Bava Kamma 53

פטורין ר' יהודה בן בתירא אומר בזה אחר זה האחרון חייב מפני שקירב מיתתו

is guilty of murder: R. Judah b. Bathyra, however says: If consecutively the last is liable, for he was the immediate cause of the death.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 41. ');">¹</span> In the case where an ox meanwhile appeared and caught the [falling] child on its horns there is a difference of opinion between R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka and the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra pp. 224-5. According to R. Ishmael compensation for manslaughter will have to be made by the owner of the ox, but according to the Rabbis there will be no payment, as the child at the time of the fatal fall was devoid of any value. ');">²</span>

בא שור וקבלו בקרניו פלוגתא דר' ישמעאל בנו של יוחנן בן ברוקא ורבנן דתניא (שמות כא, ל) ונתן פדיון נפשו דמי ניזק ר' ישמעאל בנו של ר' יוחנן בן ברוקא אומר דמי מזיק

For it was taught: Then he shall give for the redemption of his life<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 30. ');">³</span> [denotes] the value of the [life of] the killed person. R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka interprets it to refer to the value of the [life of] the defendant.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra pp. 224-5. According to R. Ishmael compensation for manslaughter will have to be made by the owner of the ox, but according to the Rabbis there will be no payment, as the child at the time of the fatal fall was devoid of any value. ');">²</span>

ואמר רבה נפל מראש הגג ונתקע באשה חייב בד' דברים וביבמתו לא קנה

Rabbah further said: In the case of one falling from the top of the roof and [doing damage by] coming into close contact with a woman, there is liability for four items,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since the falling down was caused by a wind of usual occurrence, it is considered wilful. ');">⁴</span> though were she his deceased brother's wife<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Deut. XXV, 5, and Yeb. VI, 1. ');">⁵</span>

חייב בנזק בצער בריפוי בשבת אבל בשת לא דתנן אינו חייב על הבשת עד שיהא מתכוין

he would thereby not yet have acquired her for wife.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Kid. I, 1, and Yeb. 56a. ');">⁶</span> The Four Items [in this case] include: Depreciation, Pain, Medical Expenses and Loss of Time, but not Degradation. for we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra, 86b. ');">⁷</span>

ואמר רבה נפל מראש הגג ברוח שאינה מצויה והזיק ובייש חייב על הנזק ופטור בד' דברים ברוח מצויה והזיק ובייש חייב בד' דברים ופטור על הבשת ואם נתהפך חייב אף על הבשת

There is no liability for Degradation unless there is intention [to degrade]. Rabbah further said: In the case of one who through a wind of unusual occurrence fell from the top of the roof [upon a human being] and did damage as well as caused degradation, 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. ');">⁸</span>

דתניא ממשמע שנאמר (דברים כה, יא) ושלחה ידה איני יודע שהחזיקה מה ת"ל והחזיקה לומר לך כיון שנתכוין להזיק אע"פ שלא נתכוין לבייש

but exemption from the [additional] Four Items:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of the absence of a will to do damage. ');">⁹</span> if, however, [the fall had been] through a wind of usual occurrence and damage as well as degradation was occasioned, there is liability for Four Items<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since the falling down was caused by a wind of usual occurrence, it is considered wilful. ');">⁴</span>

ואמר רבה הניח לו גחלת על לבו ומת פטור על בגדו ונשרף חייב

but exemption from Degradation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra, 86b. ');">⁷</span> If he turned over [while falling]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Intending thus to fall upon a human being standing below so as to escape the worst effects of his falling, but without intention to degrade. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר רבא תרוייהו תננהי על לבו דתנן כבש עליו לתוך האור או לתוך המים ואינו יכול לעלות משם ומת חייב דחפו לתוך האור או לתוך המים ויכול לעלות משם ומת פטור

there would be liability also for Degradation for it was taught: From the implication of the mere statement, And she putteth forth her hand,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 11. ');">¹¹</span> would I not have understood that she taketh him? Why then continue in the text and she taketh him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">¹²</span>

בגדו דתנן קרע את כסותי שבר את כדי חייב על מנת לפטור פטור

— In order to inform you that since there existed an intention to injure though none to cause degradation [there is liability even for Degradation]. Rabbah again said: In the case of one placing a live coal on a neighbour's heart and death resulting, there is exemption;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the person upon whose heart the live coal had been placed was able to remove it. ');">¹³</span>

בעי רבה הניח גחלת על לב עבדו מהו כגופו דמי או כממונו דמי אם תמצא לומר כגופו דמי שורו מהו

if, however, it was put upon his belongings<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'garment'. ');">¹⁴</span> which were [thereby] burnt, there is liability.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [In this case, the failure of the owner to remove the coal could be explained as due to his belief that he could claim compensation.] ');">¹⁵</span>

הדר פשטה עבדו כגופו שורו כממונו:

