## Bava Kamma Daf 27a

###### Bava Kamma 27a:1
[Bava Kamma 27a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/27a:1)

פְּטוּרִין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָא אוֹמֵר: בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה – הָאַחֲרוֹן חַיָּיב, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקֵּירַב מִיתָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**exempt,** as it is impossible to sentence any one of them to death since no one person killed the victim and there is no death penalty for partially killing a person. **Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says:** If they beat him **sequentially the last one** to beat him is **liable** for the death of the victim, **because he brought** the victim’s **death closer.** So too, in this case, although the first one threw the child, the one to impale him on his sword was the one to hasten his death, and therefore according to Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira he would be liable to receive the death penalty.


###### Bava Kamma 27a:2
[Bava Kamma 27a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/27a:2)

בָּא שׁוֹר וְקִבְּלוֹ בְּקַרְנָיו – פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא וְרַבָּנַן, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְנָתַן פִּדְיֹן נַפְשׁוֹ״ – דְּמֵי נִיזָּק. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּנוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא אוֹמֵר: דְּמֵי מַזִּיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses a similar scenario: If one threw a child from a roof and a forewarned **ox came** along **and impaled** the child **on its horns** and the child died, the question of whether or not the owner of the ox is liable to pay ransom is dependent upon **the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael, son of** Rabbi **Yoḥanan ben Beroka, and the Rabbis. As it is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse: **“He shall give for the redemption of his life”** (Exodus 21:30), indicates that he must pay **the value of the injured** party, i.e., the one who was killed. **Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, says:** He must pay **the value of the one responsible for the damage.** Since the child that was thrown off the roof had no monetary value at the time he was gored by the ox, as it was as if he were already dead, the Rabbis would exempt the owner of the ox from paying ransom. According to Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, the owner of the ox must pay his own value to the family of the victim.


###### Bava Kamma 27a:3
[Bava Kamma 27a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/27a:3)

וְאָמַר רַבָּה: נָפַל מֵרֹאשׁ הַגָּג וְנִתְקַע בְּאִשָּׁה – חַיָּיב בְּאַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים. וּבִיבִמְתּוֹ – לֹא קָנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabba says** another similar *halakha*: If a man **fell from a roof and** while falling **was inserted into a woman** due to the force of the fall, but he did not have the intention to engage in sexual intercourse, he is **liable to** pay **the four types of indemnity. And if** this woman was **his *yevama*** waiting for him to perform levirate marriage, **he has not acquired** her as his wife through this act of intercourse. This is true even though a levirate marriage is ordinarily effected through sexual intercourse, even if unintentional, i.e., if he thought she was someone else. Nevertheless, since in this case he did not intend to engage in intercourse at all, the levirate marriage is not effected.


###### Bava Kamma 27a:4
[Bava Kamma 27a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/27a:4)

חַיָּיב בְּנֶזֶק, בְּצַעַר, בְּרִיפּוּי, בְּשֶׁבֶת. אֲבָל בּשֶׁת – לָא, דִּתְנַן: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַל הַבֹּשֶׁת עַד שֶׁיְּהֵא מִתְכַּוֵּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: What are the four types of indemnity that he is liable to pay? **He is liable** to pay **for the damage, for the pain, for the medical costs,** and **for the loss of livelihood. But** he is **not** liable to pay compensation for **humiliation, as we learned** in a mishna (86a): **One is not liable** to pay compensation **for humiliation unless he intends** to humiliate the injured party, and that was certainly not the case in this situation.


