מקורות פרק 5 - רשות הרבים שבילי תרבות לכיתה ח (מטח)

(א) הַמַּנִּיחַ אֶת הַכַּד בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וּבָא אַחֵר וְנִתְקַל בָּהּ וּשְׁבָרָהּ - פָּטוּר. וְאִם הֻזַּק בָּהּ - בַּעַל הֶחָבִית חַיָּב בְּנִזְקוֹ.

נִשְׁבְּרָה כַדּוֹ בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְהֻחְלַק אֶחָד בַּמַּיִם, אוֹ שֶׁלָּקָה בַחֲרָסֶיהָ - חַיָּב. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּמִתְכַּוֵּן, חַיָּב. בְּאֵינוֹ מִתְכַּוֵּן, פָּטוּר.

(ב) הַשּׁוֹפֵךְ מַיִם בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְהֻזַּק בָּהֶן אַחֵר - חַיָּב בְּנִזְקוֹ.

הַמַּצְנִיעַ אֶת הַקּוֹץ, וְאֶת הַזְּכוּכִית, וְהַגּוֹדֵר אֶת גְּדֵרוֹ בְּקוֹצִים, וְגָדֵר שֶׁנָּפַל לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְהֻזְּקוּ בָהֶן אֲחֵרִים - חַיָּב בְּנִזְקָן.

(ג) הַמּוֹצִיא אֶת תִּבְנוֹ וְאֶת קַשּׁוֹ לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים לִזְבָלִים, וְהֻזַּק בָּהֶן אַחֵר - חַיָּב בְּנִזְקוֹ, וְכָל הַקּוֹדֵם בָּהֶן זָכָה.

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כָּל הַמְקַלְקְלִין בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהִזִּיקוּ - חַיָּבִין לְשַׁלֵּם, וְכָל הַקּוֹדֵם בָּהֶן זָכָה.

הַהוֹפֵךְ אֶת הַגָּלָל בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְהֻזַּק בָּהֶן אַחֵר - חַיָּב בְּנִזְקוֹ.

(ד) שְׁנֵי קַדָּרִין שֶׁהָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין זֶה אַחַר זֶה, וְנִתְקַל הָרִאשׁוֹן וְנָפַל, וְנִתְקַל הַשֵּׁנִי בָּרִאשׁוֹן - הָרִאשׁוֹן חַיָּב בְּנִזְקֵי שֵׁנִי.

(ה) זֶה בָּא בְחָבִיתוֹ, וְזֶה בָּא בְקוֹרָתוֹ, נִשְׁבְּרָה כַדּוֹ שֶׁל זֶה בְּקוֹרָתוֹ שֶׁל זֶה - פָּטוּר, שֶׁלָּזֶה רְשׁוּת לְהַלֵּךְ וְלָזֶה רְשׁוּת לְהַלֵּךְ.

הָיָה בַעַל קוֹרָה רִאשׁוֹן, וּבַעַל חָבִית אַחֲרוֹן, נִשְׁבְּרָה חָבִית בַּקּוֹרָה - פָּטוּר בַּעַל הַקּוֹרָה. וְאִם עָמַד בַּעַל הַקּוֹרָה, חַיָּב. וְאִם אָמַר לְבַעַל הֶחָבִית "עֲמֹד" - פָּטוּר.

הָיָה בַעַל חָבִית רִאשׁוֹן וּבַעַל קוֹרָה אַחֲרוֹן, נִשְׁבְּרָה חָבִית בַּקּוֹרָה, חַיָּב. וְאִם עָמַד בַּעַל חָבִית, פָּטוּר. וְאִם אָמַר לְבַעַל קוֹרָה עֲמֹד, חַיָּב. וְכֵן זֶה בָא בְנֵרוֹ וְזֶה בְפִשְׁתָּנוֹ:

(ו) שְׁנַיִם שֶׁהָיוּ מְהַלְּכִין בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים אֶחָד רָץ וְאֶחָד מְהַלֵּךְ, אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם רָצִים, וְהִזִּיקוּ זֶה אֶת זֶה - שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּטוּרִין.

