Commentary page

Bava Kamma 27b

This page gathers the commentary on one source unit: the classic commentaries as they are printed, the sources the text cites, the sages named in it and direct links back to the text.

Read the full text in the reader

Babylonian Talmud · folio map

Bava Kamma 27b

Bava Kamma 27b. The full printed text of this folio side — 17 numbered segments, about 334 words — with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Original text

Segment 1

קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאֵין הוֹלְכִין בְּמָמוֹן אַחַר הָרוֹב.

the mishna teaches us that the court does not follow the majority with regard to monetary matters, and in cases of uncertainty the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.

Segment 2

וּבָא אַחֵר וְנִתְקַל בָּהּ וּשְׁבָרָהּ – פָּטוּר. אַמַּאי פָּטוּר? אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְעַיּוֹנֵי וּמֵיזַל!

§ The mishna teaches concerning the vessel placed in the public domain: If another person came and stumbled on it and broke it, he is exempt. The Gemara asks: Why is he exempt? Although this happened in the public domain, he should examine the road and then continue walking.

Segment 3

אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַב מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב: בִּמְמַלֵּא רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים כּוּלָּהּ חָבִיּוֹת. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בַּאֲפֵילָה שָׁנוּ. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: בְּקֶרֶן זָוִית.

The Sages of the school of Rav said in the name of Rav: The ruling of the mishna is taught with regard to one who placed not just one barrel in the road, but rather filled the entire public domain with barrels, blocking the path. Since the public domain belongs to everyone, a pedestrian is entitled to traverse the road even if it necessitates breaking the vessels. Shmuel says: The ruling of the mishna is taught with regard to a case where he broke it in the dark. Therefore, he could not have avoided breaking the barrel by examining the road in front of him. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The ruling of the mishna is taught with regard to a case where the barrel was placed at the corner of the road, and so the pedestrian could not have seen it, as he rounded the corner, before stumbling on it.

Segment 4

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא דַּיְקָא מַתְנִיתִין אֶלָּא אוֹ כִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אוֹ כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְּאִי כְּרַב, מַאי אִרְיָא נִתְקַל? אֲפִילּוּ שָׁבַר נָמֵי!

Rav Pappa said: The mishna is precise only according to either the explanation of Shmuel or that of Rabbi Yoḥanan, but not that of Rav. As, if the mishna is explained in accordance with the explanation of Rav, what is the reason it refers specifically to a case where one stumbled on the barrel? Even if he broke the barrel intentionally he should not be liable to pay, as the owner of the barrel had no right to block the public road.

Segment 5

אָמַר רַב זְבִיד מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: הוּא הַדִּין דַּאֲפִילּוּ שָׁבַר; וְהַאי דְּקָתָנֵי ״נִתְקַל״ – אַיְּידֵי דְּבָעֵי לְמִתְנֵי סֵיפָא: ״וְאִם הוּזַּק בָּהּ – בַּעַל חָבִית חַיָּיב בְּנִזְקוֹ״, דְּדַוְקָא נִתְקַל, אֲבָל שָׁבַר – לָא, מַאי טַעְמָא? הוּא דְּאַזֵּיק אַנַּפְשֵׁיהּ; קָתָנֵי רֵישָׁא ״נִתְקַל״.

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava in defense of Rav’s explanation: The same is true even if he broke the barrel intentionally. And as for this fact, that the tanna of the mishna teaches a case where he stumbled, it is because he wants to teach in the last clause: And if he incurred damage due to the vessel, the owner of the ḥavit is liable to pay for his damage. As this ruling applies specifically when he stumbled, but if he broke the barrel intentionally and incurred damage in the process, the owner of the barrel is not required to compensate him. What is the reason for this? Although the pedestrian had the right to break the barrel, it is he who damaged himself, by not being careful while breaking it. Therefore, in the first clause the mishna teaches a case where he stumbled. Accordingly, the mishna’s wording is precise according to Rav’s explanation as well.

Segment 6

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְרַב אָשֵׁי, הָכִי אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי עוּלָּא: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכָּן שֶׁל בְּנֵי אָדָם לְהִתְבּוֹנֵן בַּדְּרָכִים.

Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi that this is what they say in the West, Eretz Yisrael, in the name of Rabbi Ulla, in explanation of the mishna: Even if the barrel is clearly visible, one who stumbles on it is exempt from liability because the typical manner of people is not to examine the roads, as they assume that the road is unobstructed. Therefore, one who breaks an item placed in the road as a result of not watching is not liable to pay restitution.

Segment 7

הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא בִּנְהַרְדְּעָא, וְחַיֵּיב שְׁמוּאֵל. בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא, וְחַיֵּיב רָבָא.

The Gemara relates: There was an incident in Neharde’a where a pedestrian stumbled on a jug in an open area and broke it, and Shmuel deemed him liable to pay for the damage. A similar incident took place in Pumbedita, and Rava deemed the person liable to pay.

Segment 8

בִּשְׁלָמָא שְׁמוּאֵל – כִּשְׁמַעְתֵּיהּ. אֶלָּא רָבָא – לֵימָא כִּשְׁמוּאֵל סְבִירָא לֵיהּ?

The Gemara asks: Granted, Shmuel ruled in accordance with his halakhic opinion that the exemption stated in the mishna refers specifically to a case where one stumbles in the dark, as otherwise he is liable for breaking the barrel, since he should have examined the road. But with regard to Rava, shall we say that he holds in accordance with Shmuel’s opinion that one who breaks an item in the public domain is exempt from paying for it only if it was dark?

Segment 9

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: קַרְנָא דְּעַצְרָא הָוֵי, דְּכֵיוָן דְּבִרְשׁוּת קָעָבְדִי – אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְעַיּוֹנֵי וּמֵיזַל.

Rav Pappa said: That inference is not necessary, as this incident was at the corner where there was an olive press [ de’atzera ], where it is known that people put their jugs down while waiting for oil. Consequently, since they were acting with permission, a pedestrian should examine the road and then continue walking.

Segment 10

שְׁלַח לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא לְרַב נַחְמָן, הֲרֵי אָמְרוּ: לִרְכוּבָּה – שָׁלֹשׁ, וְלִבְעִיטָה – חָמֵשׁ, וְלִסְנוֹקֶרֶת – שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה. לְפַנְדָּא דְמָרָא וּלְקוֹפִינָא דְּמָרָא, מַאי?

§ Rav Ḥisda sent the following question to Rav Naḥman: The Sages said that when one strikes another, humiliating him, the judges determine liability according to the following formula: For kneeing [ rekhuva ] him, he must pay three sela ; for kicking, five; and for punching [ velisnokeret ] him, thirteen. The Gemara asks: If so for hitting him with the handle of a hoe [ demara ] and for hitting him with the top [ ulkofina ] of a hoe, what amount is one liable to pay him?

Segment 11

שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: חִסְדָּא חִסְדָּא, קְנָסָא קָא מַגְבֵּית בְּבָבֶל? אֵימָא לִי גּוּפָא דְעוֹבָדָא הֵיכִי הֲוָה.

Rav Naḥman sent him the following response: Ḥisda, Ḥisda, are you collecting a fine for humiliation in Babylonia, where judges are not authorized to collect fines? Tell me how the incident itself transpired.

Segment 12

שְׁלַח לֵיהּ: דְּהָהוּא גַּרְגּוּתָא דְּבֵי תְרֵי, דְּכׇל יוֹמָא הֲוָה דָּלֵי חַד מִנַּיְיהוּ. אֲתָא חַד, קָא דָלֵי בְּיוֹמָא דְּלָא דִּילֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יוֹמָא דִּידִי הוּא! לָא אַשְׁגַּח בֵּיהּ. שְׁקַל פַּנְדָּא דְּמָרָא, מַחְיֵיהּ.

