## Bava Kamma Daf 29b

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

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: לְאַחַר נְפִילָה מַחְלוֹקֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The **dispute** is with regard to a situation where the damage occurred **after the fall.**


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

אֲבָל בִּשְׁעַת נְפִילָה מַאי – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל פָּטוּר? וְהָא מִדְּקָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְקַמַּן: לָא תֵּימָא מַתְנִיתִין רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר נִתְקָל פּוֹשֵׁעַ הוּא; מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But at the time of** the person’s **fall,** according to this statement, **what** is the *halakha*? Does **everyone agree** that the owner of the jug is **exempt** from liability? **But from the fact that Rabbi Yoḥanan says later** (31a), with regard to another mishna in this chapter: **Do not say that the mishna is** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, who says** that **one who stumbles is** considered **negligent, by inference** it is clear **that** he holds that **Rabbi Meir deems** one who stumbles **liable** to pay damages. Evidently, it is not unanimously agreed upon that he is exempt.


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

אֶלָּא מַאי – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל חַיָּיב? וְהָא מִדְּקָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְקַמַּן: לָא תֵּימָא מַתְנִיתִין רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר נִתְקָל פּוֹשֵׁעַ הוּא; מִכְּלָל דְּפָטְרִי רַבָּנַן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, what** is the *halakha* in this case? **Does** he say that **everyone agrees that he is liable? But from the fact** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says later: Do not say that the mishna is** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, who says** that **one who stumbles is** considered **negligent, by inference** it is clear **that** he holds that **the Rabbis deem** him **exempt.**


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

אֶלָּא הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּמַפְקִיר נְזָקָיו דְּהָכָא הוּא דְּפָטְרִי רַבָּנַן, דְּאָנוּס הוּא; אֲבָל מַפְקִיר נְזָקָיו דְּעָלְמָא – מְחַיְּיבִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rather, this** is what Rabbi Yoḥanan **teaches us: That** the circumstance in **which the Rabbis deem one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property exempt is** only the situation stated **here,** i.e., where he stumbled, **as he is the victim of circumstances beyond his control. But in the general** case of **one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property, they deem** him **liable** to pay for damage caused by it.


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

אִיתְּמַר: מַפְקִיר נְזָקָיו; רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר – חַד אָמַר: חַיָּיב, וְחַד אָמַר: פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It **was stated:** With regard to **one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property** that he left in the public domain, there is a dispute between the *amora’im* **Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Elazar. One said** that he is **liable, and one said** that he is **exempt.**


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

לֵימָא מַאן דִּמְחַיֵּיב – כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, וּמַאן דְּפָטַר – כְּרַבָּנַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Shall we say** that **the one who deems** him **liable** holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, and the one who deems** him **exempt** holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis?**


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

אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי, כִּי פְּלִיגִי – אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן. מַאן דְּפָטַר – כְּרַבָּנַן; וּמַאן דִּמְחַיֵּיב אָמַר לָךְ: אֲנָא דַּאֲמַרִי – אֲפִילּוּ לְרַבָּנַן, עַד כָּאן לָא פָּטְרִי רַבָּנַן, אֶלָּא בְּמַפְקִיר נְזָקָיו דְּהָכָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּאָנוּס הוּא; אֲבָל מַפְקִיר נְזָקָיו דְּעָלְמָא – מְחַיְּיבִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: No; **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, everyone agrees** that one who renounces ownership over his hazardous property is liable. Rather, **when they disagree** it **is in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis.** They disagree as to what the opinion of the Rabbis is. **The one who deems** him **exempt** holds that his opinion **is in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis. And the one who deems** him **liable** could have **said to you: I** maintain **that** what **I say is** correct **even according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis; the Rabbis deem one who renounces ownership over his hazardous property exempt only** in the situation **here, because he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control. But** in **a general** case of **one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property, they deem** him **liable.**


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

תִּסְתַּיֵּים דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הוּא דְּאָמַר חַיָּיב – דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: שְׁנֵי דְּבָרִים אֵינָן בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם, וַעֲשָׂאָן הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ הֵן בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ; וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: בּוֹר בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְחָמֵץ מִשֵּׁשׁ שָׁעוֹת וּלְמַעְלָה. תִּסְתַּיֵּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **It may be concluded that Rabbi Elazar is the one who says** that **he is liable, as Rabbi Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael:** There are **two entities** that **are not in a person’s** legal **possession and** nevertheless **the verse rendered them as though they were in his possession** with regard to certain halakhic responsibilities. **And these are: A pit** that he dug **in the public domain and leavened bread** remaining in his possession on the eve of Passover **from six hours,** i.e., noon, **onward.** Although deriving any benefit from the bread is prohibited, and it is therefore no longer in its owner’s legal possession, nevertheless he is commanded to destroy it. The Gemara concludes: **It may be concluded** that Rabbi Elazar is the one who says that he is liable.