(ז) הַמְבַקֵּעַ בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וְהִזִּיק בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהִזִּיק בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד וְהִזִּיק בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד אַחֵר - חַיָּב.

(1) [If] one places a jar in a public domain and another comes and trips on it and breaks it, he is exempt [from damage to the jar]. And if he was injured by it, the barrel's owner is liable for his damages. [If] one's jar broke in a public domain and another slipped in the [spilled] water, or was injured by its shards, [the jar's owner is] liable. Rabbi Judah says, if intentional, he is liable. If unintentional, he is exempt.

(2) [If] one pours water in a public domain, and another is damaged by it, he is liable to pay damages. One who hides thorns or glass [in the public domain], or one who builds his fence [bordering the public domain] with thorns, or a fence that falls into the public domain -- if others were injured, he is liable to pay their damages.

(3) [If] one brings his straw [or thatch] into the public domain for fertilizer and another was damaged by them, he is responsible for the damage. And [furthermore], anyone who first [takes possession] of them is entitled [to the straw]. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel says, anyone who destroys [objects] in the public domain, thereby causing damage is responsible to pay, and anyone who first [takes possession] of them is entitled. [If] one turns over dung in the public domain and another is damaged by it, he is responsible for the damage.

(4) [In the case of] two potters who were walking one behind the other, and the first tripped and fell, and the second tripped on the first, the first [potter] is liable for the damage to the second [potter].

(5) One came with his barrel and one came with his beam. [If] this one's jug were broken on this one's beam, [the beam's owner] is exempt, because this one has permission to walk and this one [also] has permission to walk. If the beam's owner was in front, and the barrel's owner was behind, [then] if the barrel broke on the beam, the beam's owner is exempt. [But] if the beam's owner stopped, he is liable. [But] if he said to the barrel's owner, "Stop," he is exempt. If the barrel's owner was in front, and the beam's owner was behind, [then] if the barrel broke on the beam, then he is liable. [But] if the barrel's owner stopped, he is exempt. [But] if he said to the beam's owner, "Stop," he is liable. So too [the case of] one who comes with his candle and one with his flax.

(6) [In the case where] two people were traveling in the public domain, one running and the other walking, or if both were running, and they damaged each other, both are exempt.

(7) [If] one was splitting [wood] in a private domain and [thereby] caused damage in the public domain, or [split wood] in the public domain and caused damage in a private domain, or [split wood] in a private domain and caused damaged in a different private domain, he is liable.

(8) [If] two oxen that are categorized as "tam" (meaning that they have not proven themselves "muad", or prone to causing injury) injured each other, they pay half-damages of the excess (i.e., the damages to one are subtracted from the damages to the other, the difference is calculated, and the owner of the ox that caused the greater damage pays half the difference). [If] both [oxen] are categorized as "muad" (prone to causing damage), they pay full damages of the excess. [In the case where] one [ox] is a "tam" and one is a "muad": [If] the "muad" injures the "tam", its owner pays full damages of the excess. [If] the "tam" injures the "muad", its owner pays half-damages of the excess. And similarly, [in the case of] two men who injured each other, they pay full damages of the excess. [If] a man injured a "muad" [ox] and the "muad" injured the man, they pay full damages of the excess. [If] a man injured a "tam" [ox] and the "tam" injured the man: [If the injury caused by the] man to the "tam" [is greater] then he pays full damages of the excess. [If the injury caused by the] "tam" to the man [is greater] then he [the owner of the ox] pays half-damages of the excess. Rabbi Akiva says, even [in the case where the injury caused by the] "tam" to the man [is greater], he [the owner of the ox] pays full damages of the excess.

