- הניח לו גחלת על לבו ומת פטור על בגדו ונשרף חייב
Rabbah said: הניח לו גחלת על לבו ומת פטור – If one placed a coal on a person’s heart and he died, he is not liable for murder, since the victim should have removed it, and caused his own death. על בגדו ונשרף חייב – If he placed it on [someone’s] garment and it burned, he is liable (the owner did not remove it, intending to demand payment afterwards). Rava found sources for both rulings: A Mishnah teaches that if one held someone down in fire or water and he could not escape and died, the killer is liable, but if he could have escaped, he is not liable. Another Mishnah teaches that if one says: קרע את כסותי שבר את כדי – “Tear my garment,” or “Break my jug,” he is liable for doing so (i.e., the allowance does not absolve him of liability), unless the owner added "על מנת לפטור" – on condition to be exempt. Rabbah asked if one would be responsible for placing a coal on someone’s slave, or animal, and concluded: עבדו כגופו – Placing a coal on his slave is like placing it on one’s body (since the slave should have removed the coal, he harmed himself and the other person is exempt). שורו כממונו –His ox (which lacks the intelligence to remove it) is like his property, and he is responsible.
- איבעי ליה לעיוני ומיזל, אין דרכן של בני אדם להתבונן בדרכים
The third Perek begins: המניח את הכד ברה"ר – If one left a jug in רשות הרבים, ובא אחר ונתקל בה ושברה – and someone else came and tripped on it and broke it, he is exempt from paying for it. If he was injured, the owner pays for his damages. The Gemara asks: איבעי ליה לעיוני ומיזל – He should have watched where is going and should have to pay for breaking the pitcher out of negligence!? Three circumstances are given where the pedestrian is faultless: (1) The owner filled the area with pitchers, and one could not pass without breaking them. (2) It was dark, and they could not be seen. (3) The jug was near a corner, and he could not see it beforehand. Rav Pappa points out that in the first case, he would even be exempt for deliberately smashing the jug. Rebbe Ulla answered the question differently: לפי שאין דרכן של בני אדם להתבונן בדרכים – He is not liable because it is not the way of people to focus on the road as they walk.
- מחלוקת אי עביד איניש דינא לנפשיה, ובמקום הפסד
Rav Chisda sent a question to Rav Nachman about a water cistern owned by two people, and when one was drawing water on a day which was not his, and refused to stop, his partner struck him with the handle of a shovel. Rav Nachman declared: מאה פנדי בפנדא למחייה – Let him strike [his partner] a hundred blows with the handle! For although Amoraim argue if one may enforce the law himself, במקום פסידא עביד איניש דינא לנפשיה – where he would suffer a loss by waiting to go to court (such as here, where he would not know how much water his partner took), everyone agrees one may enforce the law himself. Where a loss would not result from waiting, Rav Yehudah says: לא עביד איניש דינא לנפשיה – a person cannot enforce the law himself but must go before a judge. Rav Nachman holds one may enforce the law himself, דכיון דבדין עביד לא טרח – for since he is acting according to the law, he need not trouble himself to go to court. This machlokes is discussed extensively on the next Daf.
