## Bava Kamma Daf 28b

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

אֲבָל הוּא עַצְמוֹ – פָּטוּר; קַרְקַע עוֹלָם הִזִּיקַתּוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** if the person **himself** was injured, the owner of the jug is **exempt,** as it is **the ground** that **caused his injury,** not the jug or the water.


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

כִּי אַמְרִיתַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אָמַר לִי: מִכְּדֵי אַבְנוֹ וְסַכִּינוֹ וּמַשָּׂאוֹ – מִבּוֹרוֹ לָמַדְנוּ, וְכוּלָּן אֲנִי קוֹרֵא בָּהֶן: ״שׁוֹר״ – וְלֹא אָדָם, ״חֲמוֹר״ – וְלֹא כֵּלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yehuda continued: **When I stated this** ruling of Rav **before Shmuel, he said to me: After all, we derive** the cases of damage caused by leaving **one’s stone, one’s knife, or one’s load** in the public domain **from** the case of **one’s pit, and I** therefore **read,** i.e., apply, **with regard to all of them** the inference of the Sages from the verse: “And an ox or a donkey fall therein” (Exodus 21:33), that the one who dug the pit is liable only if what incurred damage is **an ox, but not a person,** or **a donkey, but not vessels.**


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

וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי לְעִנְיַן קְטָלָא, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן נְזָקִין – אָדָם חַיָּיב, וְכֵלִים פְּטוּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And this statement applies with regard to** a situation where the person is **killed,** i.e., if one fell into a pit and was killed, the person who dug it is exempt from paying restitution, since the verse refers exclusively to an animal that was killed. **But with regard to damage,** the digger of the pit is **liable** to pay restitution for injury to **a person, but exempt** from paying restitution for damage to **vessels,** for which no distinction between death and injury can be applied. Therefore, the ruling in the case of the jug that broke in the public domain should be the opposite. The owner of the jug is liable to pay restitution for injury caused to another, as Shmuel holds that he is liable even if the injury is caused by the impact with the ground, but that he is exempt from paying restitution for the damage done to the clothes of the one who slipped.


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

וְרַב – הָנֵי מִילֵּי הֵיכָא דְּאַפְקְרִינְהוּ, אֲבָל הֵיכָא דְּלָא אַפְקְרִינְהוּ – מָמוֹנוֹ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** how would **Rav** answer this difficulty? The Gemara answers: **This** presumption that liability for damage caused by one’s stone, knife, or load is derived from the category of Pit, thereby exempting him from payment for damage to vessels, **applies** only in a case **where he renounced ownership of them. But** in a case **where he did not renounce ownership of them, it is** considered to be like any other case where **his property** causes damage. Therefore, he is liable to pay for damage caused to the vessels.


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

מֵתִיב רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: ״וְנָפַל שָׁמָּה שּׁוֹר אוֹ חֲמוֹר״; ״שׁוֹר״ – וְלֹא ״אָדָם״, ״חֲמוֹר״ – וְלֹא כֵּלִים. מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: נָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר וְכֵלָיו וְנִשְׁתַּבְּרוּ, חֲמוֹר וְכֵלָיו וְנִתְקָרְעוּ – חַיָּיב עַל הַבְּהֵמָה, וּפָטוּר עַל הַכֵּלִים. הָא לְמָה זֶה דּוֹמֶה – לְאַבְנוֹ וְסַכִּינוֹ וּמַשָּׂאוֹ שֶׁהִנִּיחָן בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהִזִּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Oshaya raises an objection** from a *baraita* discussing Pit: It is derived from the verse: “And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit and not cover it, **and an ox or a donkey fall therein”** (Exodus 21:33), that the digger is liable to pay restitution only if what incurred damage is **an ox but not a person,** or **a donkey but not vessels. From here** the Sages **stated** that if **an ox with its equipment fell into** a pit, and the ox was wounded **and** the equipment **broke;** or if **a donkey with its equipment** fell in, and the donkey was wounded **and** the equipment **tore,** then the one who dug the pit is **liable** to pay restitution **for** any injury sustained by **the animal but exempt** from paying restitution **for the** damaged **equipment. To what** case **is this similar?** It is similar **to** the case of **his stone, or his knife, or his load that he left in the public domain, and they caused damage.**


