Se alguém coloca um arremessador em domínio público, e outro o tropeça e o quebra, ele (aquele que o quebrou) não é responsável, [pois os homens (ou seja, pedestres) não costumam olhar para o chão] . E se ele foi ferido por ele, o proprietário do arremessador é responsável por seu ferimento [mesmo que ele tenha renunciado à propriedade dele. Pois, se alguém renuncia à propriedade de objetos que podem causar ferimentos, que ele não tinha o direito de fazer (isto é, de colocar ali) no início, é como se ele não tivesse renunciado à propriedade deles.] Se (ele tropeçou e) arremessador quebrou em domínio público, e alguém escorregou na água ou foi ferido por seus cacos, ele é responsável. [Pois ele (este tanna) sustenta que tropeçar é (a ser considerado como) abandono, e não como acidente, pelo qual é responsável.] R. Yehudah diz: Se ele pretende [adquirir os estilhaços e a água depois de seu arremessador está quebrado], ele é responsável [pelos danos que eles causam, pois foi seu bor quem os causou], mas, se ele não tiver a intenção [de adquiri-los, pois eles se originaram em um acidente (R Yehudah sustentando que tropeçar não é negligência), os estilhaços e a água são (considerados como) hefker (renunciados) após o acidente e] ele não é responsável. [A halachá está de acordo com R. Yehudah, que tropeçar não é (considerado como) abandono. E como é (considerado) acidente, e ele não tinha intenção de adquirir os estilhaços e a água, é como se eles nunca lhe pertencessem e ele não se responsabiliza pelos danos que causam.]
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.
