Bava Kamma 62

ראשון ודאי פושע הוא שני אגופו מחייב דהוה לו לעמוד ולא עמד אממונו פטור דא"ל האי בירא לאו אנא כריתיה

— The first was certainly [considered] careless,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Since stumbling implies carelessness.] ');">¹</span> whilst, as to the second, he is liable for damage done by his person, [that is,] only where he [has already] had [the opportunity] to rise and did [nevertheless] not rise; for damage caused by his chattels he is [however] exempt, as he may say to him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the third. ');">²</span>

מיתיבי כולן חייבין על נזקי גופן ופטורין על נזקי ממונן מאי לאו אפי' ראשון

It is not I who dug this pit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the nuisance was created not by the second, but caused by the first who fell. ');">³</span> An objection was raised [from the following Baraitha]: All of them are liable for damage [done] by their person,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether to the person or to the chattels of the plaintiff. ');">⁴</span>

לא לבר מראשון והא כולם קתני אמר רב אדא בר אהבה כולן הניזקין

but exempt for damage [caused] by their chattels.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether to the person or to the chattels of the plaintiff. ');">⁴</span> Does [this Baraitha] not refer even to the first?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who, according to Raba, is liable for damage caused even by his chattels to the person of the second as being subject to the law applicable to Pit. This Baraitha thus refutes Raba. ');">⁵</span>

האי מאי אי אמרת בשלמא אפילו ראשון היינו דקתני כולן אלא אי אמרת לבר מראשון מאי כולן ליתני הניזקין

— No, with the exception of the first. But is it not stated, 'All of them…'? — R. Adda b. Ahabah said: 'All of them' refers to [all] the plaintiffs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first is thus, as a matter of course, not included. ');">⁶</span> [But] how is this? If you maintain that the first [is] also [included], we understand why the Baraitha says 'All of them'. But if you contend that the first is excepted, what [meaning could there be in] 'All of them'? Why [indeed] not say 'The plaintiffs'? — Raba [therefore] said: The first<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being subject to the law applicable to damage done by Man. ');">⁷</span>

אלא אמר רבא ראשון חייב בין בנזקי גופו דשני בין בנזקי ממונו דשני ושני חייב בנזקי שלישי בנזקי גופו אבל לא בנזקי ממונו מ"ט דהוה ליה בור ולא מצינו בור שחייב בו את הכלים

is liable for both injuries inflicted upon the person of the second and damage caused to the chattels of the second, whereas the second<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Should be subject to the law applicable in Pit. ');">⁸</span> is liable to compensate the third only for injuries inflicted upon his person but not for damage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though done by the person of the second. ');">⁹</span>

הניחא לשמואל דאמר כל תקלה בור הוא אלא לרב דאמר אי אפקריה אין אי לא לא מאי איכא למימר

to his chattels; the reason being that the [person of the] second is subject to the law applicable to Pit, and no case can be found where Pit would involve liability for inanimate objects.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 18. ');">¹⁰</span> This accords well with the view of Samuel, who holds that all nuisances are [subject to the law applicable to] Pit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 150. [The person of the second may therefore be treated as Pit.] ');">¹¹</span>

לעולם כדאמר מעיקרא ודקשיא לך כולן חייבין תרגמה רב אדא בר מניומי קמיה דרבינא שהוזקו כלים בכלים

But according to Rab who maintains that it is only where the nuisance has been abandoned that this is so, whereas if not [abandoned] it is not so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But is subject to the law applicable to Ox where damage to inanimate objects is also compensated. ');">¹²</span> what reason could be advanced?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the person of the second, though lying on the ground, has surely never been abandoned by him. Why then exemption for damage done by him to inanimate objects? ');">¹³</span>

אמר מר אם מחמת ראשון נפלו ראשון חייב בנזקי כולם מחמת ראשון היכי נפיל רב פפא אמר דפסקה לאורחיה כשלדא רב זביד אמר כחוטרא דסמיותא:

— We must therefore accept the first version,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the statement of Raba, according to which the first is liable for damage done whether by his person or by his chattels, whereas the second is liable for damage done only by his person but not if done by his chattels. ');">¹⁴</span> and as to the objection raised by you [from the Baraitha], 'All of them are liable',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For damage done by their person, but exempt for damage done by their chattels, including thus also the first. ');">¹⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> זה בא בחביתו וזה בא בקורתו נשברה כדו של זה בקורתו של זה פטור שלזה רשות להלך ולזה רשות להלך

it has already been interpreted by R. Adda b. Minyomi in the presence of Rabina to refer to a case where inanimate objects have been damaged by the chattels [of the defendant].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which are subject to the laws of Pit involving no liability for inanimate objects. Were, however, the person of the plaintiff to have been injured, there would be no exemption even if the injury were caused by the chattels of the first, as expounded by Raba. ');">¹⁶</span> The Master stated: 'Where, however, they all fell because of the first, the first is liable for the damage [sustained] by them all.' How [indeed can they all] fall [because of the first]? — R. Papa said: Where he blocked the road like a carcass, [closing the whole width of the road]. R. Zebid said: Like a blind man's staff.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [With which the blind gropes his way on either side of the road.] ');">¹⁷</span>

היה בעל הקורה ראשון ובעל חבית אחרון נשברה חבית בקורה פטור בעל הקורה

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF ONE COMES WITH HIS BARREL AND AN OTHER COMES WITH HIS BEAM AND THE PITCHER<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 142. ');">¹⁸</span> OF THIS ONE BREAKS BY [COLLISION WITH] THE BEAM OF THIS ONE, HE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The owner of the beam. ');">¹⁹</span> IS EXEMPT, FOR THE ONE IS ENTITLED TO WALK [THERE AND CARRY BEAMS] AND THE OTHER IS ENTITLED TO WALK [THERE AND CARRY BARRELS]. WHERE THE CARRIER OF THE BEAM WAS IN FRONT, AND THE CARRIER OF THE BARREL BEHIND, AND THE BARREL BROKE BY [COLLISION WITH] THE BEAM, THE CARRIER OF THE BEAM IS EXEMPT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the carrier of the barrel who was behind should not have proceeded so fast. ');">²⁰</span>