## Bava Kamma Daf 32a

###### Bava Kamma 32a:1
[Bava Kamma 32a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/32a:1)

וְאִם עָמַד בַּעַל קוֹרָה – חַיָּיב. וְאִם אָמַר לְבַעַל חָבִית ״עֲמוֹד״ – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But if the owner of the** cross **beam stopped,** causing the barrel to collide with the beam and break, the former is **liable,** since the latter had no way of anticipating that he would stop. **And if he said to the owner of the barrel: Stop,** he is **exempt** from liability for breaking the barrel.


###### Bava Kamma 32a:2
[Bava Kamma 32a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/32a:2)

הָיָה בַּעַל חָבִית רִאשׁוֹן וּבַעַל קוֹרָה אַחֲרוֹן; נִשְׁבְּרָה חָבִית בַּקּוֹרָה – חַיָּיב. וְאִם עָמַד בַּעַל חָבִית – פָּטוּר. וְאִם אָמַר לְבַעַל קוֹרָה: ״עֲמוֹד״ – חַיָּיב. וְכֵן זֶה בָּא בְּנֵרוֹ וְזֶה בְּפִשְׁתָּנוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Conversely, if **the owner of the barrel was** walking **first and the owner of the** cross **beam last,** and **the barrel was broken by the** cross **beam,** the owner of the cross beam is **liable. But if owner of the barrel stopped,** the owner of the cross beam is **exempt** from liability for breaking the barrel. **And if he said to the owner of the** cross **beam: Stop,** the owner of the cross beam is **liable. And similarly,** these *halakhot* apply in a case where **this one came with his lamp and that one came with his flax,** and the lamp set fire to the flax.


###### Bava Kamma 32a:3
[Bava Kamma 32a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/32a:3)

**גְּמָ׳** בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַבָּהּ בַּר נָתָן מֵרַב הוּנָא: הַמַּזִּיק אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ בְּתַשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה, מַהוּ? כֵּיוָן דְּבִרְשׁוּת קָעָבֵיד – פָּטוּר, אוֹ דִילְמָא, אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְעַיּוֹנֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rabba bar Natan asked Rav Huna:** With regard to **one who causes injury to his wife during sexual intercourse, what is** the *halakha*? Is he liable to pay damages? Is it reasoned that **since he is acting in a permitted manner** he is **exempt, or perhaps he should pay attention** and be more careful?


###### Bava Kamma 32a:4
[Bava Kamma 32a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/32a:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: שֶׁלָּזֶה רְשׁוּת לְהַלֵּךְ, וְלָזֶה רְשׁוּת לְהַלֵּךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Huna **said to** Rabba bar Natan: **You learned this** *halakha* in the mishna concerning one person walking with a cross beam and another with a barrel, which rules that the owner of the cross beam is exempt **because this one had permission to walk and that one** also **had permission to walk.** Similarly, since the husband has permission to engage in intercourse with his wife, if he injures her in the process he is exempt.


###### Bava Kamma 32a:5
[Bava Kamma 32a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/32a:5)

אָמַר רָבָא: קַל וָחוֹמֶר. וּמָה יַעַר – שֶׁזֶּה לִרְשׁוּתוֹ נִכְנָס וְזֶה לִרְשׁוּתוֹ נִכְנָס, נַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁנִּכְנַס לִרְשׁוּת חֲבֵירוֹ – וְחַיָּיב; זֶה, שֶׁלִּרְשׁוּת חֲבֵירוֹ נִכְנַס, לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava** disagreed with Rav Huna’s opinion and **said:** The husband is liable due to an ***a fortiori*** inference from the *halakha* with regard to manslaughter, as it is stated in the Torah: “As when a man goes into the forest with his neighbor to chop wood…and the head slips off the helve, and finds his neighbor, and he dies; he shall flee to one of these cities and live” (Deuteronomy 19:5). **And just as** in the **forest, where this** person **entered his domain and that** person **entered his domain,** as it is the domain of the public, and nevertheless the one who kills unintentionally is **considered like one who entered another’s domain and** is therefore **liable** to be exiled to a city of refuge, then with regard to **this** husband, **who** actually **enters another’s domain, all the more so** is it **not** clear that he should be liable for the injury he causes her?