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

וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הָכִי? וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אִיפְּכָא! דִּתְנַן: הַהוֹפֵךְ אֶת הַגָּלָל בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְהוּזַּק בָּהֶן אַחֵר – חַיָּיב בְּנִזְקוֹ. וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּין לִזְכּוֹת בָּהֶן, אֲבָל לֹא נִתְכַּוֵּין לִזְכּוֹת בָּהֶן – פָּטוּר. אַלְמָא מַפְקִיר נְזָקָיו – פָּטוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And did Rabbi Elazar** actually **say this,** that one who renounces ownership of his hazardous objects is liable? **But didn’t Rabbi Elazar say the opposite? As we learned** in a mishna (30a): In the case of **one who turns over dung in the public domain and another** person **incurred damage due to it,** he is **liable** to pay **for his damage. And Rabbi Elazar says: They taught** this ruling **only** in a case **where** the one who turned over the dung **intended to acquire it, but** in a case where **he did not intend to acquire it** he is **exempt. Apparently,** according to Rabbi Elazar, **one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property is exempt,** since he is liable only if he intends to take possession of the dung, even if he moved it significantly.


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

אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: שֶׁהֶחְזִירָהּ לִמְקוֹמָהּ. אָמַר רָבִינָא: מָשָׁל דְּרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה לָמָּה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה – לְמוֹצֵא בּוֹר מְגוּלֶּה, וְכִסָּהוּ, וְחָזַר וְגִילָּהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Adda bar Ahava said:** Rabbi Elazar was referring to a case **where he returned** the dung **to its** prior **place.** Therefore, he is exempt unless he intended to acquire it. **Ravina said:** This can be explained by means of **a parable: To what is** the statement of **Rav Adda bar Ahava comparable? To one who finds an uncovered pit** in the public domain **and covers it, and** then **uncovers it again.** Since he left the pit as he found it, he is exempt from paying damages, and the liability lies with the one who dug the pit.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מָרִי לְרָבִינָא: מִי דָּמֵי?! הָתָם – לָא אִסְתַּלֻּק לְהוּ מַעֲשֵׂה רִאשׁוֹן, הָכָא – אִסְתַּלֻּק לְהוּ מַעֲשֵׂה רִאשׁוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina: Is** this **comparable? There,** in the case of the pit, the result of **the initial act** of digging the pit **was not removed,** since even when he covered the pit, the pit itself still existed. But **here,** the result of **the initial act was removed,** since once the dung was moved from its prior place, there was no longer any hazardous object there. Therefore, by returning it to its place, the hazard is created anew.


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

הָא לָא דָּמֵי אֶלָּא לְמוֹצֵא בּוֹר מְגוּלָּה, וּטְמָמָהּ וְחָזַר וַחֲפָרָהּ – דְּאִסְתַּלִּקוּ לְהוּ מַעֲשֵׂה רִאשׁוֹן, וְקָיְימָא לַהּ בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rather, **it is comparable only to one who finds an uncovered pit and fills it** with dirt **and** then **digs it up again, as** in this case the result of **the initial act is removed, and** the new pit therefore **exists in his possession** and he is liable. Likewise, one who moves dung in the public domain and then restores it to its prior place is deemed liable whether or not he intends to acquire it.


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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: כְּשֶׁהֲפָכָהּ לְפָחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Ashi said** that Rabbi Elazar was referring to a case **when he turned it over at** a height of **less than three** handbreadths, which is not considered removal of the dung from its place.


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

וּמַאי דּוּחְקֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר לְאוֹקֹמַיהּ כְּגוֹן שֶׁהֲפָכָהּ לְפָחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה – וְטַעְמָא דְּכִי נִתְכַּוֵּין לִזְכּוֹת בָּהּ, הָא אֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין לִזְכּוֹת בָּהּ – לָא? לוֹקְמַהּ לְמַעְלָה מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא נִתְכַּוֵּין לִזְכּוֹת בָּהּ – חַיָּיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** according to this explanation, **what forced Rabbi Elazar to interpret** the mishna as referring specifically to the unique case **where he turned over** the dung **at** a height of **less than three** handbreadths, **and** consequently **the reason** he is liable **is that he intended to acquire it, but** if **he does not intend to acquire it** he is **not** liable? **Let him interpret** the mishna as referring to a case where he turned over the dung at a height **above three** handbreadths, in which case **even if he did not intend to acquire it, he is liable.**


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

אָמַר רָבָא: מַתְנִיתִין קְשִׁיתֵיהּ – מַאי אִרְיָא ״הָפַךְ״? לִתְנֵי ״הִגְבִּיהַּ״! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, כֹּל ״הָפַךְ״ – לְמַטָּה מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** What forced him was that **the mishna was difficult for him. Why** does it state **specifically** that **he turned over** the dung? **Let it teach** that **he lifted** the dung. **Rather, learn from** the fact that the mishna does not use the term: Lifted, which generally is referring to the act of lifting an object three handbreadths for the purpose of acquisition, that **whenever** the term **turned over** is used, it is referring to an act in which the object is lifted to a height of **under three** handbreadths from the ground.