(9) [Regarding the case of ] an ox worth a maneh (100 zuz) that gored an ox worth 200 [zuz] and the carcass is worthless, he [the owner of the dead ox] takes the [live] ox. [Regarding the case of ] an ox worth a 200 [zuz] that gored an ox worth 200 [zuz] and the carcass is worthless: Rabbi Meir says, this is the case referred to by the verse (Exodus 21:35), "And they shall sell the live ox and divide its worth." Rabbi Judah said to him, "And is this truly the law?" You have fulfilled [the verse], "And they shall sell the live ox and divide its worth," but you have not fulfilled [the continuation of the verse] "And they shall also divide the dead [ox]." How is this? This refers to [the case of] an ox worth a 200 [zuz] that gored an ox worth 200 [zuz] and the carcass is worth 50 zuz, that this one takes half the value of the live [ox] and half the value of the dead [ox], and this one takes half the value of the live [ox] and half the value of the dead [ox].

(10) There is [a case] where one is liable for the action of his ox, but exempt from his own action, [and a case] where he is exempt for the action of his ox, but liable for his own action. [If] his ox embarrassed [another person], he is exempt. [But if] he embarrassed [another person], he is liable. [If] his ox blinded the eye of his slave or knocked out his tooth, he is exempt. [But if] he blinded the eye of his slave or knocked out his tooth, he is liable. [If] his ox injured his father or mother, he is liable. [But if] he injured his father or mother, he is exempt (from monetary damages). [If] his ox lit a pile of grain on the Sabbath, he is liable. [But if] he lit a pile of grain on the Sabbath, he is exempt (from monetary damages). [In the last 2 cases, he is exempt from monetary damages] because he is liable for capital punishment.

(11) [If] an ox was chasing after another ox, and caused damage. This one says "Your ox damaged," and this one says, "No, your ox was injured on a rock," the burden of proof is upon the one who wishes to be compensated. If two [oxen] were chasing after one [ox], this one says, "Your ox damaged," and this one says, "Your ox damaged," both are exempt. If both [oxen] belonged to a single owner, both are liable. If one was large and one was small, and the injured [owner] says, "The large one damaged," and the one who damaged says, "No, the small one damaged" ... [Or If] one was a "tam" (not observed to habitually inflict damage) and one was a "muad" (observed to habitually inflict damage), and the injured [owner] says, "The 'muad' damaged," and the injurer says, "No, the 'tam' damaged" ... ... [in these cases] the burden of proof is upon the one who wishes to be compensated. If two [oxen] were damaged, one large and one small, and two [oxen] caused the damage, one large and one small... ... The injured [owner] says, "The large one damaged the large one and the small one damaged the small one," and the one who damaged says, "No, the small one injured the large one and the large one injured the small one" ... [Or if] one was a "tam" and one was a "muad," and the injured [owner] says, "The 'muad' damaged the large one and the 'tam' damaged the small one," and the one who damaged says, "No, the 'tam' injured the large one and the 'muad' injured the small one" ... ... [in these cases] the burden of proof is upon the one who wishes to be compensated.

תלמוד בבלי

תנו רבנן: חסידים הראשונים היו מצניעים קוצותיהם וזכוכיותיהם בתוך שדותיהן ומעמיקים להן ג' טפחים, כדי שלא יעכב המחרישה.

רב ששת שדי להו בנורא.

רבא שדי להו בדגלת.

אמר רב יהודה: האי מאן דבעי למהוי חסידא לקיים מילי דנזיקין.