###### Bava Kamma 32a:6
[Bava Kamma 32a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/32a:6)

אֶלָּא הָא קָתָנֵי שֶׁלָּזֶה רְשׁוּת לְהַלֵּךְ וְלָזֶה רְשׁוּת לְהַלֵּךְ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection to Rava’s opinion: **But** what of **this** mishna, **which teaches** that the owner of the cross beam is exempt, as **this one had permission to walk and that one had permission to walk,** and Rav Huna inferred from here that the husband is likewise exempt.


###### Bava Kamma 32a:7
[Bava Kamma 32a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/32a:7)

הָתָם – תַּרְוַיְיהוּ כַּהֲדָדֵי נִינְהוּ; הָכָא – אִיהוּ קָעָבֵיד מַעֲשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The two cases are different. **There,** in the case in the mishna, **both** sides **were similarly** walking, and the one who caused the damage is therefore exempt due to his right to walk there. By contrast, **here,** the husband is the only active participant in the intercourse. Therefore, since **he is** the one **performing an action,** he is liable even though he is acting with permission.


###### Bava Kamma 32a:8
[Bava Kamma 32a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/32a:8)

וְהִיא לָא?! וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְנִכְרְתוּ הַנְּפָשׁוֹת הָעֹשֹׂת מִקֶּרֶב עַמָּם״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And is she not** considered an active participant? **But isn’t it written** with regard to forbidden sexual intercourse: **“Even the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people”** (Leviticus 18:29), indicating that both the man and woman are considered to be performing an action?


###### Bava Kamma 32a:9
[Bava Kamma 32a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/32a:9)

הֲנָאָה – לְתַרְוַיְיהוּ אִית לְהוּ, אִיהוּ מַעֲשֶׂה הוּא דְּקָעָבֵיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The verse is referring to the fact that **they both have pleasure** from the act. The woman’s pleasure is tantamount to active transgression, and she is therefore punished if she participates willfully. But with regard to a wife’s injury, **he is** the one who is considered to be **performing an action,** and he is therefore liable.


###### Bava Kamma 32a:10
[Bava Kamma 32a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/32a:10)

הָיָה בַּעַל קוֹרָה רִאשׁוֹן כּוּ׳. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: שְׁתֵּי פָּרוֹת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, אַחַת רְבוּצָה וְאַחַת מְהַלֶּכֶת; בָּעֲטָה מְהַלֶּכֶת בָּרְבוּצָה – פְּטוּרָה. בָּעֲטָה רְבוּצָה בַּמְּהַלֶּכֶת – חַיֶּיבֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: In a case where **the owner of the** cross **beam was** walking **first** and the owner of the barrel was walking behind him, if the barrel was broken by the cross beam, the owner of the cross beam is exempt. **Reish Lakish says:** If **two cows** were **in the public domain, one** of them **prone and one walking,** and the cow that was **walking kicked the** cow that was **prone,** its owner is **exempt.** If the **prone** cow **kicked** the cow that was **walking,** its owner is **liable** to pay.


###### Bava Kamma 32a:11
[Bava Kamma 32a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/32a:11)

לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: הָיָה בַּעַל קוֹרָה רִאשׁוֹן וּבַעַל חָבִית אַחֲרוֹן, נִשְׁבְּרָה הֶחָבִית בַּקוֹרָה – פָּטוּר. וְאִם עָמַד בַּעַל קוֹרָה – חַיָּיב. וְהָא הָכָא, דְּכִרְבוּצָה בַּמְּהַלֶּכֶת דָּמֵי, וְקָתָנֵי חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Let us say that** the mishna **supports** this statement, as it states: If **the owner of the** cross **beam was first and the owner of the barrel was last,** and **the barrel was broken by the** cross **beam, he is exempt. But if the owner of the** cross **beam stopped,** the owner of the cross beam is **liable.** The Gemara explains the proof: **But here,** it is clear **that** it is **like** a case where the **prone** cow kicked the cow that was **walking,** since the one carrying the barrel was walking and the one carrying the cross beam stopped in the public domain, causing damage to the former. **And** the mishna **teaches** in this case that the owner of the cross beam **is liable.**


###### Bava Kamma 32a:12
[Bava Kamma 32a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/32a:12)

וְתִסְבְּרָא?! הָא סַיֹּיעֵי בָּעֲיָא; לָא מִסָּתְיָיא דְּלָא מְסַיְּיעִי, אֶלָּא מִקְשָׁה נָמֵי קַשְׁיָא! טַעְמָא דְּבָעֲטָה, הָא הוּזְּקָה מִמֵּילָא – פָּטוּר; וְהָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּמִמֵּילָא, וְקָתָנֵי חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **And** how can **you understand** that reasoning? **You wanted to support** the statement of Reish Lakish from the mishna. **Not only does it not support** Reish Lakish; **it even raises a difficulty** to his opinion. **The reason** Reish Lakish stated that the owner of the prone cow is liable is **that it kicked** the walking cow; **but** if the walking cow **was damaged** because **by itself** it collided with the prone cow, he would be **exempt. But the mishna** discusses a case **where** the one carrying the barrel ran into the cross beam **by himself,** without the one carrying the cross beam actively hitting it, **and it teaches** that the owner of the cross beam is nevertheless **liable.**


###### Bava Kamma 32a:13
[Bava Kamma 32a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/32a:13)

מַתְנִיתִין – דִּפְסַקָה לְאוֹרְחָא כְּשִׁלְדָּא; הָכָא – כְּגוֹן דִּרְבַעָה בְּחַד גִּיסָא, אִיבְּעִי לַהּ לְסַגּוֹיֵי בְּאִידַּךְ גִּיסָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **The mishna** is referring to a case **where** the cross beam **blocked the** entire width of the **road like a carcass.** Since the one carrying the barrel could not avoid it, the one carrying the cross beam is liable although he did not actively break the barrel. By contrast, **here,** Reish Lakish’s statement is referring to a case **where** the cow **was lying down on one side** of the public domain, and the other cow **should have walked on the other,** unobstructed **side.** Therefore, if the damage is caused only as a result of their collision, the owner of the prone cow is exempt.


###### Bava Kamma 32a:14
[Bava Kamma 32a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/32a:14)

אֶלָּא סֵיפָא דְּמַתְנִיתִין מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ – דְּקָתָנֵי: הָיָה בַּעַל חָבִית רִאשׁוֹן וּבַעַל קוֹרָה אַחֲרוֹן, נִשְׁבְּרָה חָבִית בַּקּוֹרָה – חַיָּיב. וְאִם עָמַד בַּעַל חָבִית – פָּטוּר. וְהָא הָכָא, דְּכִמְהַלֶּכֶת בָּרְבוּצָה דָּמֵי, וְקָתָנֵי פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Rather,** it is **the latter clause of the mishna** that **supports Reish Lakish’s** statement, **as it teaches:** Conversely, **if the owner of the barrel was** walking **first and the owner of the** cross **beam last,** and **the barrel was broken by the** cross **beam,** the owner of the cross beam is **liable. But if the owner of the barrel stopped,** the owner of the cross beam is **exempt** from liability for breaking the barrel. **But here,** it is clear **that** it is **like** a case where **the walking** cow kicked **the prone** cow. **And** the mishna **teaches that** the owner of the cross beam is **exempt,** lending support to Reish Lakish’s ruling.


###### Bava Kamma 32a:15
[Bava Kamma 32a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/32a:15)

מַתְנִיתִין – דְּכִי אוֹרְחֵיהּ קָא מְסַגֵּי; הָכָא – אָמְרָה לַהּ: נְהִי דְּאִית לִךְ רְשׁוּת לְסַגּוֹיֵי עֲלַי, לְבַעוֹטֵי בִּי לֵית לִךְ רְשׁוּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **The mishna** exempts the one carrying the cross beam **because he was walking in his normal manner** when he hit the barrel. **Here,** perhaps the owner of the prone cow **can say to** the owner of the walking cow: **Although you have permission to walk over me,** i.e., for your cow to walk over my cow, **you have no permission to kick me,** i.e., for your cow to kick my cow.


