Bava Kamma 52

Chapter 52

א מנא הני מילי אמר חזקיה וכן תנא דבי חזקיה אמר קרא (שמות כא, כה) פצע תחת פצע לחייבו על השוגג כמזיד ועל האונס כרצון
1 Whence is this ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That Man is Mu'ad to pay Depreciation for damage done by him under all circumstances. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> deduced? Hezekiah said, and thus taught a Tanna of the School of Hezekiah: Scripture states, Wound instead of a wound<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Literal rendering of Ex. XXI, 25, which is superfluous having regard to Lev. XXIV, 19, If a man maim his neighbour, as he hath done so shall it be done to him.] ');"><sup>2</sup></span> — to impose the liability [for Depreciation] in the case of inadvertence as in that of willfulness, in the case of compulsion as in that of willingness. [But] was not that [verse] required to prescribe [indemnity for] Pain even in the case where Depreciation is independently paid? — If that is all,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That one is not merged in the other; cf. infra 85a. ');"><sup>3</sup></span> Scripture should have stated, 'Wound for a wound',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Expressed in Hebrew only by two words [H] [H] ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ב האי מבעי ליה ליתן צער במקום נזק א"כ לכתוב קרא פצע בפצע מאי תחת פצע ש"מ תרתי
2 why state, [wound] instead of a wound,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For which three words are employed in the Hebrew text. ');"><sup>5</sup></span> unless to indicate that both inferences be made from it? Rabbah said: In the case of a stone lying in a person's bosom without his having knowledge of it, so that when he rose it fell down — regarding damage, there will be liability for Depreciation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For Man is Mu'ad to pay Depreciation even for damage done while asleep. ');"><sup>6</sup></span> but exemption regarding the [additional] Four Items;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of the absence of a purpose to do damage. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ג אמר רבה היתה אבן מונחת לו בחיקו ולא הכיר בה ועמד ונפלה לענין נזקין חייב לענין ארבעה דברים פטור לענין שבת מלאכת מחשבת אסרה תורה לענין גלות פטור
3 concerning Sabbath<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if while unaware of the stone in his bosom he carried it with him into the open public thoroughfare, thus violating the Sabbath; cf. Shab. 96b. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> [there will similarly be exemption] as it is [only] work that has been [deliberately] purposed that is forbidden by the Law;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 60a; Hag. 10b. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> in a case of manslaughter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if, when the stone fell down, it killed a human being; v. Num. XXXV. 9-34. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> there is exemption from fleeing [to a city of refuge];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he never had any knowledge of the stone being in his bosom, he could in no way be made responsible criminally for the accidental manslaughter. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ד לענין עבד פלוגתא דרשב"ג ורבנן דתניא הרי שהיה רבו רופא ואמר לו כחול עיני וסימאה חתור לי שיני והפילה שיחק באדון ויצא לחרות
4 regarding [the release of] a slave,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when the stone in falling down destroyed the eye or the tooth of a slave; v. Ex. XXI. 26-27. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> there exists a difference of opinion between R. Simeon b. Gamaliel and the Rabbis, as it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kid. 24b. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> If the master was a physician and the slave requested him to attend to his eye and it was accidentally blinded, or [the slave requested the master] to scrape his tooth and it was accidentally knocked out, he may now laugh at the master, for he has already obtained his liberty. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, says: [Scripture states] <i>and [he] destroy it</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 26. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> to make the freedom conditional upon the master intending to ruin the eye of the slave.
ה רשב"ג אומר (שמות כא, כו) ושיחתה עד שיתכוין לשחתה
5 If the person, however, had at some time been aware of the stone in his bosom but subsequently forgot all about it, so that when he rose it fell down, — in the case of damage there is liability for Depreciation;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For Man is Mu'ad to pay Depreciation even for damage done while asleep. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> but though the exemption regarding the [additional] Four Items still holds good,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of the absence of a will to do damage. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> in the case of manslaughter<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if when the stone fell down, it killed a human being; v. Num. XXXV, 9-34. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> he will have to flee [to a city of refuge], for Scripture says, at unawares,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXV, 11, 15. ');"><sup>18</sup></span>
ו הכיר בה ושכחה ועמד ונפלה לענין נזקין חייב לענין ד' דברים פטור לענין גלות חייב דאמר קרא (במדבר לה, יא) בשגגה מכלל דהוה ליה ידיעה והא הויא ליה ידיעה לענין שבת פטור לענין עבד פלוגתא דרשב"ג ורבנן
6 implying the existence of some [previous] knowledge [as to the dangerous weapon] and in the case before us such knowledge did at a time exist: concerning Sabbath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if while unaware of the stone in his bosom he carried it with him into the open public thoroughfare, thus violating the Sabbath; cf. Shab. 96b. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> however, there is still exemption; regarding [the release of] a slave the difference of opinion between R. Simeon b. Gamaliel and the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 137. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> still applies. Where he intended to throw the stone to a distance of two cubits, but it fell at a distance of four,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the minimum of distance to constitute the violation of Sabbath by throwing an object in a public thoroughfare is four cubits; v. Shab. 96b. ');"><sup>21</sup></span>