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

אַדְּרַבָּה, ״מָה דּוֹמֶה לָזֶה״ מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא מַאי דּוֹמֶה לָזֶה – אַבְנוֹ וְסַכִּינוֹ וּמַשָּׂאוֹ שֶׁהִנִּיחָן בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהִזִּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions the wording of the *baraita*: **On the contrary, it should have** stated: **What is similar to this,** since the cases of one’s stone, knife, or load are not mentioned in the Torah, but are derived from the case of Pit. **Rather,** the wording should be emended as follows: **What is similar to this?** It is the case of **his stone, or his knife, or his load that he left in the public domain, and they caused damage.**


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

לְפִיכָךְ, אִם הֵטִיחַ צְלוֹחִיתוֹ בְּאֶבֶן – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Therefore,** if one **dropped his flask on a stone** that was left in the public domain, breaking the flask, the owner of the stone is **liable.**


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

רֵישָׁא קַשְׁיָא לְרַב, וְסֵיפָא קַשְׁיָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The first clause** of this *baraita* is **difficult according to** the opinion of **Rav,** since it compares the cases of a stone, a knife, and a load to the case of Pit, and it does not distinguish between a situation in which he renounced ownership of them or one where he did not. **And the last clause** of the *baraita*, which deems the owner of a stone in the public domain liable to pay restitution for the damage to the broken flask, is **difficult according to** the opinion of **Shmuel.** According to him, the owner should be liable only for causing injury and not for damaging vessels.


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

וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, תִּיקְשֵׁי לָךְ הִיא גּוּפָא – (קַשְׁיָא) רֵישָׁא פָּטוּר, וְסֵיפָא חַיָּיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds to this objection: **And according to your reasoning,** the *baraita* **itself should pose a difficulty for you,** since **the first clause** states that one is **exempt** from liability for damage to vessels, **and the last clause** states that he is **liable.**


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

אֶלָּא רַב מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ, וּשְׁמוּאֵל מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav resolves** the contradiction according **to his** line of **reasoning, and Shmuel resolves** it according **to his** line of **reasoning.**


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

רַב מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ, בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – כְּשֶׁהִפְקִירָן, אֲבָל לֹא הִפְקִירָן – חַיָּיב. לְפִיכָךְ הֵטִיחַ צְלוֹחִיתוֹ בְּאֶבֶן – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav resolves** it according **to his** line of **reasoning** as follows: **In what** case **is this statement said?** Concerning what case does the *baraita* rule that a stone, a knife, and a load are analogous to Pit, exempting their owner from liability for breakage to vessels caused by them? It is **where he renounced ownership of them. But** if **he did not renounce ownership of them he is liable. Therefore,** if one **dropped his flask on a stone** belonging to another person in the public domain, the owner of the stone is **liable** to pay for the damage to the flask.


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

וּשְׁמוּאֵל מְתָרֵץ לְטַעְמֵיהּ, הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ אַבְנוֹ סַכִּינוֹ וּמַשָּׂאוֹ – כְּבוֹרוֹ דָּמֵי; לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה דִּמְחַיֵּיב עַל נִזְקֵי כֵלִים בְּבוֹר, לְפִיכָךְ הֵטִיחַ צְלוֹחִיתוֹ בְּאֶבֶן – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Shmuel resolves** the contradiction according **to his** line of **reasoning: Now that you said** that the cases of **one’s stone, one’s knife, and one’s load are similar to one’s pit,** then **according to Rabbi Yehuda, who deems** one **liable** to pay **for damage** caused **to vessels by** falling into **a pit** that he dug, one is **therefore liable** in a case where someone **dropped his flask on** a **stone** belonging to him, and the flask broke.


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

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּתְקַל בָּאֶבֶן, וְנִשּׁוֹף בָּאֶבֶן. אֲבָל נִתְקַל בַּקַּרְקַע וְנִשּׁוֹף בָּאֶבֶן – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Elazar says: They taught** that the owner of the stone is liable **only** in a case **where** the pedestrian **stumbled on the stone and** the flask **scraped against the stone** and broke. **But** if **he stumbled on the ground,** not the stone, **and** the flask consequently fell and **scraped against the stone,** causing the flask to break, the owner of the stone is **exempt** from liability for the damage.


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

כְּמַאן – דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי נָתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In accordance with whose** opinion is this statement? It is **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Natan,** who maintains that if damage is caused by two people and one of them is exempt from paying compensation, the other must pay the entire amount. Similarly here, since there is no liability for damage caused by stumbling on the ground, compensation should be collected from the owner of the stone.


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

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לָא תֵּימָא בְּנִתְקַל בָּאֶבֶן וְנִשּׁוֹף בָּאֶבֶן הוּא דְּמִחַיַּיב, אֲבָל נִתְקַל בַּקַּרְקַע וְנִשּׁוֹף בָּאֶבֶן – פָּטוּר; אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ נִתְקַל בַּקַּרְקַע וְנִשּׁוֹף בָּאֶבֶן – חַיָּיב. כְּמַאן – כְּרַבִּי נָתָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** an alternative version of this discourse: **Rabbi Elazar says: Do not say** that it is only in a case **where** the pedestrian **stumbled on the stone and** the flask **scraped against the stone,** causing the flask to break, **that** he **is deemed liable, but** that if **he stumbled on the ground and** the flask **scraped against the stone,** causing the flask to break, he is **exempt. Rather, even** if the pedestrian **stumbled on the ground and** the flask **scraped against the stone,** causing the flask to break, he is **liable. In accordance with whose** opinion is this statement? It is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Natan.**


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

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּמִתְכַּוֵּין חַיָּיב וְכוּ׳. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי מִתְכַּוֵּין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that if someone’s jug broke in the public domain and one 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. The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** in which it is considered that he acted with **intent?**


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

אָמַר רַבָּה: בְּמִתְכַּוֵּין לְהוֹרִידָהּ לְמַטָּה מִכְּתֵיפוֹ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מִכְּלָל דִּמְחַיֵּיב רַבִּי מֵאִיר אֲפִילּוּ נִפְשְׁרָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, מְחַיֵּיב הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אֲפִילּוּ אׇזְנָהּ בְּיָדוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba says:** Even **where he** just **intends to lower** the jug **off his shoulder** and accidentally breaks it, he is liable to pay for the damage he causes, according to Rabbi Yehuda. **Abaye said to him: By inference, does Rabbi Meir,** who is the anonymous first *tanna* of the mishna, **deem** him **liable even** if the jug **cracked** by itself? Rabba **said to him: Indeed, Rabbi Meir would deem** him **liable even** if he were holding **the handle of** the jug **in his hand,** the optimal manner for holding it, and the handle snapped, causing the jug to fall and break, an accident clearly beyond his control.


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

אַמַּאי? אָנוּס הוּא, וְאוֹנֶס רַחֲמָנָא פַּטְרֵיהּ – דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלַנַּעֲרָה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה דָבָר״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Why** is this so? Isn’t he the **victim of circumstances beyond his control? And the Merciful One exempts** a victim of **circumstances beyond his control** from punishment, **as it is written** with regard to a betrothed young woman who is raped: **“But to the young woman you shall do nothing”** (Deuteronomy 22:26).


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

וְכִי תֵּימָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְעִנְיַן קְטָלָא, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן נְזָקִין – חַיָּיב; וְהָתַנְיָא: נִשְׁבְּרָה כַּדּוֹ וְלֹא סִלְּקָהּ, נָפְלָה גְּמַלּוֹ וְלֹא הֶעֱמִידָה – רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּיב בְּהֶזֵּיקָן, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that **this matter applies** only **with regard to** exemption from the **death** penalty, **but with regard to damages** one is **liable** even for circumstances beyond his control, **but isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: If one’s **jug broke and he did not remove its** shards, or if **his camel** fell **and he did not stand it up, Rabbi Meir deems him liable** to pay **for** any **damage** they cause, **and the Rabbis say** that