רבא אמר: מילי דאבות, ואמרי לה: מילי דברכות:

in the name of Rabbi Yishmael that one is liable to pay for damage caused by a pit that he dug in the public domain, even if it is not his personal property? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This ruling, that he is exempt, is his own opinion, whereas that ruling, that he is liable, is the opinion of his teacher Rabbi Yishmael, and he disagrees with it. MISHNA: In the case of one who pours water in the public domain, and another person in-curred damage due to it, the one who poured water is liable to pay for his damage. In the case of one who conceals a thorn or a piece of glass in his wall adjacent to the public domain, or one who puts up a fence of thorns, or one who puts up a fence that subsequently fell into the public domain, and others incurred damage due to any of these, he is liable to pay for their damage. GEMARA: With regard to the case of one who pours water in the public domain, Rav says: They taught that he is liable only when the clothes of one who slipped were soiled by the dirty water, but if the one who slipped himself was injured, the one who poured the water is exempt, as it is the impact with the ground that injured him, not the water. Rav Huna said to Rav: Why should he be exempt from paying restitution for the injury? Even if the water that he poured is considered only like his filth that he tossed in the public domain, he should be liable. Since the muddy ground caused the injury, and the mud belongs to him, as it results from the addition of his water to the dirt, he should be liable. Rav responded: Do you maintain that this is a case where the water was not absorbed into the ground? It is a case where the water was absorbed, leaving only moist dirt. Since there is no mud there that can be deemed as belonging to the one who spilled the water, he is exempt from liability. The Gemara asks: But if the mishna’s ruling refers only to the soiling of the pedestrian’s clothes, why do I need two mishnayot to state this halakha? According to Rav, this halakha was already addressed in the previous mishna, with regard to a jug that broke, causing a pedestrian to fall and his clothes to become soiled. The Gemara answers: One halakha was stated with regard to a case where this occurred in the summer, the dry season, and one with regard to a case where it occurred in the rainy season. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to all those people who engage in activities that the Sages stated are permitted, i.e., those who open [potkin] their gutters and drain the sewage from their houses into the public domain, and those who flush out the water from their caves, where foul-smelling water was stored, into the public domain, during the summer they do not have permission to do so, while during the rainy season they have permission to do so, since the street is rained upon in any event and thereby washed. And although all these people perform their actions with permission, if they cause damage they are liable to pay for it. Because of the difference between the summer and the rainy season with regard to whether it is permitted for one to pour water into the public domain, both mishnayot are necessary, one for each season. This is in order to teach that even in the rainy season, when it is permitted to pour water into the public domain, one is nevertheless liable to pay for damage resulting from the water. § It is stated in the mishna that one who conceals a thorn or a piece of glass, or one who puts up a fence of thorns, is liable to pay for damage resulting from them. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They taught that he is liable only in a case where he projects these obstacles into the public domain, but if he restricts them to his own property, he is not liable. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that he is exempt? Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, says: It is because it is not the typical manner of people to rub against walls, but to keep a certain distance from them. Therefore, if a pedestrian is wounded by the thorns, it is considered an unusual accident, for which the owner of the fence is not liable. The Sages taught (Tosefta 2:6): With regard to one who conceals his thorns or his pieces of glass in another’s wall, and the owner of the wall came and demolished his wall and it fell into the public domain, and the thorns or glass caused damage, the one who concealed them is liable. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They taught this only in the case of an unstable wall, since the one who concealed his items should have anticipated that the owner of the wall would soon demolish it, but in the case of a stable wall, the one who concealed his items is exempt, and the owner of the wall is liable. Ravina says: That is to say that in the case of one who covers his pit with another’s bucket, and the owner of the bucket came and took his bucket, and the pit causes damage, the owner of the pit is liable. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? This is exactly the same halakha as Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement with regard to one who conceals thorns in an unstable wall, i.e., that the hazardous item was likely to be revealed from the moment that it was concealed, and therefore its owner is liable to pay for any damage that it causes. What is the novel element in Ravina’s statement? The Gemara answers: It is necessary. Lest you say: It is only there, in the case of the thorns, that the owner of the wall is exempt, since he did not know who concealed the hazardous item in order to inform him that he should remove them, but here, since the owner of the bucket knew who dug the pit, he should have informed him that he was taking his bucket and is consequently liable to pay for damage caused by the pit, Ravina therefore, teaches us that he is not required to inform the owner of the pit, and he bears no responsibility for any damage caused. The Sages taught: The early pious people would conceal their thorns and their pieces of glass in their fields, and would dig to the depth of at least three handbreadths in order to bury them, so that they would not obstruct the plow. The Gemara relates: Rav Sheshet would toss his thorns into fire, so they would not cause damage to others. Rava would toss them into the Tigris [Diglat] River. Rav Yehuda says: One who wants to be pious should observe the matters of tractate Nezikin, so as to avoid causing damage to others. Rava said he should observe the matters of tractate Avot. And some say he should observe the matters of tractate Berakhot. MISHNA: In the case of one who takes out his straw [teven] and his hay [kash] to the public domain to use afterward as fertilizer and another person incurred damage due to them, he is liable to pay for his damage, and whoever takes possession of the hay and straw first acquires them for himself. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: With regard to anyone who places obstacles in the public domain and they cause damage, he is liable to pay damages, and whoever takes possession of them first acquires them. In the case of one who turns over dung in the public domain and another person incurred damage due to it, the former is liable to pay for his damage. GEMARA: Let us say that the ruling in the mishna that one is liable to pay for damage caused by straw or hay that he put in the public domain is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: During the period when fertilizer is taken out, a person may take his fertilizer out to the public domain and let it accumulate there for a full thirty days, so that it gets trampled by people’s feet and by animals’ feet, as it was on this condition that Joshua bequeathed Eretz Yisrael to the Jewish people (see 80b). In other words, people do not have the right to prevent someone from taking out his straw to the public domain, since they received their portion of Eretz Yisrael following Joshua’s conquest on this condition. Apparently, since one has the right to take out his straw, he is not held liable to pay for damage caused by it. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, since Rabbi Yehuda possibly concedes that if the fertilizer caused damage, he is liable to pay for the damage it caused, although he acted within his rights. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: If a pile of straw on the back of an animal that was passing through the public domain catches fire from a Hanukkah lamp that was placed outside a store, the owner of the lamp is exempt, since he put it there with permission (see 62b)? What, is it not because he put it there with the permission of the court and is therefore exempt from paying for damage caused by it? The Gemara answers: No, it is because he put it there with the permission granted to those performing a mitzva. Permission of the court is not sufficient to exempt him from paying damages, unless, in addition, permission was granted for the purpose of performing a mitzva. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says that if it caught fire from a Hanukkah lamp he is exempt because he had permission to put it there in order to perform a mitzva. Come and hear an alternative proof from a baraita: With regard to all these cases in which the Sages said that it is permitted for people to place obstacles in the public domain, if they caused damage, these people are liable to pay, and Rabbi Yehuda exempts them. Evidently, according to Rabbi Yehuda, if one has the permission of the court to put an item in the public domain, he is exempt from paying damages. Rav Naḥman said: The mishna is referring to a case where one put his fertilizer outside not during the period when fertilizer is taken out. Therefore, he did not have permission to do so. And it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that one is liable only if he acts without permission. Rav Ashi said an alternative explanation of the mishna according to Rabbi Yehuda:

פירוש עדין שטיינזלץ על התלמוד

רב ששת שדי להו בנורא [היה זורק אותם, את קוציו, באש],רבא שדי להו בדגלת [היה זורק אותם בתוך נהר חדקל] הכל כדי שלא להזיק את הבריות.

אמר רב יהודה: האי מאן דבעי למהוי חסידא [מי שרוצה להיות חסיד]לקיים מילי [שיקיים את הדברים] של מסכת נזיקין כדי שיימנע מלהזיק את חביריו. רבא אמר שיקיים מילי [הדברים]שנאמרו במסכת אבות, ואמרי לה [ויש אומרים]: מילי [הדברים]שנידונים במסכת ברכות.

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site. Click OK to continue using Sefaria. Learn More.OKאנחנו משתמשים ב"עוגיות" כדי לתת למשתמשים את חוויית השימוש הטובה ביותר.קראו עוד בנושאלחצו כאן לאישור