## Bava Kamma Daf 48a

###### Bava Kamma 48a:1
[Bava Kamma 48a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/48a:1)

מַאי בִּרְשׁוּת וּמַאי שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת אִיכָּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**what** reason is there to rule one way where the produce is brought in **with permission, and what** reason **is there** to rule another way where the produce is brought in **without permission?** With regard to damage done by the ox of a stranger, it should not make any difference.


###### Bava Kamma 48a:2
[Bava Kamma 48a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/48a:2)

אָמְרִי: בִּרְשׁוּת – הָוְיָא לַהּ שֵׁן בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק, וְשֵׁן בִּרְשׁוּת הַנִּיזָּק חַיֶּיבֶת. שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת – הָוְיָא לַהּ שֵׁן בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְשֵׁן בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים פְּטוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said** in response: If he brought in the produce **with permission, it is** a case of damage under the category of **Eating** (see 2a), **in the domain of the injured** party, since, with respect to the produce, the courtyard is treated as belonging to its owner, **and** the *halakha* is that if an animal causes damage categorized as **Eating in the domain of the injured** party, the ox’s owner is **liable.** But if he brought it into the courtyard **without permission, it is** a case of damage under the category of **Eating in the public domain, and** if an animal causes damage categorized as **Eating in the public domain,** the ox’s owner is **exempt.** Given this explanation, the answer to the question of what type of safeguarding the courtyard owner accepted cannot be derived from the *baraita*.


###### Bava Kamma 48a:3
[Bava Kamma 48a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/48a:3)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הִכְנִיס שׁוֹרוֹ לַחֲצַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת, וּבָא שׁוֹר מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר וּנְגָחוֹ – פָּטוּר. וְאִם הִכְנִיס בִּרְשׁוּת – חַיָּיב. מַאן פָּטוּר וּמַאן חַיָּיב? לָאו פָּטוּר בַּעַל חָצֵר, וְחַיָּיב בַּעַל חָצֵר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** a proof from another *baraita*: If one **brought his ox into a homeowner’s courtyard without permission, and an ox from elsewhere comes and gores it,** he is **exempt. But if he brought** it **into** the courtyard **with permission,** he is **liable.** The Gemara clarifies: **Who** is **exempt and who** is **liable? Is it not the owner of the courtyard** who is **exempt and the owner of the courtyard** who is **liable?** If so, this proves that the owner of the courtyard accepted responsibility for all damage occurring on his premises.


###### Bava Kamma 48a:4
[Bava Kamma 48a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/48a:4)

לָא; פָּטוּר בַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר, וְחַיָּיב בַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר. אִי הָכִי, מַאי בִּרְשׁוּת וּמַאי שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת אִיכָּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No, the owner of the ox** that gored is **exempt, and the owner of the ox** that gored is **liable.** The Gemara asks: **If so, what** significance is there to specifying the case of **with permission, and what** significance **is there** to specifying the case of **without permission** with regard to this ox? For damage categorized as Goring (see 2b), the owner of the animal is liable wherever the goring occurred, even in the public domain.


###### Bava Kamma 48a:5
[Bava Kamma 48a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/48a:5)

אָמְרִי: הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מְשׁוּנֶּה קֶרֶן בַּחֲצַר הַנִּיזָּק – נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם מְשַׁלֵּם. בִּרְשׁוּת – הָוְיָא לַהּ קֶרֶן בַּחֲצַר הַנִּיזָּק, וּמְשַׁלֵּם נֶזֶק שָׁלֵם; שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת – הָוְיָא לַהּ קֶרֶן בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְלָא מְשַׁלְּמָא אֶלָּא חֲצִי נֶזֶק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said** in response: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this? It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Tarfon, who says:** The *halakha* of damage categorized as **Goring in the courtyard of the injured** party **is different,** and the owner of the goring animal **pays** the **full** cost of the **damage.** According to this opinion, the *baraita* should be interpreted as follows: If the injured party brought his ox into the courtyard **with permission, it is** a case of damage categorized as **Goring in the property of the injured** party, **and** the owner of the Goring animal **pays** the **full** cost of the **damage.** But if he brought it in **without permission, it is** a case of damage categorized as **Goring in the public domain, and he pays only half** the cost of **the damage.**


###### Bava Kamma 48a:6
[Bava Kamma 48a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/48a:6)

הַהִיא אִיתְּתָא דְּעַלַּא לְמֵיפָא בְּהָהוּא בֵּיתָא, אֲתָא בַּרְחָא דְּמָרֵי דְבֵיתָא אַכְלֵהּ לְלֵישָׁא, חֲבִיל וּמִית. חַיְּיבַהּ רָבָא לְשַׁלּוֹמֵי דְּמֵי בַרְחָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates that there was **a certain woman who entered a certain house to bake.** Subsequently, **a goat** belonging **to the owner of the house came** and **ate the** woman’s **dough,** and as a result **it became overheated and died. Rava deemed** the woman **liable to pay compensation for the goat.**


###### Bava Kamma 48a:7
[Bava Kamma 48a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/48a:7)

לֵימָא פְּלִיגָא אַדְּרַב – דְּאָמַר רַב: הֲוָיא לַהּ שֶׁלֹּא תֹּאכַל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Shall we say** that Rava **disagrees with** the opinion **of Rav, as Rav says** that in a case where someone brings in his produce to another’s courtyard without permission, and the latter’s animal is injured by eating it, the owner of the produce is nevertheless exempt, since the animal **should not have eaten** it.


