Bava Kamma — Daf 27a

פטורין ר' יהודה בן בתירא אומר בזה אחר זה האחרון חייב מפני שקירב מיתתו

בא שור וקבלו בקרניו פלוגתא דר' ישמעאל בנו של יוחנן בן ברוקא ורבנן דתניא (שמות כא, ל) ונתן פדיון נפשו דמי ניזק ר' ישמעאל בנו של ר' יוחנן בן ברוקא אומר דמי מזיק

ואמר רבה נפל מראש הגג ונתקע באשה חייב בד' דברים וביבמתו לא קנה

חייב בנזק בצער בריפוי בשבת אבל בשת לא דתנן אינו חייב על הבשת עד שיהא מתכוין

ואמר רבה נפל מראש הגג ברוח שאינה מצויה והזיק ובייש חייב על הנזק ופטור בד' דברים ברוח מצויה והזיק ובייש חייב בד' דברים ופטור על הבשת ואם נתהפך חייב אף על הבשת

דתניא ממשמע שנאמר (דברים כה, יא) ושלחה ידה איני יודע שהחזיקה מה ת"ל והחזיקה לומר לך כיון שנתכוין להזיק אע"פ שלא נתכוין לבייש

ואמר רבה הניח לו גחלת על לבו ומת פטור על בגדו ונשרף חייב

אמר רבא תרוייהו תננהי על לבו דתנן כבש עליו לתוך האור או לתוך המים ואינו יכול לעלות משם ומת חייב דחפו לתוך האור או לתוך המים ויכול לעלות משם ומת פטור

בגדו דתנן קרע את כסותי שבר את כדי חייב על מנת לפטור פטור

בעי רבה הניח גחלת על לב עבדו מהו כגופו דמי או כממונו דמי אם תמצא לומר כגופו דמי שורו מהו

הדר פשטה עבדו כגופו שורו כממונו:

הדרן עלך כיצד רגל

מתני׳ המניח את הכד ברה"ר ובא אחר ונתקל בה ושברה פטור ואם הוזק בה בעל החבית חייב בנזקו:

גמ׳ פתח בכד וסיים בחבית

ותנן נמי זה בא בחביתו וזה בא בקורתו נשברה כדו של זה בקורתו של זה פטור פתח בחבית וסיים בכד

ותנן נמי זה בא בחביתו של יין וזה בא בכדו של דבש נסדקה חבית של דבש ושפך זה יינו והציל את הדבש לתוכו אין לו אלא שכרו פתח בכד וסיים בחבית

אמר רב פפא היינו כד היינו חבית למאי נפקא מינה למקח וממכר

היכי דמי אילימא באתרא דכדא לא קרו חבית וחבית לא קרו כדא הא לא קרו לה

לא צריכא דרובא קרו לה לכדא כדא ולחביתא חביתא ואיכא נמי דקרו לחביתא כדא ולכדא חביתא מהו דתימא זיל בתר רובא

is guilty of murder: R. Judah b. Bathyra, however says: If consecutively the last is liable, for he was the immediate cause of the death.  In the case where an ox meanwhile appeared and caught the [falling] child on its horns there is a difference of opinion between R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka and the Rabbis.  For it was taught: Then he shall give for the redemption of his life  [denotes] the value of the [life of] the killed person. R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka interprets it to refer to the value of the [life of] the defendant. Rabbah further said: In the case of one falling from the top of the roof and [doing damage by] coming into close contact with a woman, there is liability for four items,  though were she his deceased brother's wife  he would thereby not yet have acquired her for wife.  The Four Items [in this case] include: Depreciation, Pain, Medical Expenses and Loss of Time, but not Degradation. for we have learnt:  There is no liability for Degradation unless there is intention [to degrade]. Rabbah further said: In the case of one who through a wind of unusual occurrence fell from the top of the roof [upon a human being] and did damage as well as caused degradation, there will be liability for Depreciation  but exemption from the [additional] Four Items:  if, however, [the fall had been] through a wind of usual occurrence and damage as well as degradation was occasioned, there is liability for Four Items  but exemption from Degradation.  If he turned over [while falling]  there would be liability also for Degradation for it was taught: From the implication of the mere statement, And she putteth forth her hand,  would I not have understood that she taketh him? Why then continue in the text and she taketh him?  — In order to inform you that since there existed an intention to injure though none to cause degradation [there is liability even for Degradation]. Rabbah again said: In the case of one placing a live coal on a neighbour's heart and death resulting, there is exemption;  if, however, it was put upon his belongings  which were [thereby] burnt, there is liability.  Raba said: Both of the two [latter cases] have been dealt with in Mishnah. Regarding the case 'on a neighbour's heart' we learnt:  If one man held another fast down in fire or in water, so that it was impossible for him to emerge and death resulted, he is guilty [of murder]. If, however, he pushed him into fire or into water, and it was yet possible for him to emerge but death resulted, there is exemption. Regarding the case 'Upon his belongings' we have similarly learnt:  [If a man says to another,] 'Tear my garment;' 'Break my jug;'  there is nevertheless liability [for any damage done to the garment or to the jug]. But if he said, '… upon the understanding that you will incur no liability,' there is exemption. Rabbah, however, asked: If a man placed a live coal upon the heart of a slave  [and injury  results therefrom], what should be the law?  Does it come under the law applicable in the case of a coal having been placed upon the body of the master himself,  or to that applicable in the case of a coal having been placed upon a chattel of his?  Assuming that it is subject to the law applicable in the case of a coal having been placed upon the heart of the master himself,  what should be the law regarding a live coal placed upon an ox [from which damage resulted]? — He himself answered the query thus: His slave is on a par with his own body,  whereas his ox is on a par with his chattels. MISHNAH. IF A MAN PLACES A [KAD] PITCHER ON PUBLIC GROUND AND ANOTHER ONE COMES AND STUMBLES OVER IT AND BREAKS IT, HE IS EXEMPT. IF THE OTHER ONE WAS INJURED BY IT, THE OWNER OF THE [HABITH] BARREL IS LIABLE TO COMPENSATE FOR THE DAMAGE. GEMARA. To commence with PITCHER  and conclude with BARREL!  And we have likewise learnt also elsewhere:  If one man comes with his [habith] barrel and another comes with his beam and [it so happened that] the [kad] pitcher of this one breaks by [collision with] the beam of that one, he is exempt.  Here [on the other hand] the commencement is with barrel  and the conclusion with pitcher!  We have again likewise learnt elsewhere: In the case of this man coming with a [habith] barrel of wine and that one proceeding with a [kad] pitcher of honey, and as the [habith] barrel of honey cracked, the owner of the wine poured out his wine and saved the honey into his barrel, he is entitled to no more than his service.  Here again the commencement is with pitcher  and the conclusion with barrel!  R. Papa thereupon said: Both kad and habith may denote one and the same receptacle. But what is the purpose in this observation?  — Regarding buying and selling.  But under what circumstances? It could hardly be thought to refer to a locality where neither kad is termed habith nor habith designated kad, for are not these two terms then kept there distinct? — No, it may have application in a locality where, though the majority of people refer to kad by the term kad and to habith by the term habith, yet there are some who refer to habith by the term kad and to kad by the term habith. You might perhaps have thought that the law  follows the majority.