(לג) וְכִֽי־יִפְתַּ֨ח אִ֜ישׁ בּ֗וֹר א֠וֹ כִּֽי־יִכְרֶ֥ה אִ֛ישׁ בֹּ֖ר וְלֹ֣א יְכַסֶּ֑נּוּ וְנָֽפַל־שָׁ֥מָּה שּׁ֖וֹר א֥וֹ חֲמֽוֹר׃ (לד) בַּ֤עַל הַבּוֹר֙ יְשַׁלֵּ֔ם כֶּ֖סֶף יָשִׁ֣יב לִבְעָלָ֑יו וְהַמֵּ֖ת יִֽהְיֶה־לּֽוֹ׃ (ס)
(33) When a person opens a pit, or digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or an donkey falls into it, (34) the one responsible for the pit must make restitution; they shall pay the price to the owner, but shall keep the dead animal.
(ב) הַבּוֹר מֵאֲבוֹת נְזִיקִין הוּא וְתוֹלְדוֹתָיו כָּמוֹהוּ מוּעָדִין מִתְּחִלָּתָן. וְכָל הַמַּנִּיחַ תַּקָּלָה הֲרֵי זוֹ תּוֹלֶדֶת הַבּוֹר וְאִם הֻזַּק בָּהּ אָדָם אוֹ בְּהֵמָה מְשַׁלֵּם זֶה שֶׁהִנִּיחַ הַתַּקָּלָה נֵזֶק שָׁלֵם בֵּין הִפְקִיר הַתַּקָּלָה בֵּין לֹא הִפְקִירָהּ. וְאִם הֻזְּקוּ בָּהּ כֵּלִים פָּטוּר:
The pit is one of the primary causes of injury, and its derivatives are like it, — — deemed forewarned from the very beginning. Anyone who interposes an obstacle is deemed a derivative of pit, and if a person or an animal has been injured by it, the one who interposed the obstacle must pay full indemnity.— —
MISHNA: In the case of one who places a vessel in the public domain and another person comes and stumbles on it and breaks it, the other person is exempt from paying for what she broke. And if the one who stumbled incurred damage by it, the owner of the vessel, is liable to pay restitution for his damage.
ובא אחר ונתקל בה ושברה פטור: אמאי פטור איבעי ליה לעיוני ומיזל
אמרי דבי רב משמיה דרב בממלא רה"ר כולה חביות שמואל אמר באפילה שנו רבי יוחנן אמר בקרן זוית אמר רב פפא לא דיקא מתניתין אלא או כשמואל או כרבי יוחנן דאי כרב מאי אריא נתקל אפילו שבר נמי אמר רב זביד משמיה דרבא הוא הדין דאפי' שבר והאי דקתני נתקל איידי דבעי למתני סיפא ואם הוזק בה בעל חבית חייב בנזקו דדוקא נתקל אבל שבר לא מאי טעמא הוא דאזיק אנפשיה קתני רישא נתקל אמר ליה ר' אבא לרב אשי הכי אמרי במערבא משמיה דר' עולא לפי שאין דרכן של בני אדם להתבונן בדרכים
A. § The mishna teaches concerning the vessel placed in the public domain: If another person came and stumbled on it and broke it, she is exempt. The Gemara asks: Why is she exempt? Although this happened in the public domain, she should have examined the road and then continue walking!
B. The Sages of the school of Rav said in the name of Rav: The ruling of the mishna is taught with regard to one who placed not just one barrel in the road, but rather filled the entire public domain with barrels, blocking the path.
C. Shmuel says: The ruling of the mishna is taught with regard to a case where he broke it in the dark.
D. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The ruling of the mishna is taught with regard to a case where the barrel was placed at the corner of the road.
E. Rav Pappa said: The mishna is precise only according to either the explanation of Shmuel or that of Rabbi Yoḥanan, but not that of Rav. As, if the mishna is explained in accordance with the explanation of Rav, what is the reason it refers specifically to a case where one stumbled on the barrel? Even if he broke the barrel intentionally he should not be liable to pay, as the owner of the barrel had no right to block the public road. Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava in defense of Rav’s explanation: The same is true even if he broke the barrel intentionally. And as for this fact, that the tanna of the mishna teaches a case where he stumbled, it is because he wants to teach in the last clause: And if he incurred damage due to the vessel, the owner of the ḥavit is liable to pay for his damage. As this ruling applies specifically when he stumbled, but if he broke the barrel intentionally and incurred damage in the process, the owner of the barrel is not required to compensate him. What is the reason for this? Although the pedestrian had the right to break the barrel, it is he who damaged himself, by not being careful while breaking it. Therefore, in the first clause the mishna teaches a case where he stumbled. Accordingly, the mishna’s wording is precise according to Rav’s explanation as well.
F. Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi that this is what they say in the West, Eretz Yisrael, in the name of Rabbi Ulla, in explanation of the mishna: because the typical manner of people is not to examine the roads...
ה"ג אמאי פטור איבעי ליה לעיוני - - אבל הך לא פריך אמאי חייב בנזקו כשהוזק איבעי ליה לעיוני כדפירשתי לעיל (בבא קמא דף כג. ד"ה ולחייב) דיותר יש לו לשמור שלא יזיק משלא יוזק
Why is she exempt? She should've looked where she was going...
Note that the text does not ask, "why is he obligated for her damages? She should have watched where she was going..."?
For the important thing is to guard against hurting another, more than that you yourself not get hurt.
לפי שאין דרכן של בני אדם להתבונן בדרכים - - והא דתני (לקמן בבא קמא דף נב:) שור פקח ביום פטור דשור עיניו למטה ומיבעי ליה לעיוני טפי מאדם:
The typical manner of people is not to examine the roads: but what about that which is taught later on in the tractate, regarding a bull who falls into a pit, and the one who dug the pit is exempt from damages?
This is because a bull's eyes are downward facing, and we expect it / it needs to look where it is going more than we do a human.
ר' מנחם המאירי
אדם [בניגוד לשור – א"ר] מרבה במחשבות מצד שכלו ואינו מתבונן בדרכים ואם כן בנתקל אינו פושע ופוטרין אותו ומחייבין את המניח [מי שהניח כלי בדרך – א"ר] (בית הבחירה, משנה, בבא קמא, ג, א [יג]).
Menachem HaMeiri, Beit HaBechira, 14th cent. Catalan
A human engages in much intellectual thinking, and does not focus on the path. Therefore, if they trip, they did nothing wrong and are not liable for damages. Rather, we obligate the person that placed the obstacle in their way.