###### Bava Kamma 48a:8
[Bava Kamma 48a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/48a:8)

אָמְרִי: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת – לָא קַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ נְטִירוּתָא, הָכָא בִּרְשׁוּת – קַבֵּיל עֲלֵיהּ נְטִירוּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said** in response: **How can** these cases **be compared? There,** in the case where someone brought in his produce **without permission,** he **did not accept** responsibility **upon himself** for **safeguarding** against the produce causing damage, whereas **here,** where the woman brought in the dough **with permission,** the woman did **accept** responsibility **upon herself** for **safeguarding** against the dough causing damage.


###### Bava Kamma 48a:9
[Bava Kamma 48a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/48a:9)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנִּכְנְסָה לִטְחוֹן חִטִּין אֵצֶל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת, וַאֲכָלָתַן בְּהֶמְתּוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת – פָּטוּר, וְאִם הוּזְּקָה – חַיֶּיבֶת; טַעְמָא שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת, הָא בִּרְשׁוּת – פְּטוּרָ[ה]!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** in **what** way **is** it **different from** the case of the *baraita* mentioned previously: In the case of **a woman who entered** the house of **a homeowner without permission** in order **to grind wheat, and the homeowner’s animal ate** the wheat, he is **exempt? And** moreover, **if** the homeowner’s animal **was injured** by the wheat, the woman is **liable.** The Gemara infers: **The reason** she is liable is specifically that she entered **without permission, but** if she entered **with permission,** she would be **exempt.**


###### Bava Kamma 48a:10
[Bava Kamma 48a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/48a:10)

אָמְרִי: לִטְחוֹן חִטִּים, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא בָּעֲיָא צְנִיעוּתָא מִידֵּי – לָא (בָּעֵי) מְסַלְּקִי מָרָווֹתָא דְּחָצֵר נַפְשַׁיְיהוּ, וַעֲלֵיהּ דִּידֵיהּ רָמֵי נְטִירוּתָא; אֲבָל לְמֵיפָא, כֵּיוָן דְּבָעֲיָא הִיא צְנִיעוּתָא – מָרָווֹתָא דְּחָצֵר מְסַלְּקִי נַפְשַׁיְיהוּ, הִלְכָּךְ עֲלַהּ דִּידַהּ רַמְיָא נְטִירוּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said** in response: If she entered the house **to grind wheat, since she does not require any privacy, the owners of the courtyard do not need** to **absent themselves** from there, **and** the responsibility for **safeguarding** against damage therefore **rests upon them. But** if she enters **to bake, since she requires privacy** for this, as the process of kneading involves exposing her elbows, **the owners of the courtyard absent themselves** from there to allow her to bake. **Therefore,** the responsibility for **safeguarding** against damage to anything in the courtyard **rests upon her.**


###### Bava Kamma 48a:11
[Bava Kamma 48a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/48a:11)

הִכְנִיס שׁוֹרוֹ לַחֲצַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. אָמַר רָבָא: הִכְנִיס שׁוֹרוֹ לַחֲצַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת, וְחָפַר בָּהּ בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת – בַּעַל הַשּׁוֹר חַיָּיב בְּנִזְקֵי חָצֵר, וּבַעַל חָצֵר חַיָּיב בְּנִזְקֵי הַבּוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If one **brought his ox inside the homeowner’s courtyard** without permission and the homeowner’s ox gored it or the homeowner’s dog bit it, the homeowner is exempt. **Rava says:** If one **brought his ox into a homeowner’s courtyard without permission, and** the ox **dug pits, ditches, or caves in it, the owner of the ox** is **liable for the damage** caused by his animal **to the courtyard, but the owner of the courtyard is liable for** any **damage** caused by **the pit** if someone falls inside.


