## Bava Kamma Daf 32b

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

״בּוֹאוּ וְנֵצֵא לִקְרַאת כַּלָּה מַלְכְּתָא״. וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: ״לִקְרַאת שַׁבָּת – כַּלָּה מַלְכְּתָא״. רַבִּי יַנַּאי מִתְעַטֵּף וְקָאֵי, וְאָמַר: ״בּוֹאִי כַלָּה, בּוֹאִי כַלָּה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come and let us go out to greet the bride, the queen. And some say** that this is what he would say: Come and let us go out **to greet Shabbat, the bride, the queen. Rabbi Yannai would wrap himself** in his *tallit* **and stand** at the eve of Shabbat at twilight, **saying: Come, bride; come, bride.** Similarly, it is appropriate for one to run out in honor of Shabbat.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמְבַקֵּעַ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים – וְהִזִּיק בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד; בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד – וְהִזִּיק בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים; בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד – וְהִזִּיק בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד אַחֵר, חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **one who was chopping** wood **in the public domain and** a chip flew off and **caused damage in** the **private property** of another person, or one who was chopping wood **in** his **private property and caused damage in the public domain,** or one who was chopping wood **in** his **private property** and **caused damage in** the **private property** of **another,** in all these cases he is **liable.**


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

**גְּמָ׳** וּצְרִיכָא; דְּאִי תְּנָא: הַמְבַקֵּעַ בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וְהִזִּיק בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים – מִשּׁוּם דִּשְׁכִיחִי רַבִּים; אֲבָל מֵרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, דְּלָא שְׁכִיחִי רַבִּים – אֵימָא לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara comments: **And** it is **necessary** for the mishna to teach that he is liable in all these cases because in each one there is a novel element. **As if it had taught** only the case of **one who was chopping** wood **in** his **private property and caused damage in the public domain,** it might have been reasoned that he is liable, despite the fact that he was working in his private property, **because** it is **common** for the **multitudes** to be there. **But** if a chip flew **from the public domain to** another person’s **private property, where** it is **not common** for the **multitudes** to be, one might **say** that he is **not** liable. Therefore, it is necessary to teach this case as well.


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

וְאִי תְּנָא: מֵרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד – מִשּׁוּם דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת עָבֵיד; אֲבָל מֵרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, דְּבִרְשׁוּת עָבֵיד – אֵימָא לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** conversely, **if it had taught** that he is liable where the chip flew **from the public domain to** another’s **private property,** it might have been reasoned that he is liable **because at the outset he was acting without permission by chopping wood in the public domain. But** if it flew **from** his **private property to the public domain, since he was acting with permission** by chopping wood in his private property, one might **say** that he is **not** liable. Therefore, it is necessary to teach both cases.


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

וְאִי תְּנָא הָנָךְ תַּרְתֵּי – הָא מִשּׁוּם דִּשְׁכִיחִי רַבִּים, וְהָא מִשּׁוּם דְּשֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת; אֲבָל מֵרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד לִרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד אַחֵר – דְּלָא שְׁכִיחִי רַבִּים, וּמֵעִיקָּרָא בִּרְשׁוּת – אֵימָא לָא; צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** the mishna **had taught** only that he is liable in **these two** cases, it might have been reasoned that in **this** case, where the damage was caused in the public domain, he is liable **because** it is **common** for the **multitudes** to be there, **and** in **that** case, where he was chopping in the public domain, he is liable **because** he was acting **without permission. But** in the last case, where the chip flew **from** his **private property** to **another’s private property,** where neither of the above reasons applies, **as** it is **not common** for the **multitudes** to be in the place where the damage was caused **and he** was acting **with permission at the outset,** one might **say** he is **not** liable. Therefore, it is **necessary** for the mishna to teach all these cases.


