Yerushalmi Bava Kamma 3:1 ירושלמי בבא קמא ג׳:א׳

MISHNAH: If somebody puts his jar down in the public domain and another person stumbled over it and broke it, [the second person] does not have to pay¹Even though a human is always notorious, there are cases where he does not have to pay.; if he was hurt, the owner of the amphora²The Mishnah uses interchangeably all words which denote clay vessels used for storage, whether jar or amphora. has to pay his damages³Creating an obstacle in the public domain is damage by “pit”..

HALAKHAH: “If somebody puts his jar down in the public domain,” etc. Is it not usual for a person to put things⁴Both in the Rome (R) and E mss. instead of להניחן one reads להיות מבחין (E), להיות מבחן (R): “do not people usually look where they are going in the public domain?” A person walking in the street should be obligated to observe a minimum of precaution. Then why does the Mishnah give a blanket exemption to the person who breaks another person’s vessel in the publich domain? The same readings are found at the end of the paragraph as declarative statements. in the public domain? Rav said, if it was filling⁵This should be read as feminine, מְלַלְאָה [cf. J. N. Epstein, Tarbiz 6 fasc. 1 (1934), p. 64–65.] the entire public domain⁶Babli 27b. If one does not stop traffic, one is permitted to put down his load in the public domain.. But if it does not fill the entire public domain, is it not usual to put things in the public domain? Samuel said, either if it was filling the entire public domain or if it is at a corner⁷The person who turns around the corner could not see the obstacle in front of him. In the Babli, this is attributed to R. Joḥanan; Samuel applies the Mishnah to accidents in the dark. (In R, the statements of Rav and Samuel are conflated to one short text.). Rebbi Eleazar⁸In the Babli, his is confirmed as the Galilean point of view. said, even if it does not fill the entire public domain (if he took it from here and put it down there he would create a “pit”)⁹This has to be eliminated as dittography from the following paragraph; it is not in the parallel mss. and even if it was at a corner; it is not usual for a person to put things⁴Both in the Rome (R) and E mss. instead of להניחן one reads להיות מבחין (E), להיות מבחן (R): “do not people usually look where they are going in the public domain?” A person walking in the street should be obligated to observe a minimum of precaution. Then why does the Mishnah give a blanket exemption to the person who breaks another person’s vessel in the publich domain? The same readings are found at the end of the paragraph as declarative statements. in the public domain¹⁰Anything left lying in the public domain creates a “pit”..

If it was filling the entire public domain, if he took it from here and put it down there he would create a “pit”¹¹If the jars block the entire path, a passer-by cannot remove one of them and put it down again in the public domain since then he would create the obstacle and would be liable for any damages his “pit” would cause in the future. The Babli agrees, 31b, that any obstacle created in the public domain is under the rules of “pit”.. But could he take a stick and break it or step over it and if it broke, it broke¹²Since the passer-by has the right of way, can he forcibly make himself a path without penalty, or does he normally walk and is free from paying only for incidental damage.? Let us hear from the following: If a bull mounted another¹³In the Babli, 28a: “If a bull mounted another to kill him”. and the [latter’s] owner came to draw away his own, or [the bull] slipped away, and [the attacker] fell down and died, he is free from payment. If he pushed [the attacker] which then fell down and died, he must pay¹⁴Therefore, the passer-by is not allowed to break the jars to clear the way for himself.. Could he¹⁵Could the owner of the attacking bull sue the owner of the defending animal for the value of the dead bull, claiming that even if his bull had killed the other’s animal he could have paid the damages. not tell him, if you had not interferred, I would have paid your damages? But he could have answered, If I had not interferred, you would have paid me half the damage¹⁶The attacking bull is under the rules of “horn”; the owner of the defending animal never could have hoped to recover his entire loss.! Think of it, if it was notorious? It is not in your power to drag me through the courts¹⁷Since damages caused by a notorious animal can only be collected by a suit, the owner of the defending animal is justified in his action; the owner of the attacking bull has no claim against him..

Somebody put down an amphora in the public domain and then another person came and put another one close to the first. If the first person comes to take his own and would move [the second] and put it down at another place, he would create a “pit”¹¹If the jars block the entire path, a passer-by cannot remove one of them and put it down again in the public domain since then he would create the obstacle and would be liable for any damages his “pit” would cause in the future. The Babli agrees, 31b, that any obstacle created in the public domain is under the rules of “pit”.. But could he take a stick and break it or step over it and if it broke, it broke¹²Since the passer-by has the right of way, can he forcibly make himself a path without penalty, or does he normally walk and is free from paying only for incidental damage.? Let us hear from the following: If a bull came to mount another¹³In the Babli, 28a: “If a bull mounted another to kill him”. and the [latter’s] owner came to draw away his own, if he drew him away before it could mount, and [the attacker] fell down and died, he is free from payment. If he pushed [the attacker] which then fell down and died, he must pay¹⁴Therefore, the passer-by is not allowed to break the jars to clear the way for himself.. Rebbi Yose said, we can hear from this that if one saw a flood threatening in his irrigation canal, before the flood reached his field he is permitted to divert the water to another place¹⁹Which would damage the property of other farmers whose fields are irrigated by the same canal.; after the flood reached his field he is not permitted to divert it to another place²⁰This is like pushing the agressive bull off its victim, which makes the victim’s owner liable for damage to the agressive bull.. If the chrysargyros²¹Χρυσάργυρος, “alloy of gold and silver; tribute of gold and silver”, a Roman tax imposed by Constantine I, repealed by Anastasios I. The tax was imposed on professions and forced artisans into guilds. A certain sum was collected from each profession in a taxing district [cf. A. Dessau, Finanzen des alten Rom, Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, Jena 1900, vol. 3, pp. 949–955]. Before the repartition of the tax, the taxpayer might indicate that certain people exercised the same profession as himself without being registered as members of the guild. By this act, he increased the pool of taxpayers and reduced his own share of the tax load. But after repartition of the tax, such a denunciation would lead to the others having to pay tax without his own obligation being reduced; that is forbidden. was imposed, before [the collector of] chrysargyros arrived, one is permitted to say, X is following my profession, Y is following my professon. Once the [the collector of] chrysarguros arrived, it is forbidden. It is permitted to bribe the quartermaster²²אכסניי פרכא, from Greek ξενία “hospitality, lodging”; πάροχος, Latin parochus (pure Latin term copiarius) “purveyor; furnisher of conveniences to travelling magistrates and officers in Roman provinces”. If the expression is taken as one word, cf. ξενοπάροχος, Latin xenoparochus, “one who provides for strangers” (E. G.). before the Roman [soldiers] arrive²³The bribe is given to spare one’s house from receiving soldiers to put up. The entire paragraph is quoted in extenso and commented on in the Responsa of Simeon b. Ṣemaḥ Duran, vol. 3, # 46.; after the Roman [soldiers] arrive it is forbidden.