Rav Ḥisda sent him in response: There is a certain cistern belonging to two people whose arrangement was to alternate its use so that every day one of them would draw from it in turn. It happened that one of them came and was drawing water on a day that was not his turn. His co-owner said to him: This is my day to draw, not yours. His colleague did not pay attention to him. The person whose turn it was therefore took the handle of a hoe and struck the person who was stealing his water, who then sued for damages.

Segment 13

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְאָה פַּנְדֵי בְּפַנְדָּא לִמְחֲיֵיהּ! אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: לָא עָבֵיד אִינִישׁ דִּינָא לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ; בִּמְקוֹם פְּסֵידָא – עָבֵיד אִינִישׁ דִּינָא לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ.

Rav Naḥman said to him: In that case, he was right to do so, and he should have hit him even a hundred times with the hoe. Even according to the one who says that a person may not take justice into his own hands but should go to court, in a case where there would be a loss involved if no immediate action is taken, a person may take justice into his own hands.

Segment 14

דְּאִתְּמַר, רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: לָא עָבֵיד אִינִישׁ דִּינָא לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ. רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: עָבֵיד אִינִישׁ דִּינָא לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ.

This is as it was stated, that Rav Yehuda says: A person may not take justice into his own hands, whereas Rav Naḥman says: A person may take justice into his own hands.

Segment 15

הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא פְּסֵידָא – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי, דְּעָבֵיד אִינִישׁ דִּינָא לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ. כִּי פְּלִיגִי – הֵיכָא דְּלֵיכָּא פְּסֵידָא; רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: לָא עָבֵיד אִינִישׁ דִּינָא לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ, דְּכֵיוָן דְּלֵיכָּא פְּסֵידָא – לֵיזִיל קַמֵּיהּ דַּיָּינָא. רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: עָבֵיד אִינִישׁ דִּינָא לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ, דְּכֵיוָן דִּבְדִין עָבֵיד – לָא טָרַח.

Where there is an imminent loss that will be suffered if the injured party does not take action, everyone agrees that a person may take justice into his own hands. They disagree only when there is no imminent loss that will be suffered. Rav Yehuda says that a person may not take justice into his own hands, because since there is no loss, he should go before the judge to have him enforce the law. Rav Naḥman says that a person may take justice into his own hands. Since he is acting lawfully, as he is clearly in the right, he need not trouble himself to go before the judge to have him enforce the law.

Segment 16

מֵתִיב רַב כָּהֲנָא, בֶּן בַּג בַּג אוֹמֵר: אַל תִּיכָּנֵס לַחֲצַר חֲבֵרְךָ לִיטּוֹל אֶת שֶׁלְּךָ שֶׁלֹּא בִּרְשׁוּת, שֶׁמָּא תֵּרָאֶה עָלָיו כְּגַנָּב. אֶלָּא שְׁבוֹר אֶת שִׁינָּיו, וֶאֱמוֹר לוֹ: שֶׁלִּי אֲנִי נוֹטֵל.

Rav Kahana raises an objection to Rav Yehuda’s opinion based on a baraita : Ben Bag Bag says: Do not enter another person’s courtyard secretly to take what is rightfully yours without permission, lest you appear to him as a thief trying to steal his property. Rather, break his teeth, i.e., take it by force, and say to him: I am taking what is mine. Evidently one may take justice into his own hands.

Segment 17

אֲמַר לֵיהּ:

Rav Yehuda said to him:

Bava Kamma 27b

Bava Kamma 27b

Rashi

Tosafot

Rabbeinu Chananel

Rashba

Meiri

Maharsha (Chidushei Halachot)

Maharam

Shita Mekubetzet

Penei Yehoshua

Gilyon HaShas

What this page contains

Continue the sequence

Parallel sources

Lessons and study tools

Sages named on this page

Original text