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

וּמִדְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר חַיָּיב, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes: **And from** the fact **that Rabbi Elazar** was evidently the one who **said** that one who renounces ownership of his hazardous object in the public domain is still **liable** to pay for any damage it causes, **Rabbi Yoḥanan** is clearly the one who **said** he is **exempt.**


###### Bava Kamma 29b:17
[Bava Kamma 29b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/29b:17)

וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי?! וְהָתְנַן: הַמַּצְנִיעַ אֶת הַקּוֹץ וְאֶת הַזְּכוּכִית; וְהַגּוֹדֵר גְּדֵרוֹ בְּקוֹצִים; וְגָדֵר שֶׁנָּפַל לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים; וְהוּזַּק בָּהֶן אַחֵר – חַיָּיב בְּנִזְקוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And did Rabbi Yoḥanan** actually **say this,** that if one renounces ownership of his object he is exempt from liability for any damage it causes? **But didn’t we learn** in a mishna (30a): With regard to **one who conceals a thorn or** a piece of **glass, or who puts up a fence of thorns, or** who puts up **a fence that** subsequently **fell into the public domain, and another** person **incurred damage due to** any of **these,** he is **liable** to pay **for** this person’s **damage.**


###### Bava Kamma 29b:18
[Bava Kamma 29b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/29b:18)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּמַפְרִיחַ, אֲבָל בִּמְצַמְצֵם – פָּטוּר. מְצַמְצֵם מַאי טַעְמָא פָּטוּר – לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוְיָא לֵיהּ בּוֹר בִּרְשׁוּתוֹ? מִכְּלַל דְּחִיּוּבָא דְבוֹר – בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים הוּא; אַלְמָא מַפְקִיר נְזָקָיו חַיָּיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** With regard to one who puts up a fence of thorns, **they taught** that he is liable **only in** a case where he **projects** the thorns out into the public domain, **but in** a case where he **restricts** them to his own property, he is **exempt.** The Gemara infers: In a case where he **restricts** them, **what is the reason** that he is **exempt? Is it not because it is** considered **a pit on his** own **property? By inference, the liability** in the category **of Pit,** according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, **is in the public domain,** where a pit generally does not belong to the one who dug it. **Apparently,** Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that **one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property is liable.**


###### Bava Kamma 29b:19
[Bava Kamma 29b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/29b:19)

לָא, לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ: מַפְקִיר נְזָקָיו פָּטוּר; וּמְצַמְצֵם מַאי טַעְמָא פָּטוּר – מִשּׁוּם דְּאִתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכָּן שֶׁל בְּנֵי אָדָם לְהִתְחַכֵּךְ בַּכְּתָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No, actually I** could **say to you** that in principle, **one who renounces ownership of his hazardous property is exempt.** Nevertheless, one who puts up a fence of thorns is liable, because he does not renounce ownership of the thorns that protrude into the public domain. **And** in a case where **he restricts** the thorns to his own property, **what is the reason** he is **exempt?** The reason is not that he is not liable to pay for the damage of a pit in his own property, but rather **because it was stated about** this case that **Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said:** He is exempt **because it is not the** typical **manner of people to rub against walls,** but to keep a small distance from them. Therefore, if a pedestrian is injured by the thorns, it is considered an unusual accident, for which the owner of the fence is not liable.


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

וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי? וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כִּסְתַם מִשְׁנָה, וּתְנַן: הַחוֹפֵר בּוֹר בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְנָפַל לְתוֹכוֹ שׁוֹר אוֹ חֲמוֹר וָמֵת – חַיָּיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And did Rabbi Yoḥanan** actually **say that** one who renounces ownership of his hazardous objects is exempt? **But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say** that in general, **the *halakha* is in accordance with an unattributed mishna, and we learned** in an unattributed mishna (50b): In the case of **one who digs a pit in the public domain and an ox or a donkey fell into it and died,** he is **liable.** This mishna is referring to one who digs a pit in the public domain, where it is not owned by the one who dug it, yet the mishna deems him liable.


###### Bava Kamma 29b:21
[Bava Kamma 29b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/29b:21)

אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes: **Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan** is **actually** the one who **said** that one who renounces ownership of his hazardous objects is **liable.**


###### Bava Kamma 29b:22
[Bava Kamma 29b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/29b:22)

וּמִדְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר חַיָּיב – רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר פָּטוּר?! וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And from** the fact **that Rabbi Yoḥanan said** that he is **liable,** is it evident that **Rabbi Elazar said** that he is **exempt? But doesn’t Rabbi Elazar say**