A person put down a stone in the public domain, another person put down another stone next to the first, a third person stumbled over the first and struck the other²⁴He is injured by the second stone but would not have been injured had he not stumbled over the first.. Who has to pay damages, the first or the second person? Let us hear from the following²⁵Tosephta 6:1; quoted also in the Babli, 53a.: “A bull pushed another ox which then fell into a pit. The owner of the bull has to pay²⁶Under the rules of “horn”, full damages if the ox was notorious, half damages if it was tame (Tosaphot 53a, s.v. בעל).; the ‘owner’²⁷The pit or any obstacle classified as “pit” is in the public domain; it is not property of the person who created the obstacle. But the verse, Ex.21:34, calls him “owner of the pit”. In the language of the Babli (29b, Pesaḥim 6b) “it is not a person’s property but the verse treats it as if it were his property.” The biblical expression is used as a technical term to denote liability. of the pit is free. Rebbi Nathan says, if the attacker was notorious, each of them pays one half²⁸As explained in the Babli, R. Nathan holds that the ‘owner’ of the pit, the place where the attacked animal died, is the primary payor and, under the rules of “pit”, has to pay 100% of the damages. Then he has regress on the owner of the attacking bull for half of his cost.; if it was tame, the owner of the bull²⁹Even though the reading of the text is confirmed by the Rome and Escurial mss., it seems that one has to read “pit” for “bull” and vice versa in all occurrences. pays two thirds³⁰In all of Talmudic literature, the expression “n parts” means “n parts of n+1”, following Egyptian arithmetic practice. In the statement here, all commentators, from Eliahu Fulda to S. Lieberman, claim that “two parts” means “two parts out of four”, i. e., one half. This contradicts Talmudic practice. One has to accept the statement of R. Ḥanina (in the Rome ms.: R. Isaac) that the text is corrupt and has to be corrected. Only the corrected text is mentioned in Babli and Tosephta. and the ‘owner’ of the pit²⁹Even though the reading of the text is confirmed by the Rome and Escurial mss., it seems that one has to read “pit” for “bull” and vice versa in all occurrences. a quarter.” Rebbi Ḥanania said, so is the baraita: The owner of the bull²⁹Even though the reading of the text is confirmed by the Rome and Escurial mss., it seems that one has to read “pit” for “bull” and vice versa in all occurrences. pays three quarters and the ‘owner’ of the pit²⁹Even though the reading of the text is confirmed by the Rome and Escurial mss., it seems that one has to read “pit” for “bull” and vice versa in all occurrences. a quarter³¹As explained in the Babli, the ‘owner’ of the pit has regress on the owner of the tame bull only for half the damages. Since the owner of a notorious bull has to pay ½, the owner of a tame bull pays ¼ of the damages to the ‘owner’ of the pit who had paid all damages to the owner of the animal which was killed.. (A person put down a stone in the public domain, another person put down another stone next to the first, a third person stumbled over the first and struck the other. Who has to pay damages, the first or the second person?)³²Dittography of the corrector for the printed edition, faithfully reproduced in the Venice print.

A person put down a stone in the public domain, the wind blew it onto a private domain, another person stumbled over it. Is [the first] responsible for damages³³The question is not answered; it is decided in the negative since a claimant could not prove the law to be on his side.?

A person put down a stone in the public domain, another person stumbled over it and made it roll into a private domain where a third person stumbled over it. Is [the first] responsible for damages³³The question is not answered; it is decided in the negative since a claimant could not prove the law to be on his side.?

Rebbi Joḥanan said: A person put down a stone and his load in the public domain, a second person stumbled over it while he held a flask in his hand. Whether he stumbled over the stone and hit the ground or hit the stone and stumbled over the ground, [the first] has to pay damages to the person but is free from damages to the flask³⁴Since Ex. 21:34 limits damages under the category of “pit” to humans and livestock, excluding its load (Mishnah 5:9; Tosephta 6:14; Babli 28b; Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Neziqin 11).. The statement of Rebbi Joḥanan implies that for “pit” damages one is free from damages to vessels. But if he hit it in walking³⁵If the person was not injured by the obstacle classified as “pit”, the ‘owner’ of the pit is liable for damages. Babli 28b., he³⁶The ‘owner’ of the “pit”. has to pay even for the flask.