###### Bava Kamma 27a:5
[Bava Kamma 27a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/27a:5)

וְאָמַר רַבָּה: נָפַל מֵרֹאשׁ הַגָּג בְּרוּחַ שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְצוּיָה, וְהִזִּיק וּבִיֵּישׁ – חַיָּיב עַל הַנֶּזֶק, וּפָטוּר בְּאַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים. בְּרוּחַ מְצוּיָה, וְהִזִּיק וּבִיֵּישׁ – חַיָּיב בְּאַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים, וּפָטוּר עַל הַבֹּשֶׁת. וְאִם נִתְהַפֵּךְ – חַיָּיב אַף עַל הַבֹּשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabba says** another, similar *halakha*: If one **fell from a roof due to an atypical wind,** such that it could not have been anticipated in advance that he would fall, **and** while falling **he caused damage and humiliated** the injured party, he is **liable for the damage** but **exempt from** paying **the four types of indemnity,** as he did not intend to fall. If he fell **due to a typical wind and caused damage and humiliated** the injured party while falling, he is **liable to** pay **the four types of indemnity,** as his fall was caused by negligence. **But** he is nevertheless **exempt from** paying compensation for **humiliation,** as he did not intend to fall. **But if he tumbled** while falling so he could fall on this person in order to protect himself from the impact with the ground, he is **liable** to pay compensation **for humiliation as well,** because although he did not intend to cause shame he did intend to land on the person.


###### Bava Kamma 27a:6
[Bava Kamma 27a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/27a:6)

דְּתַנְיָא: מִמַּשְׁמָע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְשָׁלְחָה יָדָהּ״ – אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהֶחֱזִיקָה?! מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהֶחֱזִיקָה״? לוֹמַר לְךָ: כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּין לְהַזִּיק – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְכַּוֵּין לְבַיֵּישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *halakha* that one is exempt from paying compensation for humiliation unless he intended to strike his victim is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **From the fact that it is stated: “And she extended her hand”** (Deuteronomy 25:11), **do I not know that she took** hold of something? Consequently, **what** is the meaning when further on in **the verse** it **states: “And she took** him by his genitals”? It is **to teach you that one who intends to cause damage, even if he does not intend to humiliate** the injured party, is nevertheless liable to pay compensation for humiliation.


###### Bava Kamma 27a:7
[Bava Kamma 27a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/27a:7)

וְאָמַר רַבָּה: הִנִּיחַ לוֹ גַּחֶלֶת עַל לִבּוֹ, וָמֵת – פָּטוּר. עַל בִּגְדּוֹ, וְנִשְׂרַף – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabba says:** If one **placed** a hot **coal over another’s heart and** the latter was burnt and **died,** the one who placed the coal is **exempt** because the victim should have removed the coal from himself, and the one who placed it there did not need to assume that the victim might not remove it. If he placed the coal **on** the other’s **garment and** the garment **was burnt,** he is **liable** to pay for the damage, as it is possible that the one whose garment was burnt thought to sue the one who placed the coal on his clothes for the cost of the garment, and that is why he did not bother to remove it.


###### Bava Kamma 27a:8
[Bava Kamma 27a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/27a:8)

אָמַר רָבָא: תַּרְוַיְיהוּ תְּנַנְהִי. עַל לִבּוֹ – דִּתְנַן: כָּבַשׁ עָלָיו לְתוֹךְ הָאוּר אוֹ לְתוֹךְ הַמַּיִם, וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲלוֹת מִשָּׁם, וָמֵת – חַיָּיב. דְּחָפוֹ לְתוֹךְ הָאוּר אוֹ לְתוֹךְ הַמַּיִם, וְיָכוֹל לַעֲלוֹת מִשָּׁם, וָמֵת – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: We have learned both** of these rulings through intimation in *mishnayot* elsewhere. With regard to the case of the coal placed **over his heart,** the *halakha* is **as we learned** in a mishna (*Sanhedrin* 76b): If one **held another in a fire or in water, and** the victim **is unable to extricate himself from there and he dies** as a result, the one who attacked him is **liable** to receive the death penalty as a murderer. If he **pushed him into fire or into the water, and** the victim **is able to extricate himself from there but he dies** anyway, the one who attacked him is **exempt** from the death penalty. The case of one who places a coal on another’s chest is similar to the one where he pushes the victim into the fire or the water in a situation where the victim has the ability to escape.


###### Bava Kamma 27a:9
[Bava Kamma 27a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/27a:9)

בִּגְדּוֹ – דִּתְנַן: ״קְרַע אֶת כְּסוּתִי״, ״שַׁבֵּר אֶת כַּדִּי״ – חַיָּיב. ״עַל מְנָת לִפְטוֹר״ – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the case of one who placed a coal on **the garment** of another, it is **as we learned** in a mishna (92a): If one said to another: **Tear my garment,** or: **Break my jug,** and the other person does so, the latter is **liable** for the damage. But if one said to another: Tear my garment **on the condition that** you will be **exempt** from all liability, he is **exempt.** It is therefore clear that even when one is granted permission by the owner of an item to damage it, that does not grant him an exemption from liability for the damage caused unless that exemption was stated explicitly. Consequently, in a case where the owner did not grant permission, the one who caused the damage is certainly liable.


###### Bava Kamma 27a:10
[Bava Kamma 27a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/27a:10)

בָּעֵי רַבָּה: הִנִּיחַ גַּחֶלֶת עַל לֵב עַבְדּוֹ, מַהוּ? כְּגוּפוֹ דָּמֵי, אוֹ כְּמָמוֹנוֹ דָּמֵי? אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר כְּגוּפוֹ דָּמֵי, שׁוֹרוֹ מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba raises a dilemma** in summation of this discussion: If **he placed a coal over the heart of** another’s Canaanite **slave** and the slave died as a result, **what is** the *halakha*? Is the body of the slave **comparable to the body** of any other person and therefore the assailant would be exempt from liability, **or** is it **comparable to** other **property** owned by the master and therefore the assailant would be liable? Furthermore, **if you say** that the body of the slave is **comparable to the body** of any ordinary person, as the slave had the ability to remove the coal from himself and therefore the assailant would be exempt, **what is** the *halakha* in a case where he placed the coal on the other’s **ox?**


###### Bava Kamma 27a:11
[Bava Kamma 27a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/27a:11)

הֲדַר פַּשְׁטַהּ: עַבְדּוֹ כְּגוּפוֹ, שׁוֹרוֹ כְּמָמוֹנוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
After raising the dilemma Rabba **then resolves it:** The body of **the slave is comparable to the body** of any other person, as the slave possesses an intellect and should have the sense to remove the coal from himself, whereas **the ox is comparable to** other **property.**


###### Bava Kamma 27a:12
[Bava Kamma 27a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/27a:12)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ כֵּיצַד הָרֶגֶל **

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
We learned in the Mishnah:


###### Bava Kamma 27a:13
[Bava Kamma 27a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/27a:13)

מַתְנִי׳ **הַמַּנִּיחַ** אֶת הַכַּד בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וּבָא אַחֵר וְנִתְקַל בָּהּ וּשְׁבָרָהּ – פָּטוּר. וְאִם הוּזַּק בָּהּ – בַּעַל הֶחָבִית חַיָּיב בְּנִזְקוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **one who places a *kad*,** a type of vessel, **in the public domain and another** person **comes and stumbles on it and breaks it,** the other person is **exempt** from paying for what he broke. **And if** the one who stumbled **incurred damage by** it, **the owner of the *ḥavit*,** a type of vessel, **is liable** to pay restitution **for his damage.**


###### Bava Kamma 27a:14
[Bava Kamma 27a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/27a:14)

**גְּמָ׳** פָּתַח בְּכַד, וְסִיֵּים בְּחָבִית!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna **began** its presentation of the case **in** reference to **a *kad*,** stating: In the case of one who places a *kad*, **and ended** it **in** reference to **a *ḥavit*,** stating: The owner of the *ḥavit* is liable.


###### Bava Kamma 27a:15
[Bava Kamma 27a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/27a:15)

וּתְנַן נָמֵי: זֶה בָּא בְּחָבִיתוֹ וְזֶה בָּא בְּקוֹרָתוֹ, נִשְׁבְּרָה כַּדּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה בְּקוֹרָתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה – פָּטוּר. פָּתַח בְּחָבִית, וְסִיֵּים בְּכַד!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And we learned** this interchanging of the words *kad* and *ḥavit* in a mishna (31b) **as well:** If two people were walking down the street, **this one coming with his *ḥavit* and that one coming with his** cross **beam,** and **this one’s *kad* was broken by that one’s** cross **beam,** the one holding the beam is **exempt.** Here too the mishna changed its wording, as it **began** its statement **in** reference to **a *ḥavit* and ended** it **in** reference to **a *kad*.**


###### Bava Kamma 27a:16
[Bava Kamma 27a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/27a:16)

וּתְנַן נָמֵי: זֶה בָּא בְּחָבִיתוֹ שֶׁל יַיִן, וְזֶה בָּא בְּכַדּוֹ שֶׁל דְּבַשׁ; נִסְדְּקָה חָבִית שֶׁל דְּבַשׁ, וְשָׁפַךְ זֶה יֵינוֹ וְהִצִּיל אֶת הַדְּבַשׁ לְתוֹכוֹ – אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא שְׂכָרוֹ. פָּתַח בְּכַד, וְסִיֵּים בְּחָבִית!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And we learned** this in another mishna (115a) **as well:** If **this** person **came with his *ḥavit* of wine and that** person **came with his *kad* of honey,** and **the *ḥavit* of honey,** which is more valuable, **cracked, and this** person **poured out his wine and saved the honey** by collecting it **into** his vessel, **he** receives **reimbursement only** for his trouble, and he cannot claim the value of the wine that he poured out since the owner of the honey did not tell him to do so. Here too the mishna changed its wording, as it **began** its statement **in** reference to **a *kad*** of honey **and ended** it **in** reference to **a *ḥavit*** of honey.


###### Bava Kamma 27a:17
[Bava Kamma 27a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/27a:17)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הַיְינוּ כַּד – הַיְינוּ חָבִית. לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְמִקָּח וּמִמְכָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said:** These examples show that **a *kad* is** the same as **a *ḥavit*,** and the two words are used interchangeably. **With regard to what** does this make **a difference?** This makes a difference **for buying and selling.** If a customer asks for a *ḥavit*, intending a large vessel, and the seller gives him a *kad*, which is a smaller vessel, the buyer cannot claim that he did not receive the item he asked for.


###### Bava Kamma 27a:18
[Bava Kamma 27a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/27a:18)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא בְּאַתְרָא דְּכַדָּא לָא קָרוּ ״חָבִית״, וְחָבִית לָא קָרוּ ״כַּדָּא״; הָא לָא קָרוּ לַהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** where this is relevant? **If we say** that it is **with regard to a locale where** people **do not refer to a *kad* as a *ḥavit*, nor do they refer to a *ḥavit* as a *kad*,** and a *ḥavit* is understood to be referring to a larger vessel, clearly one who asks for a *ḥavit* does not wish to buy a *kad*, as people **do not call it** that.


###### Bava Kamma 27a:19
[Bava Kamma 27a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/27a:19)

לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּרוּבָּא קָרוּ לַהּ לְכַדָּא ״כַּדָּא״ וּלְחָבִיתָא ״חָבִיתָא״, וְאִיכָּא נָמֵי דְּקָרוּ לְחָבִיתָא ״כַּדָּא״ וּלְכַדָּא ״חָבִיתָא״; מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: זִיל בָּתַר רוּבָּא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** to teach that they are equivalent terms with regard to a locale **where most** people **call a *kad* a *kad* and a *ḥavit* a *ḥavit*,** i.e., most people use the term *kad* for the smaller vessel and the term *ḥavit* for the larger one, **and there are also** those **who call a *ḥavit* a *kad* and a *kad* a *ḥavit*,** not distinguishing between the two terms. **Lest you say** that the *halakha* **follows the majority** and the seller and the buyer must accept this distinction,