## Bava Kamma Daf 26b

###### Bava Kamma 26b:1
[Bava Kamma 26b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/26b:1)

מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי חִזְקִיָּה, אָמַר קְרָא: ״פֶּצַע תַּחַת פָּצַע״ – לְחַיְּיבוֹ עַל הַשּׁוֹגֵג כְּמֵזִיד, וְעַל הָאוֹנֶס כְּרָצוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the *halakha* that one must pay the full cost of the damage in a case where there was no intent to cause damage, the Gemara asks: **From where are these matters** derived? **Ḥizkiyya says, and similarly, the school of Ḥizkiyya taught: The verse states: “Wound for wound [*petza taḥat patza*]”** (Exodus 21:25). This phrase is superfluous, as the Torah states elsewhere (see Leviticus 24:19) that one is liable to pay compensation when injuring another. This verse serves **to render him liable** to pay **for the unintentional** damage just **as** he pays **for the intentional** damage; **and** he pays **for** damage caused by **accident** just **as** he pays **for** damage caused **willingly.**


###### Bava Kamma 26b:2
[Bava Kamma 26b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/26b:2)

הַאי מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לִיתֵּן צַעַר בִּמְקוֹם נֶזֶק! אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב קְרָא: ״פֶּצַע בְּפָצַע״; מַאי ״תַּחַת פָּצַע״ – שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: But **this** verse **is necessary** in order **to** indicate that one must **pay** compensation for **pain,** even **in a case** where he pays compensation for **damage** caused by the injury. Consequently, it seems that that verse cannot also be the source of the principle derived by the school of Ḥizkiyya. The Gemara answers: **If** it is **so** that the superfluous phrase is intended to teach only that, then **let the verse write: *Petza befatza*,** which carries the same meaning. **What,** then, is meant by the superfluous word *taḥat* in the phrase “*petza **taḥat patza*****”?** It indicates that we must **derive two** conclusions **from it:** That one is liable to pay for pain even in a case where he pays compensation for damage, and that he is liable for unintentional damage as he is for intentional damage, and for damage caused by accident as for damage caused willingly.


###### Bava Kamma 26b:3
[Bava Kamma 26b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/26b:3)

אָמַר רַבָּה: הָיְתָה אֶבֶן מוּנַּחַת לוֹ בְּחֵיקוֹ וְלֹא הִכִּיר בָּהּ, וְעָמַד וְנָפְלָה; לְעִנְיַן נְזָקִין – חַיָּיב, לְעִנְיַן אַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים – פָּטוּר, לְעִנְיַן שַׁבָּת – מְלֶאכֶת מַחְשֶׁבֶת אָסְרָה תּוֹרָה, לְעִנְיַן גָּלוּת – פָּטוּר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabba says:** If **there was a stone lying in** one’s **lap and** he **was unaware of it, and he arose and it fell** and caused damage, **with regard to damages** he is **liable** to pay the full cost of the damage caused by the stone. **With regard to the four types of indemnity,** he is **exempt. With regard to Shabbat,** if the falling stone caused him to violate one of the prohibited categories of labor; for example, if the stone fell from a private domain to the public domain, he is exempt. The reason is that **the Torah prohibited** only **planned,** constructive **labor** on Shabbat, and he did not plan to perform this labor. **With regard to exile,** the punishment prescribed for one who unintentionally but negligently kills another, were this stone to kill someone he is **exempt,** as the incident is deemed accidental.


###### Bava Kamma 26b:4
[Bava Kamma 26b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/26b:4)

לְעִנְיַן עֶבֶד – פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבָּנַן. דְּתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה רַבּוֹ רוֹפֵא, וְאָמַר לוֹ: ״כְּחוֹל עֵינִי״, וְסִימְּאָהּ; ״חֲתוֹר לִי שִׁינִּי״, וְהִפִּילָהּ – שִׂיחֵק בָּאָדוֹן, וְיָצָא לְחֵרוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**With regard to** a Canaanite **slave** whose tooth was destroyed or eye was blinded by the stone, potentially enabling the slave to earn his freedom (see Exodus 21:26–27), this is the subject of **a dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis, as it is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta* 9:25): **If the master was a doctor and** the slave **said to him: Paint** the lid of **my eye** in order to heal it, **and** the master **blinded it** during the procedure, or if the slave requested from his master: **Scrape my tooth** in order to heal it, **and** the master **knocked out** the tooth while scraping it, the slave **has mocked the master, as he is emancipated** due to the act of the master himself.


###### Bava Kamma 26b:5
[Bava Kamma 26b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/26b:5)

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: ״וְשִׁחֲתָהּ״ – עַד שֶׁיִּתְכַּוֵּין לְשַׁחֲתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
By contrast, **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:** The slave is not emancipated in these cases because the verse states: **“And destroy it”** (Exodus 21:26), from which it is derived that the slave is emancipated **only** in a case **where** the master **intends to destroy** the eye or the tooth, but not if he intended to heal the slave. So too, in the case where a stone fell and accidentally blinded a slave’s eye or knocked out his tooth, according to the Rabbis the slave would be emancipated and according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel he would not. All of the above cases relate to situations where the individual did not know the stone was in his lap.


###### Bava Kamma 26b:6
[Bava Kamma 26b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/26b:6)

הִכִּיר בָּהּ וּשְׁכֵחָהּ, וְעָמַד וְנָפְלָה; לְעִנְיַן נְזָקִין – חַיָּיב. לְעִנְיַן אַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים – פָּטוּר. לְעִנְיַן גָּלוּת – חַיָּיב, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״בִּשְׁגָגָה״ – מִכְּלָל דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ יְדִיעָה, וְהָא הַוְיָא לֵיהּ יְדִיעָה. לְעִנְיַן שַׁבָּת – פָּטוּר. לְעִנְיַן עֶבֶד – פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **he was** initially **aware of it but forgot about it and he arose and it fell, with regard to damages** he is certainly **liable,** being that he is liable even if he was unaware of the stone. **With regard to the four types of indemnity,** here too he is **exempt,** as he did not intend to cause injury. **With regard to exile** he is **liable, as the verse states:** “One who **unwittingly** strikes a person mortally” (Numbers 35:11), indicating **by inference that** the assailant **had** some previous **awareness, and** in this case **he was** in fact previously **aware** of the stone in his lap. The term “unwittingly” is employed to describe someone who possessed knowledge of the potential transgression then forgot about it. **With regard to Shabbat** he is **exempt,** as this was not a planned, constructive labor. **With regard to a slave, the** same **dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis** applies.


###### Bava Kamma 26b:7
[Bava Kamma 26b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/26b:7)

נִתְכַּוֵּין לִזְרוֹק שְׁתַּיִם, וְזָרַק אַרְבַּע; לְעִנְיַן נְזָקִין – חַיָּיב. לְעִנְיַן אַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים – פָּטוּר. לְעִנְיַן שַׁבָּת – מְלֶאכֶת מַחְשֶׁבֶת בָּעֵינַן. לְעִנְיַן גָּלוּת – ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא צָדָה״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, פְּרָט לְנִתְכַּוֵּין לִזְרוֹק שְׁתַּיִם וְזָרַק אַרְבַּע. לְעִנְיַן עֶבֶד – פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In a case where **he intended to throw** the stone, and he intended to throw it for a distance of only **two** cubits **but** instead he **threw** it a distance of **four** cubits, as it went farther than he wanted it to go, **with regard to damages** he is **liable. With regard to the four types of indemnity** he is **exempt. With regard to Shabbat** he is exempt, as **we require planned,** constructive **labor** as a condition for liability. **With regard to exile** he is liable, as **the Merciful One states** in the Torah: **“If a man lie not in wait”** (Exodus 21:13), which serves **to exclude** from the death penalty a situation where one **intended to throw** the stone for **two** cubits **but** he actually **threw** it for **four** cubits, as he did not intend to kill, so he is exiled. **With regard to a slave, the** same **dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis** applies.


