Study Bava Kamma folio 48B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
שניהם ברשות או שניהם שלא ברשות, הזיקו זה את זה – חייבין. הוזקו זה בזה – פטורין. טעמא דשניהם ברשות או שניהם שלא ברשות; אבל אחד ברשות ואחד שלא ברשות, דברשות – פטור, שלא ברשות – חייב.
In a case of two people who were both somewhere with permission, or two people who were both somewhere without permission, if they injure each other directly, they are both liable. If they were injured by one another through stumbling over one another, they are exempt. From this statement, it may be inferred that the reason both are liable if either damages the other is specifically that the two of them were both there with permission or the two of them were both there without permission. But if one, i.e., the homeowner, was there with permission, and the other entered without permission, then the one who was there with permission is exempt if he injured the other, but the one who entered without permission is liable if he injured the homeowner, in accordance with the opinion of Rava and Rav Pappa.
נפל לבור והבאיש מימיו – חייב. אמר רבא: לא שנו אלא שהבאיש בשעת נפילה, אבל לאחר נפילה – פטור. מאי טעמא? הוי שור ״בור״ ומים ״כלים״, ולא מצינו בור שחייב בו את הכלים.
§ The Mishnah teaches: If the ox that he brought into the courtyard without permission fell into the owner’s pit and contaminated its water, the owner of the ox is liable. Rava says: They taught this halakha only in a case where the ox contaminated the water at the time of the fall. But if it contaminated the water after the fall, e.g., the animal died there and the decomposing carcass despoiled the water, he is exempt. What is the reason? The ox, in this case, is considered as a pit, and the water has the status of utensils that fall into a pit, and we have not found a case of damage categorized as Pit that renders one liable for causing damage to utensils. Therefore, he is exempt.