###### Bava Kamma 32a:16
[Bava Kamma 32a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/32a:16)

**מַתְנִי׳** שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, אֶחָד רָץ וְאֶחָד מְהַלֵּךְ, אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם רָצִין, וְהִזִּיקוּ זֶה אֶת זֶה – שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּטוּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **two** people **who were walking in the public domain,** or **one** who was **running and** another **one** who was **walking, or who were both running, and they damaged one another, both of them are exempt.**


###### Bava Kamma 32a:17
[Bava Kamma 32a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/32a:17)

**גְּמָ׳** מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כְּאִיסִי בֶּן יְהוּדָה. דְּתַנְיָא, אִיסִי בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: רָץ – חַיָּיב, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מְשׁוּנֶּה. וּמוֹדֶה אִיסִי בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרָץ בִּרְשׁוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara comments: **The mishna is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Isi ben Yehuda. As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Isi ben Yehuda says** that one who **runs** in the public domain and causes damage **is liable** to pay for any damage he causes **because** his behavior **is unusual** in the public domain. **And Isi concedes** with regard to one who runs and causes damage at **twilight on the eve of Shabbat that he is exempt, because he is running with permission.**


###### Bava Kamma 32a:18
[Bava Kamma 32a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/32a:18)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּאִיסִי בֶּן יְהוּדָה. וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כִּסְתַם מִשְׁנָה, וּתְנַן: אֶחָד רָץ וְאֶחָד מְהַלֵּךְ, אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם רָצִין – פְּטוּרִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The ***halakha*** is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Isi ben Yehuda.** The Gemara asks: **And did Rabbi Yoḥanan** actually **say this,** that if one runs and causes damage he is liable? **But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say,** as a principle, that the ***halakha*** is **in accordance with an unattributed mishna? And we learned** in this mishna that if **one was running and** the other **one was walking, or** if **they were both running, they are exempt.**


###### Bava Kamma 32a:19
[Bava Kamma 32a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/32a:19)

מַתְנִיתִין בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **The mishna,** which exempts one who was running, is referring **to twilight on the eve of Shabbat,** when people are permitted to run in the public domain.


###### Bava Kamma 32a:20
[Bava Kamma 32a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/32a:20)

מִמַּאי? מִדְּקָתָנֵי: אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם רָצִין – פְּטוּרִין. הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי? הַשְׁתָּא אֶחָד רָץ וְאֶחָד מְהַלֵּךְ – פָּטוּר, שְׁנֵיהֶם רָצִין מִיבַּעְיָא? אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֶחָד רָץ וְאֶחָד מְהַלֵּךְ – פָּטוּר. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת, אֲבָל בַּחוֹל – אֶחָד רָץ וְאֶחָד מְהַלֵּךְ, חַיָּיב. שְׁנֵיהֶם רָצִין – אֲפִילּוּ בַּחוֹל פְּטוּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **From where** is it inferred that the mishna is referring to twilight on the eve of Shabbat? It is inferred **from** the fact **that it teaches: Or who were both running, they are exempt. Why do I need this** case **as well? Now** that the mishna teaches that if **one was running and** the other **one was walking,** the one running is **exempt, is** it **necessary** to state that he is exempt when **both of them were running? Rather, this is** what the mishna **is saying:** If **one was running and** the other **one was walking,** he is **exempt. In what** case **is this statement said?** It is said **with regard to twilight on the eve of Shabbat,** when running in the public domain is permitted. **But on a weekday,** if **one was running and** the other **one was walking,** the one who was running is **liable.** If **both were running, even on a weekday, they are exempt.** This emendation explains the need to mention the case where both were running.


###### Bava Kamma 32a:21
[Bava Kamma 32a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/32a:21)

אָמַר מָר: וּמוֹדֶה אִיסִי בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת שֶׁהוּא פָּטוּר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁרָץ בִּרְשׁוּת. בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת מַאי בִּרְשׁוּת אִיכָּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Master said** above: **And Isi concedes** with regard to one who runs and causes damage at **twilight on the eve of Shabbat that he is exempt, because he is running with permission.** The Gemara asks: **What is** the reason that running at twilight **on the eve of Shabbat** is considered to be **with permission?**


###### Bava Kamma 32a:22
[Bava Kamma 32a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/32a:22)

כִּדְרַבִּי חֲנִינָא – דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is **like** that **which Rabbi Ḥanina** would say, **as Rabbi Ḥanina would say** at twilight on the eve of Shabbat: