Bava Kamma 59

משום רבי ישמעאל כו'

in the name of R. Ishmael etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That there is liability for a pit dug in public ground, though it is ownerless. ');">¹</span>

לא קשיא הא דידיה הא דרביה:

[which proves that abandoned nuisances do involve liability]? — This presents no difficulty. One view<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That abandoning nuisances releases from responsibility. ');">²</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> השופך מים ברה"ר והוזק בהן אחר חייב בנזקו המצניע את הקוץ ואת הזכוכית והגודר את גדרו בקוצים וגדר שנפל לרה"ר והוזקו בהן אחרים חייב בנזקן:

is his own whereas the other<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That abandoning nuisances does not release from responsibility. ');">³</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב לא שנו אלא דנטנפו כליו במים אבל הוא עצמו פטור קרקע עולם הזיקתו

is that of his master.

א"ל רב הונא לרב לא יהא אלא כרפשו

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN POURS OUT WATER INTO PUBLIC GROUND AND SOME OTHER PERSON IS INJURED BY IT, THERE IS LIABILITY FOR THE DAMAGE. IF HE HIDES THORNS AND BROKEN GLASS, OR MAKES A FENCE OF THORNS, OR, IF A FENCE FALLS INTO THE PUBLIC GROUND AND DAMAGE RESULTS THEREFROM TO SOME OTHER PERSONS, THERE IS [SIMILARLY] LIABILITY FOR THE DAMAGE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 158. ');">⁴</span>

מי סברת דלא תמו מיא בדתמו מיא

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Rab said: This Mishnaic ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which, according to Rab, deals with a case where the water has not been abandoned, but remained still the chattel of the original owner. ');">⁵</span>

ותרתי למה לי

refers only to a case where his garments<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Those of the person who was injured. ');">⁶</span>

חדא בימות החמה וחדא בימות הגשמים

were soiled in the water. For regarding injury to himself there should be exemption, since it was ownerless ground that hurt him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas the water was but the remote cause of it. ');">⁷</span>

דתניא כל אלו שאמרו פותקין ביבותיהן וגורפין מערותיהן בימות החמה אין להן רשות ובימות הגשמים יש להם רשות ואע"פ שברשות אם הזיקו חייבין לשלם:

[But] R. Huna said to Rab: Why should not [the topmost layer of the ground mixed up with private water] be considered as private clay?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'his clay'. i.e., of the owner of the water. ');">⁸</span>

המצניע את הקוץ [וכו']: א"ר יוחנן לא שנו אלא מפריח אבל מצמצם לא מ"ט פטור אמר רב אחא בריה דרב איקא לפי שאין דרכן של בני אדם להתחכך בכתלים

— Do you suggest [the ruling to refer to] water that has not dried up? [No.] It deals with a case where the water has already dried up. But why [at all] two [texts<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The one here and the other supra p. 149. ');">⁹</span>

ת"ר המצניע קוצותיו וזכוכיותיו לתוך כותל של חבירו ובא בעל כותל וסתר כותלו ונפל לרה"ר והזיקו חייב המצניע

for one and the same ruling]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Expounded by Rab here as well as supra pp. 149-150. ');">¹⁰</span>

א"ר יוחנן לא שנו אלא בכותל רעוע אבל בכותל בריא המצניע פטור וחייב בעל הכותל

— One [text] refers to the summer season whereas the other deals with winter, as indeed [explicitly] taught [elsewhere]: All those who open their gutters or sweep out the dust of their cellars [into public thoroughfares] are, in the summer period, acting unlawfully, but lawfully in winter; [in all cases] even though when acting lawfully, if special damage resulted, they are liable to compensate.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra pp. 19-20. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר רבינא זאת אומרת המכסה בורו בדליו של חבירו ובא בעל דלי ונטל דליו חייב בעל הבור

IF HE HIDES THORNS etc., R. Johanan said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 158. ');">⁴</span>

פשיטא

This Mishnaic ruling refers only to a case where the thorns were projecting into the public ground. For if they were confined within private premises there would be no liability. On what account is there exemption [in the latter case]? — R. Aha the son of R. Ika [thereupon] answered:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 159, n. 3. ');">¹²</span>

מהו דתימא התם הוא דלא הוי ידע ליה דלודעיה אבל הכא דידע ליה הוה ליה לאודועיה קמ"ל

Because it is not the habit of men to rub themselves against walls.

ת"ר חסידים הראשונים היו מצניעים קוצותיהם וזכוכיותיהם בתוך שדותיהן ומעמיקים להן ג' טפחים כדי שלא יעכב המחרישה

Our Rabbis taught: If one hid thorns and broken glasses in a neighbour's wall and the owner of the wall came and pulled his wall down, so that they fell into the public ground and did damage, the one who hid them is liable. R. Johanan [thereupon] said: This ruling refers only to an impaired wall.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was likely to be pulled down. ');">¹³</span>

רב ששת שדי להו בנורא רבא שדי להו בדגלת

For in the case of a strong wall the one who hid [the thorns] should be exempt while the owner of the wall would be liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For not having taken proper care to safeguard the public. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמר רב יהודה האי מאן דבעי למהוי חסידא לקיים מילי דנזיקין רבא אמר מילי דאבות ואמרי לה מילי דברכות:

Rabina commented: This ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated in the Baraitha quoted. ');">¹⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המוציא את תבנו וקשו לרה"ר לזבלים והוזק בהן אחר חייב בנזקו וכל הקודם בהן זכה רשב"ג אומר כל המקלקלין ברה"ר והזיקו חייבין לשלם וכל הקודם בהן זכה

proves that where a man covers his pit with a neighbour's lid and the owner of the lid comes and removes his lid, the owner of the pit would be liable [for any damage that may subsequently be caused by his pit]. Is not this inference quite obvious?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then had Rabina to make it explicit? ');">¹⁶</span>

ההופך את הגלל ברה"ר והוזק בהן אחר חייב בנזקו:

— You might perhaps have suggested this ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated in the Baraitha quoted. ');">¹⁵</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> לימא מתני' דלא כר' יהודה

[to be confined to the case] there, where the owner of the wall had no knowledge of the identity of the person who hid the thorns in the wall, and was accordingly unable to inform him of the intended pulling down of the wall, whereas in the case of the pit, where the owner of the lid very well knew the identity of the owner of the pit, [you might have argued] that it was his duty to inform him [of the intended removal of the lid].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Failing that, the sole responsibility should then fall upon him. ');">¹⁷</span>

דתניא ר' יהודה אומר בשעת הוצאת זבלים אדם מוציא זבלו לרה"ר וצוברו כל שלשים יום כדי שיהא נישוף ברגלי אדם וברגלי בהמה שעל מנת כן הנחיל יהושע את הארץ

It is therefore made known to us [that this is not the case].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But that the responsibility lies upon the owner of the pit. ');">¹⁸</span>

אפי' תימא רבי יהודה מודה רבי יהודה שאם הזיק משלם מה שהזיק

Our Rabbis taught: The pious men of former generations used to hide their thorns and broken glasses in the midst of their fields at a depth of three handbreadths below the surface so that [even] the plough might not be hindered by them. R Shesheth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was stricken with blindness; cf. Ber. 58a. ');">¹⁹</span>

והתנן רבי יהודה אומר בנר חנוכה פטור מפני שהוא ברשות מאי לאו משום רשות בית דין

used to throw them into the fire.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Nid. 17a. ');">²⁰</span>

לא משום רשות מצוה דתניא רבי יהודה אומר בנר חנוכה פטור מפני שהוא רשות מצוה

Raba threw them into the Tigris. Rab Judah said: He who wishes to be pious must [in the first instance particularly] fulfil the laws of [Seder] Nezikin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [By being careful in matters that may cause damage.] ');">²¹</span>

ת"ש כל אלו שאמרו מותרין לקלקל ברשות הרבים אם הזיקו חייבין לשלם ורבי יהודה פוטר

But Raba said: The matters [dealt with in the Tractate] Aboth;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Matters affecting ethics and right conduct. Var. lec., 'Rabina'.] ');">²²</span>

אמר רב נחמן מתני' שלא בשעת הוצאת זבלים ור' יהודה היא

still others said: Matters [dealt with in] Berakoth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The Tractate wherein the benedictions are set forth and discussed.] ');">²³</span>

רב אשי אמר

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN REMOVES HIS STRAW AND STUBBLE INTO THE PUBLIC GROUND TO BE FORMED INTO MANURE, AND DAMAGE RESULTS TO SOME OTHER PERSON, THERE IS LIABILITY FOR THE DAMAGE, AND WHOEVER SEIZES THEM FIRST ACQUIRES TITLE TO THEM. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAYS: WHOEVER CREATES ANY NUISANCES ON PUBLIC GROUND CAUSING [SPECIAL] DAMAGE IS LIABLE TO COMPENSATE, THOUGH WHOEVER SEIZES OF THEM FIRST ACQUIRES TITLE TO THEM. IF HE TURNS UP DUNG THAT HAD BEEN LYING ON PUBLIC GROUND, AND DAMAGE [SUBSEQUENTLY] RESULTS TO ANOTHER PERSON, HE IS LIABLE FOR THE DAMAGE. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. May we say that the Mishnaic ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Imposing liability in the commencing clause. ');">²⁴</span> is not in accordance with R. Judah? For it was taught: R. Judah says: When it is the season of taking out foliage everybody is entitled to take out his foliage into the public ground and heap it up there for the whole period of thirty days so that it may be trodden upon by the feet of men and by the feet of animals; for upon this understanding did Joshua make [Israel]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.M. 118b. Why then liability for the damage caused thereby during the specified period permitted by law? ');">²⁵</span> inherit the Land. — You may suggest it to be even in accordance with R. Judah, for R. Judah [nevertheless] agrees that where [special] damage resulted, compensation should be made for the damage done. But did we not learn that R. Judah maintains that in the case of a Chanukah candle<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Placed outside a shop and setting aflame flax that has been passing along the public road. ');">²⁶</span> there is exemption on account of it having been placed there with authorization?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra p. 361. ');">²⁷</span> Now, does not this authorization mean the permission of the <i>Beth din</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A permission which has similarly been extended in the case of the dung during the specified period and should accordingly effect exemption. ');">²⁸</span> — No, it means the sanction of [the performance of] a religious duty<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is of course absent in the case of removing dung to the public ground, where liability must accordingly be imposed for special damage. ');">²⁹</span> as [indeed explicitly] taught: R. Judah says: In the case of a Chanukah candle there is exemption on account of the sanction of [the performance of] a religious duty. Come and hear: In all those cases where the authorities permitted nuisances to be created on public ground, if [special] damage results there will be liability to compensate. But R. Judah maintains exemption!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does not this prove that mere authorization suffices to confer exemption? Cf. n. 2. ');">³⁰</span> — R. Nahman said: The Mishnah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 161, n. 5. ');">³¹</span> refers to the time when it is not the season to take out foliage and thus it may be in accordance with R. Judah. — R. Ashi further [said]: