## Bava Kamma Daf 28a

###### Bava Kamma 28a:1
[Bava Kamma 28a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/28a:1)

עִמָּךְ?! בֶּן בַּג בַּג יְחִידָאָה הוּא, וּפְלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
You can keep this question **to yourself,** as it poses no difficulty at all. **Ben Bag Bag** states **an individual** opinion in this regard, **and the Rabbis disagree with him.**


###### Bava Kamma 28a:2
[Bava Kamma 28a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/28a:2)

רַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר: מַאי ״שְׁבוֹר אֶת שִׁינָּיו״ – בַּדִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yannai says** an alternative response to Rav Kahana’s objection: **What** does the *baraita* mean by the phrase: **Break his teeth?** It means sue him **in judgment.**


###### Bava Kamma 28a:3
[Bava Kamma 28a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/28a:3)

אִי הָכִי, ״וֶאֱמוֹר לוֹ״?! ״וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! ״שֶׁלִּי אֲנִי נוֹטֵל״?! ״שֶׁלּוֹ הוּא נוֹטֵל״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so,** the subsequent statement in the *baraita*: **And say to him,** is inaccurate. It **should have** stated: **And they,** the court, **say to him.** Likewise, the wording: **I am taking what is mine,** is inaccurate. Since it is the court who makes this statement, the *baraita* **should have** stated: **He is taking what is his.** The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this poses **a difficulty** for Rav Yehuda’s version of the response.


###### Bava Kamma 28a:4
[Bava Kamma 28a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/28a:4)

תָּא שְׁמַע: שׁוֹר שֶׁעָלָה עַל גַּבֵּי חֲבֵירוֹ לְהוֹרְגוֹ, וּבָא בַּעַל הַתַּחְתּוֹן וְשָׁמַט אֶת שֶׁלּוֹ, וְנָפַל עֶלְיוֹן וָמֵת – פָּטוּר. מַאי, לָאו בְּמוּעָד – דְּלֵיכָּא פְּסֵידָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** an alternative proof for Rav Naḥman’s opinion. It is stated in a *baraita*: With regard to **an ox that climbed on the back of another** ox **to kill it, and the owner of the** ox on the **bottom came and removed his** ox, **and the** ox **on top** consequently **fell and died,** the owner of the ox on the bottom is **exempt** from paying for the dead ox. **What, is** this ruling **not** stated **with regard to** a case where the attacker is **a forewarned** ox, **where there is no loss** to the owner of the bottom ox, since even if the owner of the ox on the bottom does not remove his ox, he will eventually receive full restitution from the owner of the belligerent ox? Yet he is exempt from paying restitution for causing the death of the belligerent ox. Evidently, he had the right to take justice into his own hands.


###### Bava Kamma 28a:5
[Bava Kamma 28a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/28a:5)

לָא, בְּתָם – דְּאִיכָּא פְּסֵידָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this proof: **No,** the ruling is **with regard to** a case where the attacker is **an innocuous** ox, **where there is a loss** for the owner of the ox on the bottom if he does not save it, since the owner of an innocuous ox pays for only half the damages resulting from his ox’s attack.


###### Bava Kamma 28a:6
[Bava Kamma 28a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/28a:6)

אִי הָכִי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: דְּחָפוֹ לָעֶלְיוֹן וָמֵת – חַיָּיב. וְאִי בְּתָם, אַמַּאי חַיָּיב?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so, say the latter clause** of that *baraita*: If, instead of removing his own ox, the owner of the ox on the bottom **pushed the one on top and it died,** he is **liable. And if** it is referring **to an innocuous** ox, **why** is he **liable?** He is defending his property so as not to incur a loss.


###### Bava Kamma 28a:7
[Bava Kamma 28a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/28a:7)

שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ לְשׇׁמְטוֹ, וְלֹא שְׁמָטוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: He is liable **because he should have removed** his ox from underneath the belligerent ox, **and he did not remove it.** Instead, he pushed the belligerent ox and caused it to die. Although one may take justice into his own hands, if he damages another person’s property when he could have protected his own property in a harmless manner he is liable.


###### Bava Kamma 28a:8
[Bava Kamma 28a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/28a:8)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמְמַלֵּא חֲצַר חֲבֵירוֹ כַּדֵּי יַיִן וְכַדֵּי שֶׁמֶן – בַּעַל הֶחָצֵר מְשַׁבֵּר וְיוֹצֵא, מְשַׁבֵּר וְנִכְנָס!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof for Rav Naḥman’s opinion from a *baraita*: With regard to **one who fills another’s courtyard with jugs of wine and jugs of oil, the owner of the courtyard may break** his way through them **and exit** his courtyard or he **may break** his way through them **and enter** his courtyard. Since the one who put the jugs there had no right to do so, the owner of the courtyard may take justice into his own hands. This is apparently the ruling even where there is no loss involved to the owner of the courtyard.


###### Bava Kamma 28a:9
[Bava Kamma 28a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/28a:9)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מְשַׁבֵּר וְיוֹצֵא לְבֵית דִּין, מְשַׁבֵּר וְנִכְנָס לְהָבִיא זְכִיּוֹתָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said** in response that the *baraita* can be explained as follows: The owner of the courtyard **may break** the jugs **and exit to court,** and he **may break** the jugs **and enter** his house **to bring** proof of **his rights,** i.e., documents proving that the courtyard belongs to him. Since by refraining from doing so he would sustain a loss, he may break the jugs when exiting and entering. He may not take justice into his own hands beyond this extent. Therefore, no proof for Rav Naḥman’s opinion can be inferred from this *baraita*.


###### Bava Kamma 28a:10
[Bava Kamma 28a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/28a:10)

תָּא שְׁמַע: מִנַּיִין לְנִרְצָע שֶׁכָּלוּ לוֹ יָמָיו, וְרַבּוֹ מְסַרְהֵב בּוֹ לָצֵאת, וְחָבַל וְעָשָׂה בּוֹ חַבּוּרָה, שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** an alternative proof from a *baraita*: **From where** is it derived with regard **to a Hebrew slave** who had his ear **pierced** with an awl to extend his tenure as a slave, but **whose days** of servitude **have** now **ended** with the arrival of the Jubilee Year; **and his master is urging [*mesarhev*] him to leave** but he insists on remaining; **and** the master **injured** the slave **and inflicted an injury on him** in the process of forcing him out, **that** the master **is exempt** from paying for this injury?


###### Bava Kamma 28a:11
[Bava Kamma 28a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/28a:11)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תִקְּחוּ כֹפֶר״ ״לָשׁוּב״ – לֹא תִּקְחוּ כּוֹפֶר לַשָּׁב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
To counter this, **the verse states: “You shall take no ransom…that he should return”** (Numbers 35:32). Although this verse is referring to the prohibition against an unintentional killer paying a ransom instead of going to a city of refuge, this verse is also interpreted to mean that **you shall take no ransom for** a Hebrew slave who is obligated to **return** to his family. In other words, if the slave refuses to return to his family and is injured in the process of his eviction, he does not receive compensation. This seems to indicate that the master may take justice into his own hands even for a matter that involves no loss to him.


###### Bava Kamma 28a:12
[Bava Kamma 28a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/28a:12)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּעַבְדָּא גַּנָּבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds to this proof: **With what are we dealing here?** We are dealing **with a slave** who is **a thief,** and consequently, if he remains a slave, his master will sustain a loss. Therefore, it is permitted for the master to take justice into his own hands and evict the slave by force.


###### Bava Kamma 28a:13
[Bava Kamma 28a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/28a:13)

עַד הָאִידָּנָא לָא גְּנַב, וְהַשְׁתָּא גָּנֵב?! עַד הָאִידָּנָא הֲוָה אֵימְתֵיהּ דְּרַבֵּיהּ עֲלֵיהּ, הַשְׁתָּא לֵית לֵיהּ אֵימְתָא דְּרַבֵּיהּ עֲלֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this explanation: **Until now he did not steal, and now he will** begin to **steal?** Why would the master be worried about this just when the slave’s tenure ends? The Gemara answers: **Until now,** while he was still a slave, **the awe of his master was upon him,** so he did not steal from him. **Now** that he may go free **he does not have the awe of his master upon him,** and the master is therefore worried that he might steal from him.


###### Bava Kamma 28a:14
[Bava Kamma 28a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/28a:14)

רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אָמַר: בְּעֶבֶד שֶׁמָּסַר לוֹ רַבּוֹ שִׁפְחָה כְּנַעֲנִית; עַד הָאִידָּנָא הֶיתֵּירָא, וְהַשְׁתָּא אִיסּוּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said** an alternative explanation: The *baraita* is referring **to a slave whose master provided a Canaanite maidservant to him** as a wife and he wishes to remain with her. **Until now,** it was **permitted** for him to engage in sexual intercourse with her, **but now** that he is free, it is **prohibited** for him to do so. In this case, his master may evict him forcefully, assuming the role of an emissary of the court, to prevent him from violating the prohibition. Therefore, this is not considered taking justice into his own hands.


###### Bava Kamma 28a:15
[Bava Kamma 28a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/28a:15)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמַּנִּיחַ אֶת הַכַּד בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וּבָא אַחֵר וְנִתְקַל בָּהּ וּשְׁבָרָהּ – פָּטוּר. טַעְמָא דְּנִתְקַל בָּהּ, הָא שְׁבָרָהּ – חַיָּיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests a proof for Rav Yehuda’s opinion from the mishna. **Come** and **hear:** In the case of **one who places a jug in the public domain and another** person **comes and stumbles on it and breaks it,** he is **exempt.** It may be inferred that **the reason** he is exempt **is that he stumbled on it. But** if **he broke it** intentionally, he is **liable.** This indicates that one may not take justice into his own hands.


###### Bava Kamma 28a:16
[Bava Kamma 28a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/28a:16)

אָמַר רַב זְבִיד מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: הוּא הַדִּין אֲפִילּוּ שְׁבָרָהּ; וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי ״נִתְקַל״ – אַיְּידֵי דְּקָבָעֵי לְמִיתְנֵי סֵיפָא: אִם הוּזַּק – בַּעַל חָבִית חַיָּיב בְּנִזְקוֹ, דְּדַוְקָא נִתְקַל אֲבָל שָׁבַר לָא, דְּהוּא אַזֵּיק נַפְשֵׁיהּ; קָתָנֵי רֵישָׁא נִתְקַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava:** That is not a proof, as **the same is true even if he broke** the barrel intentionally. **And** as for **this** fact **that** the *tanna* of the mishna **teaches** a case where **he stumbled,** it is **because he wants to teach** in **the last clause:** And **if he incurred damage due to** the vessel, **the owner of the *ḥavit* is liable** to pay **for his damages. As** this ruling applies **specifically when he stumbled, but** if **he broke** the barrel intentionally and incurred damage in the process, the owner of the barrel is **not** required to compensate him. Although the pedestrian had the right to break the barrel, **it is he who damaged himself,** by not being careful while breaking it. Therefore, in **the first clause** the mishna **teaches** a case where **he stumbled.**


###### Bava Kamma 28a:17
[Bava Kamma 28a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/28a:17)

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וְקַצֹּתָה אֶת כַּפָּהּ״ – מָמוֹן. מַאי, לָאו בְּשֶׁאֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לְהַצִּיל עַל יְדֵי דָּבָר אַחֵר? לֹא, שֶׁיְּכוֹלָה לְהַצִּיל עַל יְדֵי דָּבָר אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a *baraita*, which relates to the case of a woman who, during a fight between her husband and another man, grabs the other man’s genitals: The verse that states: **“Then you shall cut off her hand”** (Deuteronomy 25:12), should not be taken literally; rather, it is referring to **monetary restitution. What, is it not** referring to a case **where she cannot save** her husband from his attacker **by a means other** than grabbing the attacker’s genitals, and nevertheless she is punished? This indicates that one may not take justice into his own hands. The Gemara answers: **No,** the verse is referring to a case **where she can save** him **by other means.** Otherwise she is exempt from paying restitution.


###### Bava Kamma 28a:18
[Bava Kamma 28a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/28a:18)

אֲבָל אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לְהַצִּיל עַל יְדֵי דָּבָר אַחֵר – פְּטוּרָה? אִי הָכִי, אַדְּתָנֵי סֵיפָא: ״וְשָׁלְחָה יָדָהּ״ – פְּרָט לִשְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין; לִפְלוֹג וְלִתְנֵי בְּדִידַהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּשֶׁיְּכוֹלָה לְהַצִּיל עַל יְדֵי דָּבָר אַחֵר, אֲבָל אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לְהַצִּיל עַל יְדֵי דָּבָר אַחֵר – פְּטוּרָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But if she cannot save** him **by other means,** is it possible that **she** is **exempt? If so, instead of teaching** in **the latter clause** of that *baraita* that the expression mentioned in the previous verse: **“And extended her hand”** (Deuteronomy 25:11), **excludes an emissary of the court,** who is authorized to act in this manner and is therefore exempt from paying restitution, **let** the *baraita* **distinguish and teach within** the case under discussion in the verse **itself,** as follows: **In what** case **is this statement** that the wife is liable **said?** It is **in** a case **where she can save** her husband **by another means. But** if **she cannot save** him **by other means, she** is **exempt.**


###### Bava Kamma 28a:19
[Bava Kamma 28a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/28a:19)

הָכִי נָמֵי קָאָמַר: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּשֶׁיְּכוֹלָה לְהַצִּיל עַל יְדֵי דָּבָר אַחֵר, אֲבָל אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לְהַצִּיל עַל יְדֵי דָּבָר אַחֵר – נַעֲשָׂה יָדָהּ כִּשְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין, וּפְטוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **That is also what** the *baraita* **is saying: In what** case **is this statement said?** It is said **in** a case **where she can save** him **by other means. But** if **she cannot save** him **by other means, her hand is rendered like an emissary of the court, and she is exempt.**


###### Bava Kamma 28a:20
[Bava Kamma 28a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/28a:20)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיְתָה דֶּרֶךְ הָרַבִּים עוֹבֶרֶת בְּתוֹךְ שָׂדֵהוּ; נְטָלָהּ, וְנָתַן לָהֶם מִן הַצַּד – מַה שֶּׁנָּתַן נָתַן, וְשֶׁלּוֹ לֹא הִגִּיעוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof for Rav Yehuda’s opinion from a mishna (*Bava Batra* 99b): In a case **where a public thoroughfare would pass through** one’s **field,** and **he appropriated it and** instead **gave** the public an alternative route **on the side** of his property, the *halakha* is that the route **that he has given** is the route **that he gave** them, and they may use it. **But his** property, which he appropriated, **has not reached him,** i.e., he cannot appropriate it for his personal use since it was already in public use.


###### Bava Kamma 28a:21
[Bava Kamma 28a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/28a:21)

וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ עָבֵיד אִינִישׁ דִּינָא לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ, לִנְקוֹט פַּזְרָא וְלִיתֵיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say that a person may take justice into his own** hands, why does the owner of the field not have the right to close the thoroughfare? Since it is his property and he gave the public an alternative route, **let him take a stick [*pazra*]** in his hand **and sit** by the side of the road, preventing the public from passing through.


###### Bava Kamma 28a:22
[Bava Kamma 28a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/28a:22)

אָמַר רַב זְבִיד מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יִתֵּן לָהֶם דֶּרֶךְ עֲקַלָּתוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: It is** a rabbinic **decree, lest he give them a circuitous route.** Since the public has the right to pass through his field, as the Gemara will soon explain, the owner cannot appropriate their thoroughfare without giving the public a similar alternative route. Therefore, the Sages decreed that he cannot appropriate it without their consent, lest he provide an inadequate route.


###### Bava Kamma 28a:23
[Bava Kamma 28a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/28a:23)

רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא אָמַר: בְּנוֹתֵן לָהֶם דֶּרֶךְ עֲקַלָּתוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Mesharshiyya said:** The mishna is referring to a case **where he** actually **gave them a circuitous route.** If one in fact gives the public a straight path, he need not surrender his rights, and he may take justice into his own hands by blocking the original thoroughfare.


###### Bava Kamma 28a:24
[Bava Kamma 28a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/28a:24)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כֹּל מִן הַצַּד – דֶּרֶךְ עֲקַלָּתוֹן הוּא, קְרוֹבָה לָזֶה וּרְחוֹקָה לָזֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: Any** route **on the side** that the property owner might give them **is** necessarily considered **a circuitous route,** as **it is close for this** person, **and it is far for that** person. While some will benefit from the change, it will be detrimental for others.


###### Bava Kamma 28a:25
[Bava Kamma 28a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/28a:25)

אִי הָכִי, אַמַּאי שֶׁלּוֹ לֹא הִגִּיעוֹ? לֵימָא לְהוּ: שְׁקוּלוּ דִּידְכוּ, וְהַבוּ לִי דִּידִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so, why has his** property **not reached him?** If he cannot make the change, why can he not reclaim the path that he intended to turn over to the public? **Let him say to them: Take your** original route **and give me** back **my** property, so that he will not lose both pieces of land.