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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַנִּכְנָס לַחֲנוּתוֹ שֶׁל נַגָּר שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת, וְנִתְּזָה בְּקַעַת וְטָפְחָה עַל פָּנָיו, וָמֵת – פָּטוּר. וְאִם נִכְנַס בִּרְשׁוּת – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** (*Tosefta* 6:25): With regard to **one who entered the workshop of a carpenter without** the latter’s **permission, and a chip of wood flew off and hit him in the face and he died,** the carpenter is **exempt. But if he entered** the shop **with permission,** the carpenter is **liable.**


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

מַאי חַיָּיב? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: חַיָּיב בְּאַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים. וּפָטוּר מִגָּלוּת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** does the *baraita* mean when it rules that the carpenter is **liable? Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says:** If the other person was injured, he is **liable to** pay **four types of indemnity** that one who injures another must pay. These are: Cost of the damage, pain, medical costs, and loss of livelihood. **But** if the one who entered was killed, he is **exempt from exile.**


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

לְפִי שֶׁאֵין דּוֹמֶה לְיַעַר. יַעַר – זֶה לִרְשׁוּתוֹ נִכְנָס, וְזֶה לִרְשׁוּתוֹ נִכְנָס; זֶה – לִרְשׁוּת חֲבֵירוֹ נִכְנַס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that he is exempt **because** this case **is not similar to** the case of **a forest,** which is the archetypal case stated in the Torah requiring one who kills unintentionally to be exiled, as it is written: “As when a man goes into the forest with his neighbor to chop wood, and his hand fetches a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slips off the helve, and finds his neighbor, and he dies” (Deuteronomy 19:5). This is because in the case of the **forest,** both **this one entered his domain and that one entered his domain,** as anyone may use the public domain, whereas in **this** case, the victim **entered another’s property.** Therefore, the carpenter is not exiled.


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

אָמַר רָבָא: קַל וָחוֹמֶר; וּמָה יַעַר – זֶה לְדַעְתּוֹ נִכְנָס וְזֶה לְדַעְתּוֹ נִכְנָס, נַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְדַעַת חֲבֵירוֹ – וְגוֹלֶה; זֶה – שֶׁלְּדַעַת חֲבֵירוֹ נִכְנָס, לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** On the contrary; it can be inferred ***a fortiori*** that he is exiled. **And if** in the case of the **forest,** where **this one entered of his own accord and that one entered of his own accord,** neither asking for the other’s permission, nevertheless the victim **is considered like one who entered with the other’s consent and** therefore the one who kills unintentionally **is exiled, all the more so** is it **not** clear that in **this** case, **where** the victim **entered another’s** workshop **with his consent,** the carpenter should be exiled?


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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי פָּטוּר מִגָּלוּת? דְּלָא סַגִּי לֵיהּ בְּגָלוּת. וְהַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵי לֵיהּ שׁוֹגֵג קָרוֹב לְמֵזִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava said: What** is the reason **he is exempt from exile? As exile is not sufficient for him, and this is the reason of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina,** who exempts him from exile: **Because it is** an **unintentional** killing that is **approaching intentional** manslaughter. The purpose of exile is to atone for one who kills another completely unintentionally; if he was exceedingly negligent, exile is not sufficient to atone for him.


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

מֵתִיב רָבָא: הוֹסִיף לוֹ רְצוּעָה אַחַת, וָמֵת – הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹלֶה עַל יָדוֹ. וְהָא הָכָא דְּשׁוֹגֵג קָרוֹב לְמֵזִיד הוּא, דְּאִיבְּעִי אַסּוֹקֵי אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּמַיְיתֵי אִינָשֵׁי בַּחֲדָא רְצוּעָה, וְקָתָנֵי: הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹלֶה! אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא: דְּטָעֵי בְּמִנְיָנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raises an objection** to his own explanation from a mishna: If one is sentenced to be flogged in court and the doctors assessed that he would be able to endure only a certain number of lashes, but the one administering the lashes **added one lash to his** punishment **and he died,** the agent of the court **is exiled on account of him** (*Makkot* 22b). **But here,** it is clear **that it is** a case of **an unintentional** killing that is **approaching intentional** manslaughter, **as it should have entered his mind that people can die by one** additional **lash. And** the *tanna* **teaches** that the agent of the court **is exiled. Rav Shimi of Neharde’a said** in response: It is a case **where he erred in the counting,** which is not considered approaching intentional manslaughter.


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

טְפַח לֵיהּ רָבָא בְּסַנְדָּלֵיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַטּוּ הוּא מָנֵי?! וְהָתַנְיָא: גָּדוֹל שֶׁבְּדַיָּינִין קוֹרֵא, וְהַשֵּׁנִי מוֹנֶה, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי אוֹמֵר: ״הַכֵּהוּ״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava slapped** Rav Shimi **on his sandal,** a gesture of disparagement, and **said to him: Is that to say** that the one administering the lashes is the one who **counts** them? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **the eldest of the judges recites** the verses that are read to a person while he receives lashes, **and the second** judge **counts, and the third says** to the one administering the lashes: **Strike him?** Accordingly, it is not the one administering the lashes who erred in counting.


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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי מִנְּהַרְדְּעָא: דִּטְעָה דַּיָּינָא גּוּפֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Shimi of Neharde’a said:** It is a case **where the judge himself erred** in counting, and the one administering the lashes did not notice this error and meted out an extra lash, causing the person to die. It is therefore considered a completely unintentional killing. Consequently, he is exiled.


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

מֵיתִיבִי: הַזּוֹרֵק אֶת הָאֶבֶן לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְהָרַג – הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹלֶה. וְהָא הָכָא, דְּשׁוֹגֵג קָרוֹב לְמֵזִיד הוּא – דְּאִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ אַסּוֹקֵי אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּבִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים שְׁכִיחִי אִינָשֵׁי; וְקָתָנֵי: הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹלֶה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from another mishna: With regard to **one who throws a stone into the public domain and kills** someone, **he is exiled. But here,** it is clear **that it is** a case of **an unintentional** killing that is **approaching intentional** manslaughter, **as it should have entered his mind that people are commonly** found **in the public domain. And** the *tanna* **teaches** that **he is exiled.**


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

אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יִצְחָק: בְּסוֹתֵר אֶת כּוֹתְלוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said:** It is not a case where one threw a stone into the public domain for no purpose, but rather **where he demolishes his wall,** which borders on the public domain, and stones fall into the public domain. Therefore, it is not considered to be approaching intentional manslaughter.


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

אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ עַיּוֹנֵי! בְּסוֹתֵר בַּלַּיְלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this assertion: Nevertheless, **he should have paid attention** to see if there was anyone there, and therefore it should be considered an unintentional killing that approaches intentional manslaughter. The Gemara answers: It is a case **where he demolishes** the wall **at night.**


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

בַּלַּיְלָה נָמֵי אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ עַיּוֹנֵי! בְּסוֹתֵר אֶת כּוֹתְלוֹ בַּיּוֹם – לְאַשְׁפָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Even **at night, he should also have paid attention** to see if there was anyone there. The Gemara suggests an alternative interpretation: It is a case **where he demolishes his wall during the day into a garbage dump,** where people are not commonly found.


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

הַאי אַשְׁפָּה הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דִּשְׁכִיחִי רַבִּים – מֵזִיד הוּא! וְאִי לָא שְׁכִיחִי רַבִּים – אָנוּס הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** of **this garbage dump? If** it is a garbage dump **where the multitudes are commonly** found, **it is** considered **intentional** manslaughter. **And if the multitudes are not commonly** found there, he should be considered not only one who kills unintentionally, but **a victim of circumstances beyond his control,** since he could not have anticipated that someone would be there. Therefore, he should be exempt from exile.


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

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: [לָא צְרִיכָא, אֶלָּא] בְּאַשְׁפָּה הָעֲשׂוּיָה לְהִפָּנוֹת בַּלַּיְלָה, וְאֵינָהּ עֲשׂוּיָה לְהִפָּנוֹת בַּיּוֹם, וְאִיכָּא דְּמִיקְּרֵי וְיָתֵיב; מֵזִיד לָא הָוֵי – דְּהָא אֵינָהּ עֲשׂוּיָה לְהִפָּנוֹת בַּיּוֹם, אָנוּס נָמֵי לָא הָוֵי – דְּהָא אִיכָּא דְּמִיקְּרֵי וְיָתֵיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said:** This *halakha* **is necessary only in** the case of **a garbage dump where** people are **given to relieve themselves at night and are not given to relieve themselves during the day,** as it is near the public domain. **But there are those who chance by and sit** there for this purpose even during the day. On the one hand, **he is not** one who kills **intentionally, as** people **are not given to relieve themselves** there **during the day.** On the other hand, **he is not a victim of circumstances beyond his control either, as there are those who chance by and sit there.** Therefore, he is considered one who kills unintentionally and is liable to be exiled.


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

רַב פָּפָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא מַתְנִי לַהּ אַרֵישָׁא: הַנִּכְנָס לַחֲנוּתוֹ שֶׁל נַגָּר שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת, וְנִתְּזָה לוֹ בְּקַעַת וְטָפְחָה לוֹ עַל פָּנָיו, וָמֵת – פָּטוּר. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: חַיָּיב בְּאַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים, וּפָטוּר מִגָּלוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa taught in the name of Rava** that **this** aforementioned statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina is in reference not to the latter clause of the *baraita* but is **in reference to the first clause:** With regard to **one who enters the workshop of a carpenter without permission, and a chip** of wood **flies off and strikes him in the face and he dies,** the carpenter is **exempt.** In reference to this clause **Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says:** If the one who entered was merely injured, the carpenter is **liable to** pay **four types of indemnity. But** if the one who entered was killed, he is **exempt from exile.**


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

מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַסֵּיפָא – כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן אַרֵישָׁא; וּמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַרֵישָׁא – אֲבָל אַסֵּיפָא, כֵּיוָן דְּבִרְשׁוּת – חַיָּיב גָּלוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: With regard to **the one who teaches this** statement **in reference to the last clause** of the *baraita*, where one enters with permission, **all the more so** would he teach it **in reference to the first clause,** where one enters without permission. **But the one who teaches this** statement **in reference to the first clause** teaches it only in reference to that clause. **But in the** case of the **last clause, since** he entered **with permission** the carpenter is **liable** to go into **exile.**


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

וּמִי חַיָּיב גָּלוּת? וְהָתַנְיָא: הַנִּכְנָס לַחֲנוּתוֹ שֶׁל נַפָּח, וְנִתְּזוּ נִיצוֹצוֹת וְטָפְחוּ לוֹ עַל פָּנָיו וָמֵת – פָּטוּר, וַאֲפִילּוּ נִכְנַס בִּרְשׁוּת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But is he liable** to go into **exile** when the victim had permission to enter? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that with regard to **one who enters the workshop of a welder, and sparks [*nitzotzot*] fly off and strike him in his face and he dies,** the welder is **exempt, and** this is the *halakha* **even if** the victim **entered with permission?**


###### Bava Kamma 32b:23
[Bava Kamma 32b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/32b:23)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בִּשְׁוַלְיָא דְנַפָּחֵי. שְׁוַלְיָא דְנַפָּחֵי לְמִקְטְלֵאּ קָאֵי? כְּשֶׁרַבּוֹ מְסַרְהֵב בּוֹ לָצֵאת, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **With what are we dealing here,** in this *baraita*? We are dealing **with the welder’s apprentice** who enters his workshop. The Gemara asks: **Does the welder’s apprentice stand to be killed,** i.e., is it permitted to kill him? The Gemara answers: It is a case **where his mentor is urging him to leave, and he does not leave.**


###### Bava Kamma 32b:24
[Bava Kamma 32b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/32b:24)

וּמִשּׁוּם דְּרַבּוֹ מְסַרְהֵב בּוֹ לָצֵאת – לְמִיקְטְלֵיהּ קָאֵי?! כְּסָבוּר יָצָא. אִי הָכִי, אַחֵר נָמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And because his mentor is urging him to leave, does he stand to be killed?** The welder should be careful until his apprentice leaves. The Gemara answers: The welder **thought** that **he** had already **left** when the accident happened. The Gemara asks: **If so,** why establish that the *baraita* refers specifically to an apprentice? The welder would be exempt if it were any **other** person **also.**