Torah Community Connections

Week 92 - Shabbat - 1 September 2001

BAVA KAMMA: CHAPTER 3: MISHNAH 5

If this one came with his cask and this one came with his beam: if this one's jar was broken by the other's beam, he is exempt, since this one has permission to walk and this one has permission to walk. If the owner of the beam was first and the owner of the cask was last: if the cask were broken by the beam, the owner of the beam is exempt; and if the owner of the beam stopped, he is liable; and if he said to the owner of the cask, Stand! he is exempt. If the owner of the cask were first, and the owner of the beam last: if the cask were broken by the beam, he is liable; and if the owner of the cask stopped, he is exempt; and if he said to the owner of the beam, Stand! he is liable. Similarly, if this one comes with his candle, and this one with his flax.

Kehati

If this one came with his cask and this one came with his beam: - one person was carrying a cask, and another person came towards him carrying a beam, and they collided with each other, if this one's jar was broken by the other's beam - jar and cask are synonymous, as was taught in mishnah 3:1, above, he -the owner of the beam - is exempt, since this one has permission to walk and this one has permission to walk - each of them has permission to walk in the public domain, and the owner of the cask ought to have taken care to avoid being injured by the beam.

If the owner of the beam was first and the owner of the cask was second - i.e. they were walking one behind the other: if the cask were broken by the beam, the owner of the beam is exempt - since the owner of the cask should have taken care to avoid coming near the beam in front of him; and if the owner of the beam stopped - e.g., he stopped to rest because of the weight of his burden (Gemara; Rambam), and the owner of the cask was not aware that he had stopped, and continued on his way, and his cask was broken on the other's beam, he - the owner of the beam - is liable - to pay, since he should have warned the owner of the cask, who was walking behind him, to stop also; since he did not warn him, it is regarded as if he had caused him damage with his own hands (Nimukei Yosef); and if he - the owner of the plank - said to the owner of the cask, Stand! - warning him in time to stop, he is exempt - from paying for the damage to the cask. The Gemara explains that if the owner of the beam stopped in order to adjust his load, the owner of the cask should have been wary of this, for this is normal for people carrying a load, and the owner of the beam is exempt from the damage caused to the cask, even if he did not warn the owner of the cask to stop, since he was preoccupied (B. K. 31a; Hameiri; Rambam, Hil. Hovel u-Mazik 6:8).

If the owner of the cask were first, and the owner of the beam last: if the cask were broken by the beam, he is liable - since the one behind always has to be careful not to come close to the one in front and to avoid colliding with him; since he was not careful, it is regarded as if he had intentionally injured him; and if the owner of the cask stopped - to rest, he - the owner of the beam - is exempt - since he was not aware of the other's stopping, and the latter did not warn him to stop, as was explained above; and if he said to the owner of the beam, Stand! - i.e. he warned him in time to stop, he - the owner of the beam - is liable - if, however, the owner of the cask stood in order to adjust his load, even though he did not warn the owner of the beam, the latter is liable, as was explained above.

Similarly, if this one comes with his candle, and this one with his flax - and this one's flax was burned by the other's candle, the law concerning them is the same as the law in the case "if this one came with his cask and this one came with his beam," and we do not say that because the danger from the candle is present, the owner of the candle must be extremely careful, or, vice versa, that the owner of the flax must be extremely careful; the rule is always that the one walking behind the other must be careful, provided the person walking in front does not stop abruptly without warning the other one.

BAVA KAMMA: CHAPTER 3: MISHNAH 6

If two people were walking in the public domain, one running and one walking, or both of them running, and they injured each other, they are both exempt.

Kehati

Our mishnah deals with people who collided with each other while running in the public domain.

If two people were walking in the public domain - towards each other, one running and one walking, or both of them running, and they injured each other - i.e. each one was injured by the unintentional collision with the other, (Rashi, Tosafot) - they are both exempt - since each caused the injury to himself (Tosafot). Other commentators interpret our mishnah literally: even if each one actually injured the other, but did not intend to cause damage, they are exempt, since each one did something (Yam shel Shlomo; Hagahot Hagra, citing Ramah). The Gemara explains that the case in our mishnah of "one running and one walking" refers only to the eves of Sabbaths and holidays (Rambam in his commentary on our mishnah; Bartenura), as then even the one running does so with permission, since he is probably running in order to prepare for the Sabbath; or, this refers to Sabbath eve during twilight (bein hashemashot), when running even to attend to his other affairs, is permitted, since he is hurrying in order to conclude them before the start of the Sabbath (Rambam, Hil. Hovel u-Mazik 6:9); therefore even the runner is exempt from paying for the injury to the walker. During weekdays, however, the runner is liable, since running in the street contributes a change from the norm. If however, both were running, and each was injured by colliding with the other, both are exempt, even during weekdays, since both of them deviated from the norm.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives