Study Bava Kamma folio 26B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
מנא הני מילי? אמר חזקיה, וכן תנא דבי חזקיה, אמר קרא: ״פצע תחת פצע״ – לחייבו על השוגג כמזיד, ועל האונס כרצון.
With regard to the halakha that one must pay the full cost of the damage in a case where there was no intent to cause damage, the Talmud asks: From where are these matters derived? Ḥizkiyya says, and similarly, the school of Ḥizkiyya taught: The verse states: “Wound for wound [petza taḥat patza]” (Exodus 21:25). This phrase is superfluous, as the Torah states elsewhere (see Leviticus 24:19) that one is liable to pay compensation when injuring another. This verse serves to render him liable to pay for the unintentional damage just as he pays for the intentional damage; and he pays for damage caused by accident just as he pays for damage caused willingly.
האי מבעי ליה ליתן צער במקום נזק! אם כן, לכתוב קרא: ״פצע בפצע״; מאי ״תחת פצע״ – שמע מינה תרתי.
The Talmud asks: But this verse is necessary in order to indicate that one must pay compensation for pain, even in a case where he pays compensation for damage caused by the injury. Consequently, it seems that that verse cannot also be the source of the principle derived by the school of Ḥizkiyya. The Talmud answers: If it is so that the superfluous phrase is intended to teach only that, then let the verse write: Petza befatza, which carries the same meaning. What, then, is meant by the superfluous word taḥat in the phrase “petza taḥat patza”? It indicates that we must derive two conclusions from it: That one is liable to pay for pain even in a case where he pays compensation for damage, and that he is liable for unintentional damage as he is for intentional damage, and for damage caused by accident as for damage caused willingly.