Se uno mette un lanciatore di dominio pubblico e un altro arriva e inciampa su di esso e lo rompe, lui (colui che l'ha rotto) non è responsabile, [per gli uomini (cioè i pedoni) non è disposto a guardare per terra] . E se fosse stato ferito da esso, il proprietario del lanciatore è responsabile per il suo infortunio [anche se ne avesse rinunciato alla proprietà. Infatti, se si rinuncia alla proprietà di oggetti che possono causare lesioni, che all'inizio non aveva il diritto di fare (cioè collocare lì), è come se non avesse rinunciato alla proprietà di essi.] Se (è inciampato e) suo il lanciatore si è rotto di dominio pubblico e qualcuno è scivolato in acqua o è stato ferito dai suoi frammenti, è responsabile. [Per lui (questo tanna) sostiene che inciampare è (da considerare come) abbandono, e non come incidente, per cui è responsabile.] R. Yehudah dice: Se ha intenzione di [acquisire i frammenti e l'acqua dopo il suo lanciatore è rotto], è responsabile [per il danno che causano, perché è il suo bor che ha causato il danno], ma se non ha intenzione [di acquisirli, allora, poiché hanno avuto origine in un incidente (R Yehudah sostiene che inciampare non è derelizione), i frammenti e l'acqua sono (considerati come) hefker (rinunciati) dopo l'incidente, e] non è responsabile. [L'halachah è in accordo con R. Yehudah, che inciampare non è (considerato come) abbandono. E poiché è (considerato) un incidente, e non aveva intenzione di acquisire i frammenti e l'acqua, è come se non gli fossero mai appartenuti e non è responsabile per il danno che causano.]
Rambam on Mishnah Bava Kamma
A jug is placed in the public domain... And the jug broke in the public domain and someone was slipped in the water...
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma
המניח את הכד וכו' ושברה פטור – for it is not the manner of human beings to take consideration of the roads.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Kamma
Introduction
The following two mishnayot (plural of mishnah) deal with damages that a person’s possessions might cause in the public domain. In general if a person leaves something in the public domain and someone else comes along and breaks it the person who broke it is not obligated to pay for the broken item. Furthermore, if the person who breaks the object is also injured while doing so, the owner of the object will be liable for his injuries.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma
ואם הזיק בה בעל החבית חייב – and even if he declared it ownerless, for all who declare ownerless his damages, that he didn’t have a permission from the outside to make them as if he had not made them ownerless.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Kamma
In the first section of mishnah one we learn that a person does not have the right to leave his objects in the public domain. Therefore if he should do so and another should come along and break the object, the person who broke it is exempt and if he should be injured the owner is liable.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rambam on Mishnah Bava Kamma
The general rule by us, it is not the way of people to pay attention to the road, therefore, if a person comes and trups on it, he is exempt, and we do not say to him you should have noticed where you were going.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma
או שלקה בחרסיה חייב – for he holds that if he stumbled, he is negligent, but is not an accident and therefore is liable.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Kamma
If a man’s jug broke in the public domain, and another slipped on the water, or was hurt by the potsherds, he is liable. Rabbi Judah says: “If he [broke the jug] with intention, he is liable, But if he broke it without intention he is not liable.” In section 2 Rabbi Judah teaches us a new principle, that of intention. If a person accidentally put a damaging object into the public domain he is not liable for subsequent damages. One is only liable if he put the damaging object into the public domain on purpose.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rambam on Mishnah Bava Kamma
And what that it says, if the jug broke and someone slipped in the water, they're obligated, the idea is that when a person damages at the time they are falling or they break another thing- the stumbler (who dropped the jug initially) is obligated to pay what he damaged.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Kamma
במתכוין חייב – if he intended to take possession of its shards and [what exists] in the water after his pitcher broke, he is liable for their damages, for this is like his pit that had done damage, but if he did not intend to take possession of them since he uprooted/eradicated them he is the victim of an accident for he holds tha he stumbled over it, he is not negligent, for the shards and the water are ownerless after he had met with an accident and he did not intend to take ownership of its shards and he waer, and It is like it was never his and he is exempt from their damages.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rambam on Mishnah Bava Kamma
This is the opinion of Rav Meir, that he says if someone stumbles, he is negligent, but the sages say that he was not at fault at the time of the falling and he's not obligated in anything.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rambam on Mishnah Bava Kamma
The opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, that he says the stumbler is negligent, if he intended to take the shards.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rambam on Mishnah Bava Kamma
Therefore he is not at fault as we explain it is as if no one ever owned the shards.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Rambam on Mishnah Bava Kamma
And the halakah is like Rabbi Yehuda and not like Rabbi Meir.
