Bava Kamma

It is therefore made known to us that we do not follow the majority  in [disputes on] matters of money. AND ANOTHER ONE COMES AND STUMBLES OVER IT AND BREAKS IT, HE IS EXEMPT. Why exempt? Has not one to keep one's eyes open when walking? — They said at the school of Rab, even in the name of Rab: The whole of the public ground was filled with barrels.  Samuel said: It is with reference to a dark place that we have learnt [the law in the Mishnah]. R. Johanan said: The pitcher was placed at the corner of a turning.  R. Papa said: Our Mishnah is not consistent unless in accordance with Samuel or R. Johanan, for according to Rab why exemption only in the case of stumbling [over the pitcher]? Why not the same ruling even when one directly broke it? — R. Zebid thereupon said in the name of Raba: The same law applies even when the defendant directly broke it; for AND STUMBLES was inserted merely because of the subsequent clause which reads, IF THE OTHER ONE WAS INJURED BY IT, THE OWNER OF THE BARREL IS LIABLE TO COMPENSATE FOR THE DAMAGE; and which of course applies only to 'stumbling' but not to direct breaking, in which case it only stands to reason that it is the plaintiff who is to blame for the damage he caused to himself. It was therefore on this account that 'stumbling' was inserted in the commencing clause. R. Abba said to R. Ashi: In the West  the following [explanation] is stated in the name of R. 'Ulla: [The exemption  is] because it is not the habit of men to look round while walking on the road.  Such a case occurred in Nehardea  where Samuel ordered compensation [for the broken utensil] and so also in Pumbeditha  where Raba similarly ordered compensation to he paid. We understand this in the case of Samuel who abided by the dictum he himself propounded,  but regarding Raba are we to say that he [also] embraced the view of Samuel? — R. Papa thereupon said: [In the case of Raba] the damage was done at the corner of an oil factory; and since it was usual to keep there barrels, he  ought to have kept his eyes open while walking there. R. Hisda dispatched [the following query] to R. Nahman: As there has already been fixed a fine  of three sela's  for kicking with the knee; five for kicking with the foot; thirteen for a blow with the saddle of an ass — what is the fine for wounding with the blade of the hoe or with the handle of the hoe? — The reply was forwarded [as follows]: 'Hisda, Hisda! Is it your practice in Babylon to impose fines?  Tell me the actual circumstances of the case as it occurred.' He  thereupon dispatched him thus: There was a well belonging to two persons. It was used by them on alternate days.  One of them, however, came and used it on a day not his. The other party said to him: 'This day is mine!' But as the latter paid no heed to that, he took a blade of a hoe and struck him with it. R. Nahman thereupon replied: No harm if he would have struck him a hundred times with the blade of the hoe. For even according to the view that a man may not take the law in his own hands  for the protection of his interests, in a case where an irreparable loss is pending  he is certainly entitled to do so. It has indeed been stated: Rab Judah said: No man may take the law into his own hands for the protection of his interests, whereas R. Nahman said: A man may take the law into his own hands for the protection of his interests. In a case where an irreparable loss is pending, no two opinions exist that he may take the law into his own hands for the protection of his interests: the difference of opinion is only where no irreparable loss is pending. Rab Judah maintains that no man may take the law into his own hands for the [alleged] protection of his interests, for since no irreparable loss is pending let him resort to the Judge; whereas R. Nahman says that a man may take the law into his own hands for the protection of his interests, for since he acts in accordance with [the prescriptions of the] law, why [need he] take the trouble [to go to Court]? R. Kahana [however] raised an objection; Ben Bag Bag said;  Do not enter [stealthily] into thy neighbour's premises for the purpose of appropriating without his knowledge anything that even belongs to thee, lest thou wilt appear to him as a thief. Thou mayest, however, break his teeth and tell him, 'I am taking possession of what is mine.'  [Does not this prove that a man may take the law into his own hands  for the protection of his rights?] — He  thereupon said