Bava Kamma 55

עמך בן בג בג יחידאה הוא ופליגי רבנן עליה

: It is true that Ben Bag Bag supports thy view; but he is only one against the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the majority of Rabbis. ');">¹</span>

רבי ינאי אמר מאי שבור את שיניו בדין

who differ from him. R. Jannai [even] suggested that 'Break his teeth' may also mean to bring him before a court of justice. But if so, why 'and thou mayest tell him?' Should it not read 'and they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Judges. ');">²</span>

אי הכי ואמור לו ואומרים לו מיבעי ליה שלי אני נוטל שלו הוא נוטל מיבעי ליה קשיא

will tell him'? Again, 'I am taking possession of what is mine'; should it not be 'he is taking possession of what is his'? — This is indeed a difficulty.

ת"ש שור שעלה ע"ג חבירו להורגו ובא בעל התחתון ושמט את שלו ונפל עליון ומת פטור מאי לאו במועד דליכא פסידא

Come and hear: In the case of an ox throwing itself upon the back of another's ox so as to kill it, if the owner of the ox that was beneath arrived and extricated his ox so that the ox that was above dropped down and was killed, there is exemption. Now, does not this ruling apply to <i>Mu'ad</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the Court would order compensation in full. ');">³</span>

לא בתם דאיכא פסידא

where no irreparable loss is pending? — No, it only applies to <i>Tam</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where compensation is only for a half, the plaintiff losing the other half. ');">⁴</span>

אי הכי אימא סיפא דחפו לעליון ומת חייב ואי בתם אמאי חייב

where an irreparable loss is indeed pending. But if so, read the subsequent clause: If [the owner of the ox that was beneath] pushed the ox from above, which was thus killed, there would be liability to compensate. Now if the case dealt with is of <i>Tam</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 145, n. 9. ');">⁵</span>

שהיה לו לשמטו ולא שמטו

why liability? — Since he was able to extricate his ox from beneath, which in fact he did not do, [he had no right to push and directly kill the assailing ox].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Although there was the danger of his losing the full value of his ox.] ');">⁶</span>

תא שמע הממלא חצר חבירו כדי יין וכדי שמן בעל החצר משבר ויוצא משבר ונכנס

Come and hear: In the case of a trespasser having filled his neighbour's premises with pitchers of wine and pitchers of oil, the owner of the premises is entitled to break them when going out and break them when coming in. [Does not this prove that a man may take the law into his own hands for the protection of his rights?]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus contradicting the view of Rab Judah. ');">⁷</span>

אמר ר"נ בר יצחק משבר ויוצא לב"ד משבר ונכנס להביא זכיותיו

— R. Nahman b. Isaac explained: He is entitled to break them [and make a way]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But no more. ');">⁸</span>

ת"ש מניין לנרצע שכלו לו ימיו ורבו מסרהב בו לצאת וחבל ועשה בו חבורה שהוא פטור

when going out [to complain] to the Court of Justice, as well as break them when coming back to fetch some necessary documents.

ת"ל (במדבר לה, לב) לא תקחו כופר לשוב לא תקחו כופר לשב

Come and hear: Whence is derived the ruling that in the case of a [Hebrew] bondman whose term of service, that had been extended by the boring of his ear,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 6. ');">⁹</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן בעבדא גנבא

has been terminated by the arrival of the Jubilee year<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 10, and Kid. 14b, 15a. ');">¹⁰</span>

עד האידנא לא גנב והשתא גנב עד האידנא הוה אימתיה דרביה עליה השתא לית ליה אימתא דרביה עליה

if it so happened that his master, while insisting upon him to leave, injured him by inflicting a wound upon him, there is yet exemption? We learn it from the words, And ye shall take no satisfaction for him that is&nbsp;… come again&nbsp;…<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXV, 32. ');">¹¹</span>

ר"נ בר יצחק אמר בעבד שמסר לו רבו שפחה כנענית עד האידנא היתירא והשתא איסורא

implying that we should not adjudicate compensation for him that is determined to 'come again' [as a servant].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to another rendering quoted by Rashi, it means 'that has to return' to his family, as prescribed in Lev. XXV, 10. ');">¹²</span>

ת"ש המניח את הכד ברה"ר ובא אחר ונתקל בה ושברה פטור טעמא דנתקל בה הא שברה חייב

[Does not this prove that a man may take the law into his own hands for the protection of his interests?]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus contradicting the view of Rab Judah. ');">⁷</span>

אמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא הוא הדין אפי' שברה והאי דקתני נתקל איידי דקבעי למיתני סיפא אם הוזק בעל חבית חייב בנזקו דדוקא נתקל אבל שבר לא דהוא אזיק נפשיה קתני רישא נתקל

— We are dealing here with a case where the servant became suspected of intending to commit theft.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case an irreparable loss is pending. ');">¹³</span>

ת"ש (דברים כה, יב) וקצתה את כפה ממון מאי לאו בשאינה יכולה להציל ע"י דבר אחר לא שיכולה להציל ע"י דבר אחר

But how is it that up to that time he did not commit any theft and just at that time<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the arrival of the Jubilee year. ');">¹⁴</span>

אבל אינה יכולה להציל ע"י דבר אחר פטורה אי הכי אדתני סיפא ושלחה ידה פרט לשליח ב"ד לפלוג ולתני בדידה בד"א בשיכולה להציל ע"י ד"א אבל אינה יכולה להציל ע"י דבר אחר פטורה

he became suspected of intending to commit theft? — Up to that time he had the fear of his master upon him, whereas from that time<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the arrival of the Jubilee year. ');">¹⁴</span>

ה"נ קאמר בד"א בשיכולה להציל ע"י דבר אחר אבל אינה יכולה להציל ע"י דבר אחר נעשה ידה כשליח ב"ד ופטורה

he is no more subject to his master's control.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 10, and Kid. 14b, 15a. ');">¹⁰</span>

ת"ש הרי שהיתה דרך הרבים עוברת בתוך שדהו נטלה ונתן להם מן הצד מה שנתן נתן ושלו לא הגיעו

R. Nahman b. Isaac said: We are dealing with a bondman to whom his master assigned a Canaanite maidservant as wife:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 4; Kid. 15a. ');">¹⁵</span>

ואי אמרת עביד איניש דינא לנפשיה לנקוט פזרא וליתיב

up to the expiration of the term this arrangement was lawful<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 4; Kid. 15a. ');">¹⁵</span>

אמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא גזירה שמא יתן להם דרך עקלתון

whereas from that time this becomes unlawful.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Onkelos on Deut. XXIII, 18; hence the Master may use force to eject him. ');">¹⁶</span>

רב משרשיא אמר בנותן להם דרך עקלתון

Come and hear: IF A MAN PLACES A PITCHER ON PUBLIC GROUND AND ANOTHER ONE COMES AND STUMBLES OVER IT AND BREAKS IT, HE IS EXEMPT. Now, is not this so only when the other one stumbled over it, whereas in the case of directly breaking it there is liability?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus opposing the view of R. Nahman. ');">¹⁷</span>

רב אשי אמר כל מן הצד דרך עקלתון הוא קרובה לזה ורחוקה לזה

— R. Zebid thereupon said in the name of Raba: The same law applies even in the case of directly breaking it; for 'AND STUMBLES' was inserted merely because of the subsequent clause which reads, IF THE OTHER ONE WAS INJURED BY IT, THE OWNER OF THE BARREL IS LIABLE TO COMPENSATE FOR THE DAMAGE, and which, of course, applies only to stumbling but not to direct breaking, as then it is of course the plaintiff who is to blame for the damage he caused to himself. It was therefore on this account that 'stumbling' was inserted in the commencing clause.

אי הכי אמאי שלו לא הגיעו לימא להו שקולו דידכו והבו לי דידי

Come and hear: <i>Then thou shalt cut off her hand</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 12. ');">¹⁸</span>

משום דרב יהודה דאמר רב יהודה מיצר שהחזיקו בו רבים אסור לקלקלו

means only a monetary fine. Does not this ruling apply even in a case where there was no other possibility for her to save [her husband]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus proving that even where irreparable loss is pending, as in this case, it is not permitted to take the law into one's own hands. ');">¹⁹</span>

ת"ש בעל הבית שהניח פאה מצד אחד ובאו עניים ונטלו מצד אחר זה וזה פאה וא"א עביד איניש דינא לנפשיה אמאי זה וזה פאה לנקוט פזרא וליתיב

— No, it applies only where she was able to save [him] by some other means.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case she acted ultra vires, i.e., beyond the permission granted by law. ');">²⁰</span>

אמר רבא מאי זה וזה פאה לפוטרן מן המעשר

Would indeed no fine be imposed upon her in a case where there was no other possibility for her to save [her husband]? But if so, why state in the subsequent clause: '<i>And putteth forth her hand</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXV, 11. ');">²¹</span>

כדתניא המפקיר את כרמו והשכים בבקר ובצרו חייב בפרט ובעוללות ובשכחה ובפאה ופטור מן המעשר:

excludes an officer of the Court of Justice [from any liability for degradation caused by him while carrying out the orders of the Court]'? Could not the distinction be made by continuing the very case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dealing with a woman coming to rescue her husband. ');">²²</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> נשברה כדו ברה"ר והוחלק אחד במים או שלקה בחרסית חייב רבי יהודה אומר במתכוין חייב באינו מתכוין פטור:

[in the following manner]: 'Provided that there were some other means at her disposal to save [him],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case she acted ultra vires, i.e., beyond the permission granted by law. ');">²⁰</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רב יהודה אמר רב לא שנו אלא שטינפו כליו במים

whereas if she was unable to save [him] by any other means there would be exemption'? — This very same thing was indeed meant to be conveyed [in the subsequent clause:] 'Provided that there were some other means at her disposal to save [him],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 147. n. 6. ');">²³</span> for were she unable to save [him] by any other means, the resort to force in her case should be considered as if exercised by an officer of the Court<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'her hand is like the hand of the officer'. ');">²⁴</span> [in the discharge of his duties] and there would be exemption.' Come and hear:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B. B. 99b. ');">²⁵</span> In the case of a public road passing through the middle of a field of an individual, who appropriates the road but gives the public another at the side of his field, the gift of the new road holds good, whereas the old one will not thereby revert to the owner of the field. Now, if you maintain that a man may take the law into his own hands for the protection of his interests, why should he not arm himself with a whip and sit there?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To keep away intruders; v. p. 147 n. 5. ');">²⁶</span> — R. Zebid thereupon said in the name of Raba: This is a precaution lest an owner [on further occasions] might substitute a round- about way<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is of course not an equitable exchange in accordance with the law. ');">²⁷</span> [for an old established road]. R. Mesharsheya even suggested that the ruling applies to an owner who actually replaced [the old existing road by] a roundabout way.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is of course not an equitable exchange in accordance with the law. ');">²⁷</span> R. Ashi said: To turn a road [from the middle] to the side [of a field] must inevitably render the road roundabout, for if for those who reside at that side it becomes more direct, for those who reside at the other side it is made far [and roundabout]. But if so, why does the gift of the new road hold good? Why can the owner not say to the public authorities: 'Take ye yours [the old path] and return me mine [the new one]'? — [That could not be done] because of Rab Judah, for Rab Judah said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.B. 12a; 26b; 60b and 100a. ');">²⁸</span> A path [once] taken possession of by the public may not be obstructed. Come and hear: If an owner leaves <i>Pe'ah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the portion of the harvest left at a corner of the field for the poor in accordance with Lev. XIX. 9; XXIII, 22; v. Glos. ');">²⁹</span> on one side of the field, whereas the poor arrive at another side and glean there, both sides are subject to the law of <i>Pe'ah</i>. Now, if you really maintain that a man may take the law into his own hands for the protection of his interests why should both sides be subject to the law of <i>Pe'ah</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus proving that even where irreparable loss is pending, as in this case, it is not permitted to take the law into his own hands. ');">³⁰</span> Why should the owner not arm himself with a whip and sit?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., keeping the poor away from the Pe'ah on the former side. ');">³¹</span> — Raba thereupon said: The meaning of 'both sides are subject to the law of <i>Pe'ah</i>' is that they are both exempt from tithing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But they will by no means belong to the poor, for the portion left on the former side remains the owner's property. ');">³²</span> as taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 94a; Ned. 44b. ');">³³</span> If a man, after having renounced the ownership of his vineyard, rises early on the following morning and cuts off the grapes,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that ownership has been re-established. ');">³⁴</span> there applies to them the laws of Peret,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.. grapes fallen off during cutting which are the share of the poor as prescribed in Lev. XIX, 10. ');">³⁵</span> 'Oleloth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Small single bunches reserved for the poor in accordance with Lev. XIX, 10, and Deut. XXIV, 21. ');">³⁶</span> 'Forgetting'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., produce forgotten in the field, belonging to the poor in accordance with Deut. XXIV, 19. ');">³⁷</span> and <i>Pe'ah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the portion of the harvest left at a corner of the field for the poor in accordance with Lev. XIX, 9; XXIII, 22; v. Glos. ');">³⁸</span> whereas there is exemption from tithing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 94a. For the law of tithing applies only to produce that has never been abandoned even for the smallest space of time; v. Rashi and Tosaf. a.l. ');">³⁹</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF HIS PITCHER BROKE ON PUBLIC GROUND AND SOMEONE SLIPPED IN THE WATER OR WAS INJURED BY THE POTSHERD HE IS LIABLE [TO COMPENSATE]. R. JUDAH SAYS: IF IT WAS DONE INTENTIONALLY HE IS LIABLE, BUT IF UNINTENTIONALLY HE IS EXEMPT. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Rab Judah said on behalf of Rab: The Mishnaic ruling refers only to garments soiled in the water.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rab maintains that the Mishnah deals with a case where the water of the broken pitcher has not been abandoned, so that it still remains the chattel of the original owner who is liable for any damage caused by it ');">⁴⁰</span>