###### Bava Kamma 28a:26
[Bava Kamma 28a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/28a:26)

מִשּׁוּם דְּרַב יְהוּדָה – דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: מֵיצַר שֶׁהֶחֱזִיקוּ בּוֹ רַבִּים – אָסוּר לְקַלְקְלוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers that he cannot reclaim it **due to Rav Yehuda’s** statement, **as Rav Yehuda says:** With regard to **a path that the masses established** as a public thoroughfare, **it is prohibited to destroy it** for them. Therefore, since the public already began using the alternative route, the owner cannot appropriate it from them.


###### Bava Kamma 28a:27
[Bava Kamma 28a:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/28a:27)

תָּא שְׁמַע: בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁהִנִּיחַ פֵּאָה מִצַּד אֶחָד, וּבָאוּ עֲנִיִּים וְנָטְלוּ מִצַּד אַחֵר – זֶה וָזֶה פֵּאָה. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ עָבֵיד אִינִישׁ דִּינָא לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ, אַמַּאי זֶה וָזֶה פֵּאָה? לִנְקוֹט פַּזְרָא וְלִיתֵיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** an alternative proof from a *baraita*: With regard to **the owner** of a field **who left produce in the corner of the field, which is given to the poor [*pe’a*], on one side** of the field, **and poor people came and took from another side, this** produce **and that** produce are both considered ***pe’a*. And if you say that a person may take justice into his own** hands, **why** are **this and that** both considered ***pe’a*? Let him take a stick and sit** in his field on the side from which the poor people are taking produce without his permission, and let him warn them to take only from the side that he allocated.


###### Bava Kamma 28a:28
[Bava Kamma 28a:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/28a:28)

אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי ״זֶה וָזֶה פֵּאָה״ – לְפוֹטְרָן מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** In terms of monetary law he can prevent them from taking *pe’a* from the side that he did not allocate. **What** is meant by the ruling of: **This** produce **and that** produce are both considered ***pe’a*?** It means that they are considered *pe’a* **with regard to exempting** both portions of produce **from tithes.** Just as the portion that the poor people took is exempt from tithes, so is the portion that he allocated initially.


###### Bava Kamma 28a:29
[Bava Kamma 28a:29](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/28a:29)

כִּדְתַנְיָא: הַמַּפְקִיר אֶת כַּרְמוֹ, וְהִשְׁכִּים בַּבֹּקֶר וּבְצָרוֹ – חַיָּיב בְּפֶרֶט וּבְעוֹלֵלוֹת וּבְשִׁכְחָה וּבְפֵאָה, וּפָטוּר מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of **one who renounces ownership of his vineyard and arose early in the morning** before anyone else took possession of it **and harvested it,** the one who renounces ownership **is obligated in** the mitzva of **individual fallen** grapes left for the poor [***peret***], **and in** the mitzva of **incompletely formed clusters** of grapes left for the poor [***olelot***], **and in** the mitzva of **forgotten** clusters of grapes left for the poor, **and in** the mitzva of ***pe’a*,** the four gifts to the poor that the Torah requires one to give from a vineyard (see Leviticus 19:9–10). **But he is exempt from the** mitzva to **tithe** his produce, because this requirement does not apply to an ownerless field. Likewise, in the above case the portion of the field that was allocated for *pe’a* is exempt from tithes even after the owner reclaims it, as *pe’a* is considered ownerless property in this regard.


###### Bava Kamma 28a:30
[Bava Kamma 28a:30](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/28a:30)

**מַתְנִי׳** נִשְׁבְּרָה כַּדּוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְהוּחְלַק אֶחָד בַּמַּיִם אוֹ שֶׁלָּקָה בְּחַרְסִית – חַיָּיב. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּמִתְכַּוֵּין – חַיָּיב, בְּאֵינוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּין – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If one’s **jug broke in the public domain and** another person **slipped in the water** from the jug and was injured from the fall, **or** if he **was injured by the shards** of the broken jug, the owner of the jug is **liable. Rabbi Yehuda says: In** a case where the owner of the jug acted **with intent,** he is **liable,** and **in** a case where he acted **without intent,** he is **exempt.**


###### Bava Kamma 28a:31
[Bava Kamma 28a:31](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/28a:31)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁטִּינְּפוּ כֵּלָיו בַּמַּיִם,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says: They taught** that the owner of the jug is liable **only when the clothes of** the one who slipped **were soiled by the** dirty **water.**