Raba said: Both of the two [latter cases] have been dealt with in Mishnah. Regarding the case 'on a neighbour's heart' we learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sanh. 76b. ');">¹⁶</span> If one man held another fast down in fire or in water, so that it was impossible for him to emerge and death resulted, he is guilty [of murder]. If, however, he pushed him into fire or into water, and it was yet possible for him to emerge but death resulted, there is exemption. Regarding the case 'Upon his belongings' we have similarly learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra p. 531. ');">¹⁷</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך כיצד רגל</strong></big><br><br>

[If a man says to another,] 'Tear my garment;' 'Break my jug;'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This does not imply release from liability, as he might have meant, 'You may tear, if you wish it,' with all the consequences it involves. ');">¹⁸</span> there is nevertheless liability [for any damage done to the garment or to the jug]. But if he said, '… upon the understanding that you will incur no liability,' there is exemption. Rabbah, however, asked: If a man placed a live coal upon the heart of a slave<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the presence of his master; cf. Tosaf. a.l. ');">¹⁹</span>

מתני׳ <big><strong>המניח</strong></big> את הכד ברה"ר ובא אחר ונתקל בה ושברה פטור ואם הוזק בה בעל החבית חייב בנזקו:

[and injury<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not death. ');">²⁰</span> results therefrom], what should be the law?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regarding compensation, as he could have removed it. ');">²¹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> פתח בכד וסיים בחבית

Does it come under the law applicable in the case of a coal having been placed upon the body of the master himself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case there is exemption. ');">²²</span> or to that applicable in the case of a coal having been placed upon a chattel of his?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where there is liability. ');">²³</span>

ותנן נמי זה בא בחביתו וזה בא בקורתו נשברה כדו של זה בקורתו של זה פטור פתח בחבית וסיים בכד

Assuming that it is subject to the law applicable in the case of a coal having been placed upon the heart of the master himself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case there is exemption. ');">²²</span> what should be the law regarding a live coal placed upon an ox [from which damage resulted]? — He himself answered the query thus: His slave is on a par with his own body,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case there is exemption. ');">²²</span>

ותנן נמי זה בא בחביתו של יין וזה בא בכדו של דבש נסדקה חבית של דבש ושפך זה יינו והציל את הדבש לתוכו אין לו אלא שכרו פתח בכד וסיים בחבית

whereas his ox is on a par with his chattels.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where there is liability. ');">²³</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN PLACES A [KAD] PITCHER ON PUBLIC GROUND AND ANOTHER ONE COMES AND STUMBLES OVER IT AND BREAKS IT, HE IS EXEMPT. IF THE OTHER ONE WAS INJURED BY IT, THE OWNER OF THE [HABITH] BARREL IS LIABLE TO COMPENSATE FOR THE DAMAGE.

אמר רב פפא היינו כד היינו חבית למאי נפקא מינה למקח וממכר

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. To commence with PITCHER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. Kad. ');">²⁴</span> and conclude with BARREL!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. Habith. ');">²⁵</span>

היכי דמי אילימא באתרא דכדא לא קרו חבית וחבית לא קרו כדא הא לא קרו לה

And we have likewise learnt also elsewhere:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra p. 169. ');">²⁶</span> If one man comes with his [habith] barrel and another comes with his beam and [it so happened that] the [kad] pitcher of this one breaks by [collision with] the beam of that one, he is exempt.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra p. 169. ');">²⁶</span>

לא צריכא דרובא קרו לה לכדא כדא ולחביתא חביתא ואיכא נמי דקרו לחביתא כדא ולכדא חביתא מהו דתימא זיל בתר רובא

Here [on the other hand] the commencement is with barrel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. Habith. ');">²⁵</span> and the conclusion with pitcher!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. Kad. ');">²⁴</span> We have again likewise learnt elsewhere: In the case of this man coming with a [habith] barrel of wine and that one proceeding with a [kad] pitcher of honey, and as the [habith] barrel of honey cracked, the owner of the wine poured out his wine and saved the honey into his barrel, he is entitled to no more than his service.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra p. 685. ');">²⁷</span> Here again the commencement is with pitcher<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. Habith. ');">²⁵</span> and the conclusion with barrel!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. Habith. ');">²⁵</span> R. Papa thereupon said: Both kad and habith may denote one and the same receptacle. But what is the purpose in this observation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How can it affect law. ');">²⁸</span> — Regarding buying and selling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The two terms may be interchanged in contracts as they are synonyms. ');">²⁹</span> But under what circumstances? It could hardly be thought to refer to a locality where neither kad is termed habith nor habith designated kad, for are not these two terms then kept there distinct? — No, it may have application in a locality where, though the majority of people refer to kad by the term kad and to habith by the term habith, yet there are some who refer to habith by the term kad and to kad by the term habith. You might perhaps have thought that the law<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Regulating technical terms in contracts of sale. ');">³⁰</span> follows the majority.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who keep the two terms distinct. ');">³¹</span>