ז נתכוין לזרוק שתים וזרק ארבע לענין נזקין חייב לענין ד' דברים פטור לענין שבת מלאכת מחשבת בעינן לענין גלות (שמות כא, יג) אשר לא צדה אמר רחמנא פרט לנתכוין לזרוק שתים וזרק ד' לענין עבד פלוגתא דרשב"ג ורבנן
7 if it caused damage, there is liability for Depreciation; regarding the [additional] Four Items there is still exemption;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of the absence of a will to do damage. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> so also concerning Sabbath,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if while unaware of the stone in his bosom he carried it with him into the open public thoroughfare, thus violating the Sabbath; cf. Shab. 96b. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> for work [deliberately] planned is required [to make it an offence];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra p. 137, n. 7. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> in the case of manslaughter,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if when the stone fell down, it killed a human being; v. Num. XXXV, 9-34. ');"><sup>23</sup></span>
ח נתכוין לזרוק ארבע וזרק שמנה לענין נזקין חייב לענין ד' דברים פטור לענין שבת באומר כל מקום שתרצה תנוח אין אי לא לא לענין גלות אשר לא צדה פרט לנתכוין לזרוק ארבע וזרק שמנה לענין עבד פלוגתא דרשב"ג ורבנן
8 And if a man lie not in wait,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 13. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> is stated by Divine law, excluding a case where there was mention to throw a stone to a distance of two cubits but which fell at a distance of four.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [According to one interpretation of Rashi, this is a case for exile; according to another, a case which is excluded from enjoying the protection of the city of refuge: v. Mak. 7b.] ');"><sup>25</sup></span> Regarding [the release of] a slave, the difference of opinion between R. Simeon b. Gamaliel and the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 137. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> still applies. Where the intention was to throw the stone to a distance of four<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the minimum of distance to constitute the violation of Sabbath by throwing an object in a public thoroughfare is four cubits; v. Shab. 96b. ');"><sup>21</sup></span>
ט ואמר רבה זרק כלי מראש הגג ובא אחר ושברו במקל פטור מאי טעמא מנא תבירא תבר
9 cubits but it fell eight cubits away, — if it caused damage there will be liability for Depreciation; regarding the [additional] Four Items there is still exemption;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of the absence of a will to do damage. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> concerning Sabbath, if there was express intention that the stone should fall anywhere, there is liability for an offence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the minimum of distance to constitute the violation of Sabbath by throwing an object in a public thoroughfare is four cubits; v. Shab. 96b. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> but in the absence of such express intention no offence was committed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 137, n. 7. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> in the case of manslaughter,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 138 n. 3. ');"><sup>27</sup></span>
י ואמר רבה זרק כלי מראש הגג והיו תחתיו כרים או כסתות בא אחר וסלקן או קדם וסלקן פטור מאי טעמא בעידנא דשדייה פסוקי מפסקי גיריה
10 And if a man lie not in wait,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 13. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> excludes a case where there was intention to throw a stone to a distance of four cubits, but which fell at a distance of eight. Regarding [the release of] a slave the difference of opinion between R. Simeon b. Gamaliel and the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 137. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> still applies. Rabbah again said: In the case of one throwing a utensil<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Belonging to another. According to the interpretation of Rashi a.l. the utensil was thrown by its owner; cf. however, Rashi, supra 17b. ');"><sup>30</sup></span>
יא ואמר רבה זרק תינוק מראש הגג ובא אחר וקבלו בסייף פלוגתא דר' יהודה בן בתירא ורבנן דתניא הכוהו עשרה בני אדם בעשרה מקלות בין בבת אחת בין בזה אחר זה כולן
11 from the top of a roof and another one coming and breaking it with a stick [before it fell upon the ground where it would in any case have been broken], the latter is under no liability to pay; the reason being that it was only a utensil which was already certain to be broken that was broken by him. Rabbah further said: In the case of a man throwing a utensil<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Belonging to another. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> from the top of the roof while there were underneath mattresses and cushions which were meanwhile removed by another person, or even if he [who had thrown it] removed them himself, there is exemption; the reason being that at the time of the throwing [of the utensil] his agency had been void of any harmful effect.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he had let his arrow off', it had spent its force; i.e., when the act of throwing took place it was by no means calculated to do any damage. ');"><sup>32</sup></span> Rabbah again said: In the case of one throwing a child from the top of the roof and somebody else meanwhile appearing and catching it on the edge of his sword, there is a difference of opinion between R. Judah b. Bathyra and the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to R. Judah, the latter who caught it on the edge of his sword will be guilty of murder, but according to the Rabbis, no one is guilty of it. ');"><sup>33</sup></span> For it was taught: In the case of ten persons beating one [to death] with ten sticks, whether simultaneously or consecutively, none of them
Previous ChapterNext Chapter