק שלם
7 Do then the two Baraithas contradict each other? — The latter Baraitha speaks of a case where the premises were set aside by the one and the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., by both plaintiff and defendant. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ח קתני מיהת חצר השותפין והבקעה פטור בה על השן ועל הרגל
8 for the purposes of both keeping fruits and keeping cattle in, whereas that of R. Joseph deals with premises set aside for keeping fruits in but not cattle, in which case so far as Tooth is concerned the premises are in practice the plaintiff's ground.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the defendant had no right to allow his cattle to be there, and is therefore liable for Tooth, etc. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ט קשיא אהדדי
9 In fact the context points to the same effect. In the Baraitha here<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., of R. Joseph. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
י כי תניא ההיא בחצר מיוחדת לזה ולזה בין לפירות בין לשוורים ההיא דרב יוסף בחצר מיוחדת לפירות ואינה מיוחדת לשוורים דלגבי שן הויא לה חצר הניזק
10 the jointly owned premises are put on the same footing as an inn whereas in the Baraitha there<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Recording the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
יא דיקא נמי דקתני הכא דומיא דפונדק וקתני התם דומיא דבקעה שמע מינה
11 they are put on the same footing as a valley. This is indeed proved. R. Zera, however, demurred: In the case of premises which are set aside for the purpose of keeping fruits [of the one and the other].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., by both plaintiff and defendant. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יב מתקיף לה רבי זירא כיון דמיוחדת לפירות הא בעינן (שמות כב, ד) ובער בשדה אחר וליכא
12 how shall we comply with the requirement, and it feed in another man's field,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 4; implying that the field should belong exclusively to the plaintiff. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יג א"ל אביי כיון דאינה מיוחדת לשוורים שדה אחר קרינא ביה
13 which is lacking in this case? — Abaye said to him: Since the premises are not set aside for keeping cattle in, they may well be termed 'another man's field.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the defendant had no right to allow his cattle to be there, and is therefore liable for Tooth, etc. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
יד א"ל רב אחא מדיפתי לרבינא לימא מדמתניתא לא פליגי אמוראי נמי לא פליגי
14 R. Aha of Difti<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Identified with Dibtha near the famous city of Washit on the Tigris, Obermeyer, op. cit. p. 197]. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
טו אמר ליה אין ואם תמצא לומר פליגי בקושיא דרבי זירא ובפירוקא דאביי פליגי
15 said to Rabina: May we say that just as the Baraithas<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that of R. Joseph and that of R. Simeon b. Eleazar. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
טז גופא ארבעה כללות היה רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר בנזקין כל שהוא רשות לניזק ולא למזיק חייב בכל
16 are not divided on the matter so also are the Amoraim<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hisda and R. Eleazar. ');"><sup>15</sup></span>
יז על הכל לא קתני אלא חייב בכל בכולי נזק
17 not divided on the subject?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hisda deals with a case where the keeping of cattle has not been permitted, while R. Eleazar deals with the case when the premises have been set aside for that also. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
יח מני רבי טרפון היא דאמר משונה קרן בחצר הניזק נזק שלם משלם
18 He answered him: Indeed, it is so; if, however, you think that they are divided [in their views].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the premises have been set aside not for cattle, but for the keeping of fruit. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
יט אימא סיפא לא לזה ולא לזה כגון חצר שאינו של שניהם חייב בה על השן ועל הרגל
19 the objection of R. Zera and the answer of Abaye form the point at issue.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Hisda is of Abaye's opinion. whereas R. Eleazar prefers R. Zera's reasoning. ');"><sup>18</sup></span>
כ מאי לא לזה ולא לזה אילימא לא לזה ולא לזה כלל אלא דאחר והא בעינא ובער בשדה אחר וליכא
20 [To revert] to the above text: 'Four general rules were stated by R. Simeon b. Eleazar to apply to the laws of torts: [Where damage is done in] premises owned by the plaintiff, and not at all by the defendant, there is liability in all.' It is not stated 'for all'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would mean for all kinds of damage. ');"><sup>19</sup></span>
כא אלא פשיטא לא לזה ולא לזה אלא דחד וקתני סיפא תם משלם חצי נזק ומועד משלם נזק שלם
21 but 'in all', i.e., in the whole of the damage; is it not in accordance with R. Tarfon who maintains that the unusual damage occasioned by Horn in the plaintiff's premises will be compensated in full.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. infra 24b. ');"><sup>20</sup></span>
כב אתאן לרבנן דאמרי משונה קרן בחצר הניזק חצי נזק הוא דמשלם
22 Read, however, the concluding clause: 'If not owned by the one and the other, e.g., premises not belonging to them both, there is liability for Tooth and for Foot.' Now, what is the meaning of 'not owned by the one and the other'? It could hardly mean 'owned neither by the one nor by the other, but by somebody else,' for have we not to comply with the requirement, and it feed in another man's field,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 4, indicating that the field has to belong to the plaintiff. ');"><sup>21</sup></span>
כג רישא רבי טרפון וסיפא רבנן
23 which is lacking in this case? It means therefore, of course, not owned by them both, but exclusively by the plaintiff,' and yet it is stated in the concluding clause, 'Tam pays half-damages and <i>Mu'ad</i> pays full damages,' which follows the view of the Rabbis who maintain that the unusual damage occasioned by Horn in the plaintiff's premises will still be compensated only by half-damages.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. infra 24b. ');"><sup>22</sup></span>
כד אין דהא אמר ליה שמואל לרב יהודה שיננא שבוק מתניתין ותא אבתראי רישא רבי טרפון וסיפא רבנן
24 Will the commencing clause be according to R. Tarfon and the concluding clause according to the Rabbis? — Yes, even as Samuel said to Rab Judah: Shinena,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Lit., (i) 'sharp one', i.e., scholar with keen and sharp mind; (ii) 'long-toothed', denoting a facial characteristic; (iii) 'translator', Rab Judah being so called on account of his frequent translation of Mishnaic terms into the vernacular Aramaic, Golomb, D. Targumno I, Introduction, XLVff.] ');"><sup>23</sup></span>
כה רבינא משמיה דרבא אמר כולה רבי טרפון היא ומאי לא לזה ולא לזה לא לזה ולא לזה לפירות אלא דחד לזה ולזה לשוורים
25 leave this Baraitha alone,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Give up your attempt to harmonize the two contradictory clauses.] ');"><sup>24</sup></span>
כו דלגבי שן הויא לה חצר הניזק לגבי קרן הויא לה רשות הרבים
26 and follow my view that the commencement of the Baraitha is according to R. Tarfon and its conclusion according to the Rabbis. Rabina, however, said in the name of Raba: The whole Baraitha is according to R. Tarfon; what is meant by 'not owned by the one and the other' is that the right of keeping fruits there is owned not by both, the one and the other, but exclusively by the plaintiff, whereas the right of keeping cattle there is owned by both, the one and the other. In the case of Tooth the premises are in practice the plaintiff's ground,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the right to keep fruits there is exclusively the plaintiff's. ');"><sup>25</sup></span>
כז א"ה ארבעה שלשה הוו
27 whereas in the case of Horn they are jointly owned ground.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For they both may keep cattle there. ');"><sup>26</sup></span>
כח אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק
28 If so, how are the rules four in number?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since in principle they are only three in number: (a) exclusively the plaintiff's premises. (b) exclusively the defendant's, and (c) partnership premises. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> Are they not only three? — R. Nahman b. Isaac replied:
Previous ChapterNext Chapter