Bava Kamma 11
לאתויי ליחכה נירו וסכסכה אבניו
— To include [damage done by fire] lapping his neighbour's ploughed field and grazing his stones.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As this damage is rather an unusual effect from fire and special reference is therefore essential. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
הצד השוה שבהן לאתויי מאי אמר אביי לאתויי אבנו סכינו ומשאו שהניחן בראש גגו ונפלו ברוח מצויה והזיקו
THE FEATURE COMMON TO THEM ALL … What else is this clause intended to include? — Abaye said: A stone, a knife and luggage which, having been placed by a person on the top of his roof, fell down through a normal wind and did damage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 8. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
היכי דמי אי בהדי דקא אזלי קא מזקי היינו אש
In what circumstances [did they do the damage]? If while they were in motion, they are equivalent to Fire! How is this case different? Just as Fire is aided by an external force<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the blowing wind. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
מאי שנא אש דכח אחר מעורב בו וממונך ושמירתו עליך הני נמי כח אחר מעורב בהן וממונך ושמירתו עליך
and, being your possession, is under your control, so also is the case with those which are likewise aided by an external force and, being your possessions are under your control. If [on the other hand, damage was done] after they were at rest, then, if abandoned, according to both Rab and Samuel, they are equivalent to Pit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 28b; v. supra p. 7. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ואלא בתר דנייחי אי דאפקרינהו בין לרב בין לשמואל היינו בור
How is their case different? Just as Pit is from its very inception a source of injury, and, being your possession is under your control, so also is the case with those<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., stone, knife and luggage referred to above. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
מאי שנא בור שכן תחילת עשייתו לנזק וממונך ושמירתן עליך הני נמי תחילת עשייתן לנזק וממונך ושמירתן עליך
which from their very inception [as nuisances] are likewise sources of injury, and, being your possession are under your control.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 7. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
אלא דלא אפקרינהו לשמואל דאמר כולם מבורו למדנו היינו בור
Furthermore, even if they were not abandoned, according to Samuel who maintains that we deduce [the law governing] all nuisances from Pit,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 28b; v. supra p. 7. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
לעולם דאפקרינהו ולא דמו לבור מה לבור שכן אין כח אחר מעורב בו תאמר בהני שכח אחר מעורב בהן
they are [again] equivalent to Pit? — Indeed they were abandoned, still they are not equivalent to Pit. Why [is liability attached] to Pit if not because no external force assists it? How then can you assert [the same] in the case of those<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., stone, knife and luggage referred to above. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
מה לאש שכן דרכו לילך ולהזיק
however, will refute [this reasoning]. But [you may ask] why [is liability attached] to Fire if not because of its nature to travel and do damage?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which cannot he said of stone, knife and luggage. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
בור תוכיח וחזר הדין
— Pit, however, will refute [this reasoning]. The argument is [thus endlessly] reversible [and liability<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even when the nuisance has, like Fire, been assisted by an external force and is, like Pit, unable to travel and do damage. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ה"ד אי דאפקרינהו בין לרב בין לשמואל היינו בור
Raba said: [This clause is intended] to include a nuisance which is rolled about [from one place to another] by the feet of man and by the feet of animal [and causes damage]. In what circumstances [did it do the damage]? If it was abandoned, according to both Rab and Samuel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 28b and supra p. 7. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
מאי שנא בור שכן תחילת עשייתו לנזק ושמירתו עליך הני נמי תחילת עשייתן לנזק ושמירתן עליך
it is equivalent to Pit! How does its case differ? Just as Pit is from its very inception a source of injury, and is under your control, so also is the case with that which from its very inception [as a nuisance] is likewise a source of injury, and is under your control. Furthermore, even if it were not abandoned, according to Samuel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 28b and supra p. 7. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
אלא דלא אפקרינהו לשמואל דאמר כולם מבורו למדנו היינו בור
who maintains that we deduce [the law governing] all nuisances from Pit, it is [again] equivalent to Pit? — Indeed it was abandoned, still it is not equivalent to Pit: Why [is liability attached] to Pit if not because the making of it solely caused the damage? How then can you assert [the same] in the case of such nuisances,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which have been rolling about from one place to another. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
שור יוכיח
— Ox, however, will refute [this reasoning]. But [you may ask] why [is liability attached] to Ox if not because of its habit to walk about and do damage? — Pit will refute [this reasoning]. The argument is [thus endlessly] reversible as the aspect of the one is not comparable to the aspect of the other, [and liability<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even in the case of nuisances that roll about. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
רב אדא בר אהבה אמר לאתויי הא דתניא כל אלו שאמרו פותקין ביבותיהן וגורפין מערותיהן בימות החמה אין להם רשות בימות הגשמים יש להם רשות אע"פ שברשות אם הזיקו חייבים לשלם
'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] however, even though they act lawfully, if special damage resulted they are liable to compensate.' But in what circumstances? If the damage occurred while [the nuisances were] in motion, is it not man's direct act?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The liability for which is self-evident under the category of Man. ');"><sup>16</sup></span>
היכי דמי אי בהדי דקאזלי מזקי כחו הוא
If, on the other hand, it occurred after they were at rest, [again] in what circumstances? If they were abandoned, then, according to both Rab and Samuel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 28b and supra p. 7. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
אלא בתר דנייח היכי דמי אי דאפקרינהו בין לרב בין לשמואל היינו בור מ"ש בור דתחילת עשייתו לנזק וממונך ושמירתו עליך הני נמי תחילת עשייתן לנזק וממונך ושמירתן עליך
they are equivalent to Pit! How does their case differ? Just as Pit is from its very inception a source of injury, and, being your possession, is under your control, so also is the case with those which are likewise from their very inception [as nuisances] sources of injury and, being your possession, are under your control. Furthermore, even if they were not abandoned, according to Samuel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 28b and supra p. 7. ');"><sup>17</sup></span>
אלא דלא אפקרינהו לשמואל דאמר כולם מבורו למדנו היינו בור
who maintains that we deduce [the law governing] all nuisances from Pit, they are [again] equivalent to Pit? — Indeed they were abandoned, still they are not equivalent to Pit: Why [is liability attached] to Pit if not because of its being unlawful?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being unlawful to dig a pit in public ground. ');"><sup>18</sup></span>