###### Bava Kamma 26b:8
[Bava Kamma 26b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/26b:8)

נִתְכַּוֵּין לִזְרוֹק אַרְבַּע, וְזָרַק שְׁמֹנֶה; לְעִנְיַן נְזָקִין – חַיָּיב. לְעִנְיַן אַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים – פָּטוּר. לְעִנְיַן שַׁבָּת – בְּאוֹמֵר ״כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁתִּרְצֶה תָּנוּחַ״, אִין; אִי לָא, לָא. לְעִנְיַן גָּלוּת – ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא צָדָה״, פְּרָט לְנִתְכַּוֵּין לִזְרוֹק אַרְבַּע וְזָרַק שְׁמֹנֶה. לְעִנְיַן עֶבֶד – פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And if **he intended to throw** the stone **four** cubits **but** instead he **threw** it **eight** cubits, **with regard to damages** he is **liable. With regard to the four types of indemnity** he is **exempt. With regard to Shabbat, if he said** to himself when he threw the stone that he would be satisfied **wherever it may land,** then **yes,** he is liable, as he intended to throw it a distance of four cubits, which is the minimum necessary to violate the prohibited labor of carrying in the public domain. **If** he did **not** throw the stone aimlessly but rather had selected a target that was four cubits away, then he is **not** liable as he did not perform the precise planned, constructive labor that he had intended. **With regard to exile,** the Torah states: **“If a man lie not in wait”** (Exodus 21:13), which serves **to exclude** from the death penalty a situation where one **intended to throw** it **four** cubits **but** he actually **threw** it **eight** cubits, as he did not intend to kill, so he is exiled. **With regard to a slave, the** same **dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis** applies.


###### Bava Kamma 26b:9
[Bava Kamma 26b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/26b:9)

וְאָמַר רַבָּה: זָרַק כְּלִי מֵרֹאשׁ הַגָּג, וּבָא אַחֵר וּשְׁבָרוֹ בְּמַקֵּל – פָּטוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? מָנָא תְּבִירָא תָּבַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Since the Gemara cited Rabba’s comments about various actions for which the perpetrator is liable with regard to certain matters but exempt with regard to others, the Gemara cites similar rulings: **And Rabba says:** If one **threw a vessel,** such as an earthenware jug, **from a roof and another came** along **and broke it with a stick** during its descent, the latter is **exempt** from liability. **What is the reason?** It is because **he broke a broken vessel,** meaning that once the vessel was thrown from the roof it was clear that it would be broken upon landing, and therefore it is considered as if it were already broken and the one who broke it while it was still in the air is not liable.


###### Bava Kamma 26b:10
[Bava Kamma 26b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/26b:10)

וְאָמַר רַבָּה: זָרַק כְּלִי מֵרֹאשׁ הַגָּג, וְהָיוּ תַּחְתָּיו כָּרִים אוֹ כְסָתוֹת; בָּא אַחֵר וְסִלְּקָן, אוֹ קָדַם [הוּא] וְסִלְּקָן – פָּטוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? בְּעִידָּנָא דְּשַׁדְיֵיהּ – פַּסּוֹקֵי מְפַסְּקִי גִּירֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabba says:** If one **threw a vessel from a roof and there were cushions or blankets below** so that if the vessel would land on them it would not break, and then **another came and removed** the cushions or blankets, **or** if the individual who threw the vessel went quickly **before** it landed and **removed** the cushions or blankets himself, and as a result the vessel shattered, the one who threw the vessel is **exempt** from liability even though the vessel broke as a consequence of his actions. **What is the reason? At the time that he threw** the vessel, **his arrows were stopped,** i.e., what he did at the time he threw the vessel, which is an act comparable to the shooting of an arrow, did not have the capacity to break the vessel. Therefore, he is not viewed as having broken the vessel, and is exempt.


###### Bava Kamma 26b:11
[Bava Kamma 26b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/26b:11)

וְאָמַר רַבָּה: זָרַק תִּינוֹק מֵרֹאשׁ הַגָּג, וּבָא אַחֵר וְקִבְּלוֹ בְּסַיִיף – פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא וְרַבָּנַן. דְּתַנְיָא: הִכּוּהוּ עֲשָׂרָה בְּנֵי אָדָם בַּעֲשָׂרָה מַקְלוֹת – בֵּין בְּבַת אַחַת בֵּין בָּזֶה אַחַר זֶה, כּוּלָּן

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabba says:** If one **threw a child from a roof and another came** along **and impaled him on his sword** and the child died, the question of who is liable to receive the death penalty for killing the child is dependent upon **the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira and the Rabbis. As it is taught** in a *baraita*: If **ten people beat** a victim **with ten sticks, whether** they did so **simultaneously or sequentially, they are all**