## Bava Kamma Daf 29a

###### Bava Kamma 29a:1
[Bava Kamma 29a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/29a:1)

פָּטוּר מִדִּינֵי אָדָם, וְחַיָּיב בְּדִינֵי שָׁמַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
he is **exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven.**


###### Bava Kamma 29a:2
[Bava Kamma 29a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/29a:2)

וּמוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, בְּאַבְנוֹ סַכִּינוֹ וּמַשָּׂאוֹ שֶׁהִנִּיחָן בְּרֹאשׁ גַּגּוֹ, וְנָפְלוּ בְּרוּחַ מְצוּיָה וְהִזִּיקוּ – שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב. וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי מֵאִיר לְרַבָּנַן, בְּמַעֲלֵה קַנְקַנִּין עַל הַגָּג עַל מְנָת לְנַגְּבָן, וְנָפְלוּ בְּרוּחַ שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְצוּיָה וְהִזִּיקוּ – שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And the Rabbis concede to** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir in** the cases of **one’s stone, one’s knife, or one’s load, that** if **he placed them on top of his roof and they fell** as a result of being blown off **by a typical wind,** i.e., one of ordinary force, **and they caused damage, that** he is **liable. And Rabbi Meir concedes to** the opinion of **the Rabbis in** the case of one who **puts pitchers [*kankanin*] on the roof in order to dry them, and they fell** as a result of being blown off **by an atypical wind,** i.e., one of unusual force, **and they caused damage, that** he is **exempt.** Evidently, even Rabbi Meir concedes that if one’s property causes damage due to circumstances completely beyond his control, he is exempt.


###### Bava Kamma 29a:3
[Bava Kamma 29a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/29a:3)

אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּתַרְתֵּי פְּלִיגִי; פְּלִיגִי בִּשְׁעַת נְפִילָה, וּפְלִיגִי לְאַחַר נְפִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Accordingly, Abaye rejects Rabba’s explanation of Rabbi Yehuda’s statement, that he deems the owner of the jug liable even if he merely attempted to take it off his shoulder and it broke, and offers another explanation. **Rather, Abaye said** that Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda **disagree with regard to two** different situations. **They disagree** with regard to a situation where the damage was caused **at the time of** the person’s **fall, and they disagree** with regard to a situation where the damage was caused **after** the person’s **fall.**


###### Bava Kamma 29a:4
[Bava Kamma 29a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/29a:4)

פְּלִיגִי בִּשְׁעַת נְפִילָה – בְּנִתְקָל פּוֹשֵׁעַ. מָר סָבַר: נִתְקָל פּוֹשֵׁעַ הוּא, וּמָר סָבַר: נִתְקַל לָאו פּוֹשֵׁעַ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**They disagree** in a situation where the damage was caused **at the time of** the person’s **fall, with regard to** whether or not **one who stumbles,** thereby causing his jug to break, is considered **negligent.** One **Sage,** Rabbi Meir, **holds** that **one who stumbles** is considered **negligent,** as his carelessness caused him to stumble. Therefore, he is liable to pay for damage caused by the shards of the jug, which broke as result of his stumbling. **And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Yehuda, **holds** that **one who stumbles is not** considered **negligent.**


###### Bava Kamma 29a:5
[Bava Kamma 29a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/29a:5)

פְּלִיגִי לְאַחַר נְפִילָה – בְּמַפְקִיר נְזָקָיו; מָר סָבַר: מַפְקִיר נְזָקָיו חַיָּיב, וּמָר סָבַר: פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**They disagree** in a situation where the damage was caused **after** the person’s **fall, with regard to one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property.** Presumably, the owner of the jug has no interest in keeping the shards, and it is considered as though he renounced his ownership of them. One **Sage,** Rabbi Meir, **holds** that **one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property is liable** to pay restitution for damage caused by it, despite the fact that it no longer belongs to him. **And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Yehuda, **holds** that **he is exempt** from paying restitution, as it does not belong to him anymore.


###### Bava Kamma 29a:6
[Bava Kamma 29a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/29a:6)

וּמִמַּאי? מִדְּקָתָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי: הוּחְלַק אֶחָד בַּמַּיִם, אוֹ שֶׁלָּקָה בַּחַרְסִית. הַיְינוּ הָךְ! אֶלָּא לָאו הָכִי קָאָמַר – הוּחְלַק אֶחָד בַּמַּיִם בִּשְׁעַת נְפִילָה, אוֹ שֶׁלָּקָה בַּחַרְסִית לְאַחַר נְפִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And from where** is this interpretation derived? It is derived **from** the fact **that** the mishna **teaches two** possible cases of damage, stating: Another person **slipped in the water or was injured by the shards. This** case, slipping in the water, **is** seemingly identical to **that** case, injured by the shards. **Rather, is it not** necessary to explain that **this is** what the mishna **is saying:** Another person **slipped in the water at the time of** the person’s **fall, or was injured by the shards after** the person’s **fall?**


###### Bava Kamma 29a:7
[Bava Kamma 29a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/29a:7)

וּמִדְּמַתְנִיתִין בְּתַרְתֵּי, בָּרַיְיתָא נָמֵי בְּתַרְתֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: **And since** the dispute in **the mishna is with regard to two** situations, the dispute in **the *baraita*** between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis must **also** relate **to two** situations, as there too, two cases are mentioned, a case where one’s jug broke and a case where one’s camel fell. Apparently, the dispute is with regard to damage caused both at the time of the fall and after the fall. Rabbi Meir holds that one who stumbles and breaks his jug, causing damage to others, is considered negligent and that one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property is liable, and the Rabbis disagree with regard to both issues.


###### Bava Kamma 29a:8
[Bava Kamma 29a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/29a:8)

בִּשְׁלָמָא כַּדּוֹ – מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ אוֹ בִּשְׁעַת נְפִילָה, אוֹ לְאַחַר נְפִילָה. אֶלָּא גְּמַלּוֹ – בִּשְׁלָמָא לְאַחַר נְפִילָה, מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בְּמַפְקִיר נִבְלָתוֹ. אֶלָּא בִּשְׁעַת נְפִילָה, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted,** with regard to the case where **one’s jug** broke, **you find** these circumstances **either at the time of the fall or after the fall. But** with regard to the case where **his camel** fell, **granted, you find** this circumstance **after the fall, when he renounces his ownership of the carcass,** not considering it worth keeping, **but how can you find** these circumstances **at the time of the fall?** How can the camel’s falling be considered to be due to the owner’s negligence, possibly rendering him liable to pay for injuries caused by it?


###### Bava Kamma 29a:9
[Bava Kamma 29a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/29a:9)

אָמַר רַב אַחָא: כְּגוֹן דְּעַבְּרַהּ (בְּמַיָּא) דֶּרֶךְ שְׂרַעְתָּא דְנַהֲרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa said: For example,** in a case **where** the camel **crossed through water, through the inundation [*serata*] of a river** that overflowed its banks, and it stumbled there, the owner was negligent, as he should not have gone this way.


###### Bava Kamma 29a:10
[Bava Kamma 29a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/29a:10)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דְּאִיכָּא דַּרְכָּא אַחֲרִינָא – פּוֹשֵׁעַ הוּא! וְאִי דְּלֵיכָּא דַּרְכָּא אַחֲרִינָא – אָנוּס הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances? If there was another route,** and he nevertheless chose this one, **he is** clearly **negligent** according to all opinions. **And if there was no other route, he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control,** and he is exempt from liability according to all opinions.


###### Bava Kamma 29a:11
[Bava Kamma 29a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/29a:11)

אֶלָּא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ דְּאִתְּקִיל, וְאִתְּקִילָה בֵּיהּ גַּמְלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, you find** this circumstance in a case **where** the owner **stumbled and the camel** then **stumbled on him.** In this case, the Sages engage in a dispute whether or not one who stumbles is considered negligent.


###### Bava Kamma 29a:12
[Bava Kamma 29a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/29a:12)

מַפְקִיר נְזָקָיו – מַאי מִתְכַּוֵּין אִיכָּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: According to Abaye’s explanation that the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda is with regard to a situation where the owner of the jug **renounces ownership of his hazardous property** after it falls, **what** is the meaning of Rabbi Yehuda’s statement that if the owner of the jug acted **with intent** he is liable? What intention **is there** after the jug fell and broke?


###### Bava Kamma 29a:13
[Bava Kamma 29a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/29a:13)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: בְּמִתְכַּוֵּין לִזְכּוֹת בַּחֲרָסֶיהָ. וְכֵן אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: בְּמִתְכַּוֵּין לִזְכּוֹת בַּחֲרָסֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said:** It is a situation **where he intends to acquire the shards** of the broken jug, and he does not renounce his ownership of them. It is specifically in that case that Rabbi Yehuda holds him liable to pay for damage caused by the shards. **And similarly, Rav Ashi said:** It is a situation **where he intends to acquire the shards.**


###### Bava Kamma 29a:14
[Bava Kamma 29a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/29a:14)

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר: בִּשְׁעַת נְפִילָה מַחְלוֹקֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Elazar says: The dispute** in the *baraita* is with regard to a situation where the damage occurred **at the time of** the person’s **fall.**


###### Bava Kamma 29a:15
[Bava Kamma 29a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/29a:15)

אֲבָל לְאַחַר נְפִילָה מַאי – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּטוּר? וְהָא אִיכָּא רַבִּי מֵאִיר דִּמְחַיֵּיב! אֶלָּא מַאי – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל חַיָּיב? וְהָא אִיכָּא רַבָּנַן דְּפָטְרִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But after the fall,** according to this statement, **what** is the *halakha*? Does **everyone agree** that the owner of the jug is **exempt** from liability? **But isn’t there Rabbi Meir, who deems** him **liable,** since he did not remove the shards? **Rather, what** is the *halakha*? Does **everyone agree** that **he is liable? But aren’t there the Rabbis, who deem** him **exempt?**


###### Bava Kamma 29a:16
[Bava Kamma 29a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/29a:16)

אֶלָּא מַאי ״בִּשְׁעַת נְפִילָה״ – אַף בִּשְׁעַת נְפִילָה, וְקָמַשְׁמַע לַן כִּדְאַבָּיֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rather, what** is the explanation of the phrase: **At the time of** the person’s **fall?** It means **even at the time of** the person’s **fall, and** it **teaches us** that the dispute is referring to a situation where the damage occurred after the fall and also to a situation where it occurred at the time of the fall, **in accordance with Abaye’s** explanation of the mishna.