###### Bava Kamma 48a:12
[Bava Kamma 48a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/48a:12)

אַף עַל גַּב דְּאָמַר מָר: ״כִּי יִכְרֶה אִישׁ בּוֹר״ – וְלֹא שׁוֹר בּוֹר; הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאִית לֵיהּ לְהַאיְךְ לְמַלּוֹיֵיהּ, וְלָא קָא מַלְּיֵיהּ – כְּמַאן דְּכַרְיֵיהּ דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Even though the Master says** that when the verse states: **“And if a man shall open a pit”** (Exodus 21:33), it limits the liability for the pit to a person who digs a pit, **but not an ox** that digs **a pit,** in which case the owner of the courtyard should be exempt, nevertheless, **here,** in Rava’s statement, **since this** owner of the courtyard **should have filled** the pit with earth **and** he **did not fill it,** he is considered **like someone who** actually **dug** the pit.


###### Bava Kamma 48a:13
[Bava Kamma 48a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/48a:13)

וְאָמַר רָבָא: הִכְנִיס שׁוֹרוֹ לַחֲצַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת, וְהִזִּיק אֶת בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, אוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הוּזַּק בּוֹ – חַיָּיב. רָבַץ – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** similarly, **Rava says:** In the case of one who **brought his ox into a homeowner’s courtyard without permission, and** the ox **injured the homeowner, or the homeowner** stumbled and **was injured by it,** the owner of the ox is **liable.** If the ox **crouched [*ravatz*],** and by doing so caused damage, the ox’s owner is **exempt.**


###### Bava Kamma 48a:14
[Bava Kamma 48a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/48a:14)

וּמִשּׁוּם דְּרָבַץ, פָּטוּר? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מַאי ״רָבַץ״ – שֶׁהִרְבִּיץ גְּלָלִים, וְנִטְנְפוּ כֵּלָיו שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת; דְּהָוֵיא גְּלָלִים בּוֹר, וְלֹא מָצִינוּ בּוֹר שֶׁחִיֵּיב בּוֹ אֶת הַכֵּלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** is he **exempt because** the animal caused damage when it **crouched? Rav Pappa said: What** is the meaning of the term ***ravatz*?** It means **that it dropped feces [*hirbitz*]** on the ground, **and** subsequently **the clothes of the homeowner were soiled.** Consequently, **the feces constitute a pit, and we do not find** a case of damage categorized as **Pit** that **one is liable** for causing damage to **utensils.** Therefore, the owner of the animal is exempt.


###### Bava Kamma 48a:15
[Bava Kamma 48a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/48a:15)

הָנִיחָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר: כׇּל תַּקָּלָה – בּוֹר הוּא. אֶלָּא לְרַב, דְּאָמַר: עַד דְּמַפְקַר לֵיהּ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This works out well according to** the opinion of **Shmuel, who says: Any obstruction is** categorized as **Pit,** and the same *halakha* exempting the one responsible for the pit from damage to utensils applies to them as well. **But according to** the opinion of **Rav, who says** that one’s property is not categorized as Pit **until he renounces ownership of it, what is there to say?**


###### Bava Kamma 48a:16
[Bava Kamma 48a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/48a:16)

אָמְרִי: סְתָם גְּלָלִים – אַפְקוֹרֵי מַפְקַיר לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Sages **said** in response: The animal’s owner usually **renounces ownership** of **ordinary feces,** and so they are categorized as Pit even according to the opinion of Rav.


###### Bava Kamma 48a:17
[Bava Kamma 48a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/48a:17)

וְאָמַר רָבָא: נִכְנַס לַחֲצַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת, וְהִזִּיק אֶת בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת הוּזַּק בּוֹ – חַיָּיב. הִזִּיקוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava says:** In the case of a person or an animal that **entered the courtyard of a homeowner without permission and injured the homeowner, or the homeowner was injured by** stumbling on the intruder, the person or owner of the animal is **liable.** Moreover, if **the homeowner damages** the person or animal, he is **exempt.**


###### Bava Kamma 48a:18
[Bava Kamma 48a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/48a:18)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא אֲמַרַן – אֶלָּא דְּלָא הֲוָה יָדַע בֵּיהּ; אֲבָל הֲוָה יָדַע בֵּיהּ – הִזִּיקוֹ בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, חַיָּיב. מַאי טַעְמָא? מִשּׁוּם דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: נְהִי דְּאִית לָךְ רְשׁוּתָא לְאַפּוֹקֵי, לְאַזּוֹקֵי לֵית לָךְ רְשׁוּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said: We said** this **only when** the homeowner **did not know of his** presence. **But** if **he knew of his** presence, even if he entered without permission, then if the **homeowner injured him,** the homeowner is **liable. What is the reason?** It is **due to** the fact **that** the injured party can **say to** the owner of the courtyard: **Although you have the right to eject** me from your courtyard, **you do not have the right to injure me.**


###### Bava Kamma 48a:19
[Bava Kamma 48a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Kamma/r/48a:19)

וְאָזְדוּ לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ, דְּאָמַר רָבָא וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב פָּפָּא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And** Rava and Rav Pappa, who hold that one who enters without permission is liable if damage is caused, **follow their** lines of **reasoning, as Rava says, and some say** it was **Rav Pappa** who said it: