Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 17, 2016 | ื™ืดื ื‘ืกื™ื•ืŸ ืชืฉืขืดื•

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Kamma 17

The first perek ends with statements about the importance of doing acts of kindness and learning Torah. ย The next perek begins with details of regel – damaging with ones feet and the sibcategories of regel. ย The law of tzrorot is brought up – indirectly causing damage and there is a debate between the rabbis and Sumchus about whether or not one pays full damages or half damages.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ื•ื—ื“ ืืžืจ ืฉื‘ืขื” ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืฉืœืฉื™ื

And the other one said: They studied there for seven days. And some say they studied there for thirty days.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ื›ื‘ื•ื“ ืขืฉื• ืœื• ื‘ืžื•ืชื• ื–ื” ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ืžืœืš ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืฉื™ืฆืื• ืœืคื ื™ื• ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื•ืฉืฉื” ืืœืฃ ื—ืœื•ืฆื™ ื›ืชืฃ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

The Sages taught a baraita that offers another interpretation of the verse cited: โ€œAnd afforded him [lo] honor in his deathโ€ (IIย Chronicles 32:33). This is referring to the honor given to Hezekiah, king of Judea, that at his burial 36,000 men with bared shoulders went out before him. They removed their robes from their shoulders as a sign of mourning. The number 36,000 is alluded to by the numerical value of the word lo, which is thirty-six. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ื•ื”ืœื ืœืคื ื™ ืื—ืื‘ ืขืฉื• ื›ืŸ

Rabbi Neแธฅemya said to him: But didnโ€™t they also do this before Ahab? Apparently, if they did this for the wicked king Ahab, it is an honor shown to all kings, and it is was not a unique show of honor for the righteous Hezekiah.

ืืœื ืฉื”ื ื™ื—ื• ืกืคืจ ืชื•ืจื” ืขืœ ืžื˜ืชื• ื•ืืžืจื• ืงื™ื™ื ื–ื” ืžื” ืฉื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ื–ื”

Rather, the honor that was done for Hezekiah was that they laid a Torah scroll upon his bier and they said: This one, i.e., Hezekiah, fulfilled that which is written in this, i.e., the Torah scroll.

ื•ื”ืื™ื“ื ื ื ืžื™ ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ืŸ ื”ื›ื™ ืืคื•ืงื™ ืžืคืงื™ื ืŸ ืื ื•ื—ื™ ืœื ืžื ื—ื™ื ืŸ ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืื ื•ื—ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžื ื—ื™ื ืŸ ืงื™ื™ื ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ

The Gemara asks: But nowadays as well, we do this for any great Torah scholar that dies, so what is unique about what was done to honor Hezekiah? The Gemara answers: Nowadays, we take a Torah scroll out but we do not lay it on the bier of the deceased. And if you wish, say instead that nowadays we also lay a Torah scroll on the bier of the deceased; but we do not say: This one fulfilled that which is written in this.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื” ื”ื•ื” ืื–ื™ืœื ื ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœืžืฉืืœ ืฉืžืขืชื ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื” ืขื™ื™ืœ ืœื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ืกื ื•ื”ื•ื” ื‘ืขื™ื ื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืžืœืชื ืœื ืคืฉื™ื˜ ืœืŸ ืขื“ ื“ืžืฉื™ ื™ื“ื™ื” ื•ืžื ื— ืชืคื™ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืžื‘ืจืš ื•ื”ื“ืจ ืืžืจ ืœืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ืงื™ื™ื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ืžื“ ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ

Rabba bar bar แธคana said: I was once walking together with Rabbi Yoแธฅanan to ask him about this statement. Whenever he would enter a lavatory, upon his exit I would ask him to explain a matter, and he would not answer us until he had washed his hands and donned his phylacteries and made the blessing, and only then would he answer us. With regard to the honor given to King Hezekiah, he said: Nowadays, we even say: This one fulfilled that which is written in this, but we do not say: He taught that which is written in this, which was a unique honor performed at the burial of the righteous King Hezekiah.

ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืชื•ืจื” ืฉื”ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืžื‘ื™ื ืœื™ื“ื™ ืžืขืฉื” ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ืœืžื™ื’ืžืจ ื”ื ืœืื’ืžื•ืจื™

The Gemara asks: But didnโ€™t the Master say: Torah study is great because the study of Torah leads to oneโ€™s performance of the mitzvot? This indicates that the performance of mitzvot is considered of greater value than Torah study. If so, once Hezekiah had been praised with the fact that he fulfilled the mitzvot of the Torah, why mention that he studied it? The Gemara explains: This is not difficult: This statement of the Master is about studying the Torah for oneโ€™s own knowledge, and that unique praise given to King Hezekiah was about teaching the Torah to others.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ืื™ ืžืื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืฉืจื™ื›ื ื–ืจืขื™ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืžื™ื ืžืฉืœื—ื™ ืจื’ืœ ื”ืฉื•ืจ ื•ื”ื—ืžื•ืจ ื›ืœ ื”ืขื•ืกืง ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื•ื‘ื’ืžื™ืœื•ืช ื—ืกื“ื™ื ื–ื•ื›ื” ืœื ื—ืœืช ืฉื ื™ ืฉื‘ื˜ื™ื

ยง A verse that was cited at the beginning of the this chapter (2b) as part of a halakhic exposition is now explained homiletically: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅai: What is the meaning of that which is written: โ€œHappy are you that sow beside all waters, that send forth the feet of the ox and the donkeyโ€ (Isaiah 32:20)? It teaches that whoever engages in the study of Torah and in the performance of acts of kindness merits reward equal to the portion of two tribes, Joseph and Issachar.

ืฉื ืืžืจ ืืฉืจื™ื›ื ื–ืจืขื™ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื–ืจื™ืขื” ืืœื ืฆื“ืงื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื–ืจืขื• ืœื›ื ืœืฆื“ืงื” ื•ืงืฆืจื• ืœืคื™ ื—ืกื“ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžื™ื ืืœื ืชื•ืจื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื”ื•ื™ ื›ืœ ืฆืžื ืœื›ื• ืœืžื™ื

The Gemara explains how this is derived from the verse: As it is stated: โ€œHappy are you that sow.โ€ And the reference to sowing refers only to acts of charity, as it is stated: โ€œSow for yourselves for charity, reap according to kindnessโ€ (Hosea 10:12). And the reference to water refers only to the study of Torah, as it is stated with regard to Torah study: โ€œHo, all who are thirsty, go to waterโ€ (Isaiah 55:1).

ื•ื–ื•ื›ื” ืœื ื—ืœืช ืฉื ื™ ืฉื‘ื˜ื™ื ื–ื•ื›ื” ืœื›ื™ืœื” ื›ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืŸ ืคืจืช ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื‘ื ื•ืช ืฆืขื“ื” ืขืœื™ ืฉื•ืจ ื•ื–ื•ื›ื” ืœื ื—ืœืช ื™ืฉืฉื›ืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื™ืฉืฉื›ืจ ื—ืžืจ ื’ืจื

And the fact that he merits reward equal to the portion of two tribes is derived as follows: The reference to the ox in the verse is an allusion to Joseph, who is described as an ox (Deuteronomy 33:17), and oneโ€™s reward is that he merits to receive a canopy of honor, as did Joseph, as it is written: โ€œJoseph is a fruitful vine, a fruitful vine by a fountain; its branches run over the wall.โ€ The branches over the wall in this verse allude to the canopy. And the reference to the donkey is an allusion to the fact that he merits to receive the portion of Issachar, who is described as a donkey, as it is stated: โ€œIssachar is a large-boned donkeyโ€ (Genesis 49:14).

ืื™ืช ื“ืืžืจื™ ืื•ื™ื‘ื™ื• ื ื•ืคืœื™ื ืœืคื ื™ื• ื›ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื”ื ืขืžื™ื ื™ื ื’ื— ื™ื—ื“ื• ืืคืกื™ ืืจืฅ ื•ื–ื•ื›ื” ืœื‘ื™ื ื” ื›ื™ืฉืฉื›ืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืžื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฉืฉื›ืจ ื™ื•ื“ืขื™ ื‘ื™ื ื” ืœืขืชื™ื ืœื“ืขืช ืžื” ื™ืขืฉื” ื™ืฉืจืืœ

There are some who say that the comparison should be understood in a different manner. His enemies will fall before him just like in the blessing given by Moses to the tribe of Joseph, as it is written in the blessing bestowed by Moses to the tribe of Joseph: โ€œHis horns are the horns of the wild-ox; with them he shall gore the nations, even to the ends of the earthโ€ (Deuteronomy 33:17). And he merits the understanding of Issachar, as it is written: โ€œAnd of the children of Issachar, men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to doโ€ (Iย Chronicles 12:33).

ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœื™ืš ืืจื‘ืขื” ืื‘ื•ืช

 

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ืจื’ืœ ืžื•ืขื“ืช ืœืฉื‘ืจ ื‘ื“ืจืš ื”ืœื•ื›ื” ื”ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื•ืขื“ืช ืœื”ืœืš ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื•ืœืฉื‘ืจ

MISHNA: The mishna in the previous chapter (15b) teaches that the owner of an animal is always forewarned with regard to the category of Trampling. The mishna elaborates: For what damage caused with the hoof is the animal deemed forewarned? It is deemed forewarned with regard to trampling objects and breaking them in the course of its walking. An animal is deemed forewarned with regard to walking in its typical manner and, by doing so, breaking objects as it proceeds.

ื”ื™ืชื” ืžื‘ืขื˜ืช ืื• ืฉื”ื™ื• ืฆืจื•ืจื•ืช ืžื ืชื–ื™ืŸ ืžืชื—ืช ืจื’ืœื™ื” ื•ืฉื‘ืจื” ืืช ื”ื›ืœื™ื ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ื“ืจืกื” ืขืœ ื”ื›ืœื™ ื•ืฉื‘ืจืชื• ื•ื ืคืœ ืขืœ ื›ืœื™ ื•ืฉื‘ืจื• ืขืœ ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื ื•ืขืœ ื”ืื—ืจื•ืŸ ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง

By contrast, if the animal was kicking while it was walking, or it transpired that pebbles were inadvertently propelled from under its feet and those pebbles broke vessels, cases of that kind do not fit precisely into the primary category of Trampling. In both of these cases the owner of the animal pays half the cost of the damage. If an animal trod upon a vessel and broke it and then a shard of that vessel fell upon a second vessel and broke it, the owner pays the full cost of the damage for the first vessel, as its action is classified under the primary category of Trampling, and he pays half the cost of the damage for the latter vessel, as the damage caused by the shard is tantamount to damage caused by pebbles inadvertently propelled by the foot of an animal.

ื”ืชืจื ื’ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืžื•ืขื“ื™ืŸ ืœื”ืœืš ื›ื“ืจื›ืŸ ื•ืœืฉื‘ืจ ื”ื™ื” ื“ืœื™ืœ ืงืฉื•ืจ ื‘ืจื’ืœื™ื• ืื• ืฉื”ื™ื” ืžื”ื“ืก ื•ืžืฉื‘ืจ ืืช ื”ื›ืœื™ื ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง

Chickens are deemed forewarned with regard to walking in their typical manner and breaking objects, and therefore, the owner of a chicken pays the full restitution for the damage done to any objects broken by his chicken. If there was a string [delil] tied to a chickenโ€™s leg as an indication of ownership and it wrapped around a vessel and broke it, or if the chicken was hopping in an atypical manner and breaking vessels, its owner pays half the cost of the damage.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืœืจื‘ื ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืจื’ืœ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื‘ื”ืžื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืชื ื ืื‘ื•ืช ื•ืงืชื ื™ ืชื•ืœื“ื•ืช

GEMARA: The Gemara analyzes the mishna: Ravina said to Rava: In the context of the category of Trampling, damage caused by an animal trampling an object with its foot is the same as damage caused by an animal breaking an object with its body. Why does the mishna repeat the same halakha twice? Rava said to him: First, the tanna teaches the primary categories of damage, namely the category of Trampling with an animalโ€™s foot, which is mentioned explicitly in the Torah, and then he teaches the subcategories of those primary categories, i.e., the animal is deemed forewarned with regard to causing damage with other parts of its body in the course of its walking.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ืกื™ืคื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื”ืฉืŸ ืžื•ืขื“ืช ื”ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื•ืขื“ืช ืžืื™ ืื‘ื•ืช ื•ืžืื™ ืชื•ืœื“ื•ืช ืื™ื›ื ื”ื•ื” ืงืžื”ื“ืจ ืœื™ื” ื‘ื‘ื“ื™ื—ื•ืชื ื•ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื ื ืฉื ืื™ ื—ื“ื ื•ืืช ืฉื ื™ ื—ื“ื

Ravina challenges this explanation: If that is so, the latter clause of the mishna (19b), which teaches, concerning the primary category of Eating: For what damage caused by Eating is the animal deemed forewarned? It is deemed forewarned with regard to eating food items fit for its consumption, i.e., the animal is deemed forewarned with regard to eating fruits and vegetables. Ravina asks: What primary categories and what subcategories are there in that context? No subcategories of Eating are enumerated there, and nevertheless, the phrase: The animal is deemed forewarned, is repeated. Rava responded to Ravina with a humorous response and said to him: I resolved the difficulty in one mishna, now you resolve the difficulty in one mishna.

ื•ื˜ืขืžื ืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืชื ื ืฉืŸ ื“ื—ื™ื” ื•ืงืชื ื™ ืฉืŸ ื“ื‘ื”ืžื” ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื•ืฉืœื— ืืช ื‘ืขื™ืจื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื” ืœื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ื—ื™ื” ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื‘ื”ืžื”

And what is the reason for the apparent redundancy in the mishna with regard to Eating? Rav Ashi said: First the tanna teaches the halakha of Eating by an undomesticated animal and then he teaches the halakha of Eating by a domesticated animal. And it was necessary to state both, as it enters your mind to say that since it is written: โ€œAnd he set his animal looseโ€ (Exodus 22:4), with regard to domesticated animals, yes, the primary category of Eating applies, but with regard to undomesticated animals, no, the primary category of Eating does not apply. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that undomesticated animals are included in the category of domesticated animals in this regard and the owner of an undomesticated animal is liable for damage caused by his animal eating another personโ€™s produce.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื ืžื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืžื™ืชื ื™ ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ื”ืื™ ื“ืืชื™ื ืœื™ื” ืžื“ืจืฉื ื—ื‘ื™ื‘ื ืœื™ื”

The Gemara asks: If so, the tanna should have taught the halakha with regard to a domesticated animal first and only afterward taught the halakha with regard to an undomesticated animal, as the latter is included in the category of the former. The Gemara answers: On the contrary, that halakha, which is derived from an interpretation, is dear to him, and therefore the tanna preferred to begin with the derived halakha and only then proceed to the explicit halakha.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืจื™ืฉื ื ืžื™ ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื”ื”ื™ื ื“ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ื”ื›ื™ ื”ืฉืชื ื”ืชื ืื™ื“ื™ ื•ืื™ื“ื™ ืื‘ื•ืช ื ื™ื ื”ื• ื”ืš ื“ืืชื™ื ืœื™ื” ืžื“ืจืฉื ื—ื‘ื™ื‘ื ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ื ืฉื‘ื™ืง ืื‘ ื•ืชื ื™ ืชื•ืœื“ื”

The Gemara asks: If so, then with regard to the first clause, in this mishna too, let the tanna teach that which is not explicitly written first, as that which is derived from an interpretation is dear to him. The Gemara distinguishes between the cases: How can they be compared? There, with regard to Eating, this damage caused by a domesticated animal and that damage caused by an undomesticated animal are primary categories of damage; therefore, the tanna taught first that halakha, which is derived from an interpretation, is dear to him. But here, with regard to Trampling, would he leave aside the primary category of Trampling, done with the animalโ€™s foot, and teach a subcategory first?

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืกืœื™ืง ืžืจื’ืœ ืคืชื— ื‘ืจื’ืœ

If you wish, say instead that the reason that in this mishna the tanna begins with that which is written explicitly in the Torah and only then proceeds to teach that which is derived through an interpretation is as follows: Since the tanna concluded the discussion in the final mishna in the previous chapter (15b) with the primary category of Trampling by teaching the clause: The foot of an animal is deemed forewarned with regard to trampling objects and breaking them in the course of its walking, therefore, he began the first mishna in the second chapter with the primary category of Trampling.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื•ืขื“ืช ืœื”ืœืš ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื•ืœืฉื‘ืจ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืฉื ื›ื ืกื” ืœื—ืฆืจ ื”ื ื™ื–ืง ื•ื”ื–ื™ืงื” ื‘ื’ื•ืคื” ื“ืจืš ื”ืœื•ื›ื” ื•ื‘ืฉืขืจื” ื“ืจืš ื”ืœื•ื›ื” ื‘ืื•ื›ืฃ ืฉืขืœื™ื” ื•ื‘ืฉืœื™ืฃ ืฉืขืœื™ื” ื•ื‘ืคืจื•ืžื‘ื™ื ืฉื‘ืคื™ื” ื•ื‘ื–ื•ื’ ืฉื‘ืฆื•ืืจื” ื•ื—ืžื•ืจ ื‘ืžืฉืื• ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ืื•ืžืจ ืฆืจื•ืจื•ืช ื•ื—ื–ื™ืจ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื ื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ืืฉืคื” ื•ื”ื–ื™ืง ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื

ยง The Sages taught: An animal is deemed forewarned with regard to walking in its typical manner and, while doing so, breaking objects in the course of its walking. How so? If an animal entered into the courtyard of the injured party and it damaged an object with its body in the course of its walking; or if it caused damage with its hair in the course of its walking; or with the saddle that is on it; or with the packed saddlebag [shalif ] that is on it; or with the halter in its mouth; or with the bell [zog] around its neck; or if it was a donkey that caused damage with its burden; in all these cases the owner pays the full cost of the damage. Sumakhos says: In the case of pebbles propelled by an animal in the course of its walking, or in the case of a pig that was burrowing in the garbage heap and caused damage, the owner of the animal pays the full cost of the damage.

ื”ื–ื™ืง ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืืœื ืื™ืžื ื”ืชื™ื– ื•ื”ื–ื™ืง ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื

The Gemara asks: If a pig caused damage, it is obvious that its owner must pay the full cost of the damage. What novel element is Sumakhos introducing? The Gemara answers: Rather, say: If it propelled pebbles and thereby caused damage, the owner pays the full cost of the damage.

ืฆืจื•ืจื•ืช ืžืืŸ ื“ื›ืจ ืฉืžื™ื”ื• ื—ืกื•ืจื™ ืžื—ืกืจื ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ืฆืจื•ืจื•ืช ื›ื™ ืื•ืจื—ื™ื™ื”ื• ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ื•ื—ื–ื™ืจ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื ื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ืืฉืคื” ื•ื”ืชื™ื– ื•ื”ื–ื™ืง ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ืื•ืžืจ ืฆืจื•ืจื•ืช ื•ื—ื–ื™ืจ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื ื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ืืฉืคื” ื•ื”ืชื™ื– ื•ื”ื–ื™ืง ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื

The Gemara asks: Pebbles, who mentioned anything about it? The Gemara answers: The baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: For damage caused by pebbles that were propelled by animals walking in their typical manner, the owner pays half the cost of the damage, and for damage caused by a pig that was burrowing in the garbage heap and propelled pebbles and that damaged an object, its owner pays half the cost of the damage. Sumakhos says: Both in the case of pebbles that were propelled and in the case of a pig that was burrowing in the garbage heap and propelled pebbles and damaged an object, the owner pays the full cost of the damage. Sumakhos does not accept the halakha that the owner pays only half the cost of the damage caused by pebbles inadvertently propelled by the foot of an animal in the course of its walking, i.e., in its typical manner. He holds that since the damage results from the animalโ€™s typical behavior, the owner pays the full cost of the damage.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืชืจื ื’ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื• ืžืคืจื™ื—ื™ืŸ ืžืžืงื•ื ืœืžืงื•ื ื•ืฉื‘ืจื• ื›ืœื™ื ื‘ื›ื ืคื™ื”ืŸ ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื ื‘ืจื•ื— ืฉื‘ื›ื ืคื™ื”ืŸ ืžืฉืœืžื™ืŸ ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ืื•ืžืจ ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื ืชื ื™ื ืื™ื“ืš ืชืจื ื’ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื• ืžื”ื“ืกื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืขื™ืกื” ื•ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื•ื˜ื™ื ืคื• ืื• ื ื™ืงืจื• ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื ื”ืขืœื• ืขืคืจ ืื• ืฆืจื•ืจื•ืช ืžืฉืœืžื™ืŸ ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ืื•ืžืจ ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื

The Sages taught (Tosefta 2:1): If chickens were flying from place to place and broke vessels with their wings, their owner pays the full cost of the damage as this is a subcategory of Trampling. By contrast, if the damage was caused by the wind generated by their wings, the owner pays half the cost of the damage, in accordance with the halakha in the case of pebbles. Sumakhos says: The owner pays the full cost of the damage. It is taught in another baraita: If chickens were hopping upon dough or upon produce and they sullied it with their feet, or if they pecked at it and caused damage, their owner pays the full cost of the damage. If in the course of their hopping they stirred up dust or propelled pebbles, the owner pays half the cost of the damage. Sumakhos says: He pays the full cost of the damage.

ืชื ื™ื ืื™ื“ืš ืชืจื ื’ื•ืœ ืฉื”ื™ื” ืžืคืจื™ื— ืžืžืงื•ื ืœืžืงื•ื ื•ื™ืฆืชื” ืจื•ื— ืžืชื—ืช ื›ื ืคื™ื• ื•ืฉื™ื‘ืจื” ืืช ื”ื›ืœื™ื ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ืกืชืžื ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ

It is taught in another baraita: If a chicken was flying from place to place and wind emerged from beneath its wings and the wind caused vessels to break, the owner pays half the cost of the damage. The Gemara notes: This unattributed baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Sumakhos and hold that the owner pays half the cost of the damage in these cases, just as he does in the case of pebbles propelled by the feet of an animal.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ืงืกื‘ืจ ื›ื—ื• ื›ื’ื•ืคื• ื“ืžื™ ืืœื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ ื›ื’ื•ืคื• ื“ืžื™ ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ื ื–ืง ื‘ืขื™ ืœืฉืœื ื•ืื™ ืœืื• ื›ื’ื•ืคื• ื“ืžื™ ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ื ืžื™ ืœื ืœืฉืœื

Rava analyzed the baraita and said: Granted, the opinion of Sumakhos is understood, as he holds that the status of damage resulting from a force generated by the animalโ€™s action is like that of damage directly caused by the animal itself, and therefore the owner pays the full cost of the damage in both cases. But the opinion of the Rabbis is difficult, as if they hold that the status of damage resulting from a force generated by the animalโ€™s action is like that of damage directly caused by the animal itself, the owner should be required to pay the full cost of the damage. And if they hold that the status of damage resulting from a force generated by the animalโ€™s action is not like that of damage directly caused by the animal itself, and is not attributed to the animal, then the owner should not be required to pay even half the cost of the damage.

ื”ื“ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœืขื•ืœื ื›ื’ื•ืคื• ื“ืžื™ ื•ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ืฆืจื•ืจื•ืช ื”ืœื›ืชื ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ืœื”

Then Rava said: Actually, the Rabbis hold that the status of damage resulting from a force generated by the animalโ€™s action is like that of damage directly caused by the animal itself, and in principle the owner should be required to pay the full cost of the damage. And the liability to pay for half the cost of the damage caused by pebbles is because the Rabbis learned this halakha through tradition, and it does not correspond to the standard halakhot of damages.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื›ืœ ืฉื‘ื–ื‘ ื˜ืžื ื‘ื ื–ืงื™ืŸ ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื ื›ืœ ืฉื‘ื–ื‘ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื‘ื ื–ืงื™ืŸ ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง

ยง Rava says: With regard to any type of action which, when a zav interacts with a vessel in that manner, he renders it ritually impure, if the same type of action was done by an animal, resulting in damage, the owner of the animal is liable to pay the full cost of the damage. Conversely, with regard to any type of action which, when a zav interacts with a vessel in that manner, he leaves it ritually pure, e.g., where the contact is indirect, if the same type of action was done by an animal, resulting in damage, the owner of the animal is liable to pay only half the cost of the damage.

ื•ืจื‘ื ืฆืจื•ืจื•ืช ืืชื ืœืืฉืžื•ืขื™ื ืŸ ืœื ืจื‘ื ืขื’ืœื” ืžื•ืฉื›ืช ื‘ืงืจื•ืŸ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara asks: And Rava, did he come to teach us the halakha of pebbles? The substance of Ravaโ€™s statement is that for damage caused by the indirect action of an animal, its owner pays half the cost of the damage. That is identical to the halakha of pebbles articulated in the baraitot cited earlier. The Gemara answers: No, Rava teaches us the halakha in the case of a calf pulling a cart [karon]. Just as with regard to a zav, the status of a vessel that a zav moves is like that of a vessel with which he came into contact, so too, the status of damage caused by the cart pulled by the animal is like that of damage caused by the animalโ€™s body, and it is not considered indirect damage like in the case of pebbles.

ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื•ืขื“ืช ืœืฉื‘ืจ ื‘ื“ืจืš ื”ืœื•ื›ื” ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืฉื ื›ื ืกื” ืœื—ืฆืจ ื”ื ื™ื–ืง ื•ื”ื–ื™ืงื” ื‘ื’ื•ืคื” ื“ืจืš ื”ืœื•ื›ื” ื•ื‘ืฉืขืจื” ื“ืจืš ื”ืœื•ื›ื” ื‘ืื•ื›ืฃ ืฉืขืœื™ื” ื•ื‘ืฉืœื™ืฃ ืฉืขืœื™ื” ื•ื‘ืคืจื•ืžื‘ื™ื ืฉื‘ืคื™ื” ื•ื‘ื–ื•ื’ ืฉื‘ืฆื•ืืจื” ื•ื—ืžื•ืจ ื‘ืžืฉืื• ื•ืขื’ืœื” ืžื•ืฉื›ืช ื‘ืงืจื•ืŸ ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: An animal is deemed forewarned with regard to breaking objects in the course of its walking. How so? If an animal entered into the courtyard of the injured party, and it damaged an object with its body in the course of its walking; or with its hair in the course of its walking; or with the saddle that is on it; or with the packed saddlebag that is on it; or with the halter that is in its mouth; or with the bell that is around its neck; or if a donkey caused damage with its burden; or if a calf caused damage while pulling a cart; in all these cases the owner pays the full cost of the damage.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืชืจื ื’ื•ืœื™ื ืฉื”ื™ื• ืžื—ื˜ื˜ื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ื‘ืœ ื“ืœื™ ื•ื ืคืกืง ื”ื—ื‘ืœ ื•ื ืฉื‘ืจ ื”ื“ืœื™ ืžืฉืœืžื™ืŸ ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื

ยง The Sages taught: In a case where chickens were pecking at the rope tied to a bucket and the rope was severed and the bucket fell and broke, their owner pays the full cost of the damage.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื ื“ืจืกื” ืขืœ ื›ืœื™ ื•ืœื ืฉื‘ืจืชื• ื•ื ืชื’ืœื’ืœ ืœืžืงื•ื ืื—ืจ ื•ื ืฉื‘ืจ ืžื”ื• ื‘ืชืจ ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืื–ืœื™ื ื ื•ื’ื•ืคื™ื” ื”ื•ื ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื‘ืชืจ ืชื‘ืจ ืžื ื ืื–ืœื™ื ื ื•ืฆืจื•ืจื•ืช ื ื™ื ื”ื•

Rava raises a dilemma: If an animal trod upon a vessel but did not break it and the vessel then rolled to another place and broke there, what is the halakha? Rava elaborates: In determining oneโ€™s liability for causing damage, do we follow the initial action that ultimately led to the damage and this case is regarded as damage caused by the animal itself? Accordingly, the owner would pay the full cost of the damage as he would in any case classified under the primary category of Trampling. Or perhaps do we follow the breaking of the vessel and therefore this case is regarded as similar to the case of pebbles propelled by the foot of an animal in the course of its walking, since the vessel was not broken by a direct action of the animal, but rather, as an indirect result of the animalโ€™s action?

ืชืคืฉื•ื˜ ืœื™ื” ืžื“ืจื‘ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื–ืจืง ื›ืœื™ ืžืจืืฉ ื”ื’ื’ ื•ื‘ื ืื—ืจ ื•ืฉื‘ืจื• ื‘ืžืงืœ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื“ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืžื ื ืชื‘ื™ืจื ืชื‘ืจ ืœืจื‘ื” ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื ืžื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื”

The Gemara suggests: Resolve Ravaโ€™s dilemma from the statement of Rabba, as Rabba says: If one threw a vessel from a roof and another came and broke it with a stick as it was falling, the one who hit it with the stick is exempt from all liability as we say to him that he broke a broken vessel. From the moment the vessel was tossed from the roof it was inevitable that it would break. Consequently, breaking it with a stick as it was falling had no real effect. Apparently, the initial action is the decisive factor in determining liability for damages. The same should be the halakha in a case where a vessel was trod upon by an animal but it did not break, and the vessel then rolled to another place and broke there. The liability should be determined based on the initial action that caused the damage. The Gemara rejects this proof: The halakha in this case is clear to Rabba, who ruled as he did, but it remains a dilemma to Rava. One cannot prove the opinion of one amora from the opinion of another.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ื™ื“ื•ืก ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ื•ื™ืฉ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืžื•ืขื“

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear the resolution of this dilemma from a baraita: With regard to hopping, a chicken is not deemed forewarned. And some say that it is forewarned.

ื”ื™ื“ื•ืก ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืœื ืœืื• ื”ื™ื“ื•ืก ื•ื”ืชื™ื– ื•ื‘ื”ื ืงืžืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื‘ืชืจ ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืื–ืœื™ื ืŸ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื‘ืชืจ ืชื‘ืจ ืžื ื ืื–ืœื™ื ืŸ

The Gemara questions the formulation of the baraita: Does it enter your mind to raise the possibility that a chicken is not forewarned with regard to hopping? Hopping is the typical manner of movement for chickens. Rather, is it not that the reference in the baraita is to a case where the chicken was hopping and the hopping propelled the vessel to roll to another place, and the vessel was broken there? And they disagree with regard to this: One Sage holds that we follow the initial action that ultimately led to the damage, and since hopping is typical manner of movement for a chicken, its owner is responsible for any damage that resulted from its hopping. And one Sage holds: We follow the breaking of the vessel, and since there was an additional factor that broke the vessel, the owner of the chicken is not liable.

ืœื

The Gemara rejects the parallel between the dispute and the dilemma: No, the dispute in the baraita can be explained differently.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Kamma 17

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 17

ื•ื—ื“ ืืžืจ ืฉื‘ืขื” ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืฉืœืฉื™ื

And the other one said: They studied there for seven days. And some say they studied there for thirty days.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ื›ื‘ื•ื“ ืขืฉื• ืœื• ื‘ืžื•ืชื• ื–ื” ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ืžืœืš ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืฉื™ืฆืื• ืœืคื ื™ื• ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื•ืฉืฉื” ืืœืฃ ื—ืœื•ืฆื™ ื›ืชืฃ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

The Sages taught a baraita that offers another interpretation of the verse cited: โ€œAnd afforded him [lo] honor in his deathโ€ (IIย Chronicles 32:33). This is referring to the honor given to Hezekiah, king of Judea, that at his burial 36,000 men with bared shoulders went out before him. They removed their robes from their shoulders as a sign of mourning. The number 36,000 is alluded to by the numerical value of the word lo, which is thirty-six. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื ื—ืžื™ื” ื•ื”ืœื ืœืคื ื™ ืื—ืื‘ ืขืฉื• ื›ืŸ

Rabbi Neแธฅemya said to him: But didnโ€™t they also do this before Ahab? Apparently, if they did this for the wicked king Ahab, it is an honor shown to all kings, and it is was not a unique show of honor for the righteous Hezekiah.

ืืœื ืฉื”ื ื™ื—ื• ืกืคืจ ืชื•ืจื” ืขืœ ืžื˜ืชื• ื•ืืžืจื• ืงื™ื™ื ื–ื” ืžื” ืฉื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ื–ื”

Rather, the honor that was done for Hezekiah was that they laid a Torah scroll upon his bier and they said: This one, i.e., Hezekiah, fulfilled that which is written in this, i.e., the Torah scroll.

ื•ื”ืื™ื“ื ื ื ืžื™ ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ืŸ ื”ื›ื™ ืืคื•ืงื™ ืžืคืงื™ื ืŸ ืื ื•ื—ื™ ืœื ืžื ื—ื™ื ืŸ ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืื ื•ื—ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžื ื—ื™ื ืŸ ืงื™ื™ื ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ

The Gemara asks: But nowadays as well, we do this for any great Torah scholar that dies, so what is unique about what was done to honor Hezekiah? The Gemara answers: Nowadays, we take a Torah scroll out but we do not lay it on the bier of the deceased. And if you wish, say instead that nowadays we also lay a Torah scroll on the bier of the deceased; but we do not say: This one fulfilled that which is written in this.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื” ื”ื•ื” ืื–ื™ืœื ื ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœืžืฉืืœ ืฉืžืขืชื ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื” ืขื™ื™ืœ ืœื‘ื™ืช ื”ื›ืกื ื•ื”ื•ื” ื‘ืขื™ื ื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืžืœืชื ืœื ืคืฉื™ื˜ ืœืŸ ืขื“ ื“ืžืฉื™ ื™ื“ื™ื” ื•ืžื ื— ืชืคื™ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืžื‘ืจืš ื•ื”ื“ืจ ืืžืจ ืœืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ืงื™ื™ื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ืžื“ ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ

Rabba bar bar แธคana said: I was once walking together with Rabbi Yoแธฅanan to ask him about this statement. Whenever he would enter a lavatory, upon his exit I would ask him to explain a matter, and he would not answer us until he had washed his hands and donned his phylacteries and made the blessing, and only then would he answer us. With regard to the honor given to King Hezekiah, he said: Nowadays, we even say: This one fulfilled that which is written in this, but we do not say: He taught that which is written in this, which was a unique honor performed at the burial of the righteous King Hezekiah.

ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืชื•ืจื” ืฉื”ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืžื‘ื™ื ืœื™ื“ื™ ืžืขืฉื” ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ืœืžื™ื’ืžืจ ื”ื ืœืื’ืžื•ืจื™

The Gemara asks: But didnโ€™t the Master say: Torah study is great because the study of Torah leads to oneโ€™s performance of the mitzvot? This indicates that the performance of mitzvot is considered of greater value than Torah study. If so, once Hezekiah had been praised with the fact that he fulfilled the mitzvot of the Torah, why mention that he studied it? The Gemara explains: This is not difficult: This statement of the Master is about studying the Torah for oneโ€™s own knowledge, and that unique praise given to King Hezekiah was about teaching the Torah to others.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื•ื—ืื™ ืžืื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืฉืจื™ื›ื ื–ืจืขื™ ืขืœ ื›ืœ ืžื™ื ืžืฉืœื—ื™ ืจื’ืœ ื”ืฉื•ืจ ื•ื”ื—ืžื•ืจ ื›ืœ ื”ืขื•ืกืง ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื•ื‘ื’ืžื™ืœื•ืช ื—ืกื“ื™ื ื–ื•ื›ื” ืœื ื—ืœืช ืฉื ื™ ืฉื‘ื˜ื™ื

ยง A verse that was cited at the beginning of the this chapter (2b) as part of a halakhic exposition is now explained homiletically: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoแธฅai: What is the meaning of that which is written: โ€œHappy are you that sow beside all waters, that send forth the feet of the ox and the donkeyโ€ (Isaiah 32:20)? It teaches that whoever engages in the study of Torah and in the performance of acts of kindness merits reward equal to the portion of two tribes, Joseph and Issachar.

ืฉื ืืžืจ ืืฉืจื™ื›ื ื–ืจืขื™ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื–ืจื™ืขื” ืืœื ืฆื“ืงื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื–ืจืขื• ืœื›ื ืœืฆื“ืงื” ื•ืงืฆืจื• ืœืคื™ ื—ืกื“ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžื™ื ืืœื ืชื•ืจื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื”ื•ื™ ื›ืœ ืฆืžื ืœื›ื• ืœืžื™ื

The Gemara explains how this is derived from the verse: As it is stated: โ€œHappy are you that sow.โ€ And the reference to sowing refers only to acts of charity, as it is stated: โ€œSow for yourselves for charity, reap according to kindnessโ€ (Hosea 10:12). And the reference to water refers only to the study of Torah, as it is stated with regard to Torah study: โ€œHo, all who are thirsty, go to waterโ€ (Isaiah 55:1).

ื•ื–ื•ื›ื” ืœื ื—ืœืช ืฉื ื™ ืฉื‘ื˜ื™ื ื–ื•ื›ื” ืœื›ื™ืœื” ื›ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืŸ ืคืจืช ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื‘ื ื•ืช ืฆืขื“ื” ืขืœื™ ืฉื•ืจ ื•ื–ื•ื›ื” ืœื ื—ืœืช ื™ืฉืฉื›ืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื™ืฉืฉื›ืจ ื—ืžืจ ื’ืจื

And the fact that he merits reward equal to the portion of two tribes is derived as follows: The reference to the ox in the verse is an allusion to Joseph, who is described as an ox (Deuteronomy 33:17), and oneโ€™s reward is that he merits to receive a canopy of honor, as did Joseph, as it is written: โ€œJoseph is a fruitful vine, a fruitful vine by a fountain; its branches run over the wall.โ€ The branches over the wall in this verse allude to the canopy. And the reference to the donkey is an allusion to the fact that he merits to receive the portion of Issachar, who is described as a donkey, as it is stated: โ€œIssachar is a large-boned donkeyโ€ (Genesis 49:14).

ืื™ืช ื“ืืžืจื™ ืื•ื™ื‘ื™ื• ื ื•ืคืœื™ื ืœืคื ื™ื• ื›ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื”ื ืขืžื™ื ื™ื ื’ื— ื™ื—ื“ื• ืืคืกื™ ืืจืฅ ื•ื–ื•ื›ื” ืœื‘ื™ื ื” ื›ื™ืฉืฉื›ืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืžื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฉืฉื›ืจ ื™ื•ื“ืขื™ ื‘ื™ื ื” ืœืขืชื™ื ืœื“ืขืช ืžื” ื™ืขืฉื” ื™ืฉืจืืœ

There are some who say that the comparison should be understood in a different manner. His enemies will fall before him just like in the blessing given by Moses to the tribe of Joseph, as it is written in the blessing bestowed by Moses to the tribe of Joseph: โ€œHis horns are the horns of the wild-ox; with them he shall gore the nations, even to the ends of the earthโ€ (Deuteronomy 33:17). And he merits the understanding of Issachar, as it is written: โ€œAnd of the children of Issachar, men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to doโ€ (Iย Chronicles 12:33).

ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœื™ืš ืืจื‘ืขื” ืื‘ื•ืช

 

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ืจื’ืœ ืžื•ืขื“ืช ืœืฉื‘ืจ ื‘ื“ืจืš ื”ืœื•ื›ื” ื”ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื•ืขื“ืช ืœื”ืœืš ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื•ืœืฉื‘ืจ

MISHNA: The mishna in the previous chapter (15b) teaches that the owner of an animal is always forewarned with regard to the category of Trampling. The mishna elaborates: For what damage caused with the hoof is the animal deemed forewarned? It is deemed forewarned with regard to trampling objects and breaking them in the course of its walking. An animal is deemed forewarned with regard to walking in its typical manner and, by doing so, breaking objects as it proceeds.

ื”ื™ืชื” ืžื‘ืขื˜ืช ืื• ืฉื”ื™ื• ืฆืจื•ืจื•ืช ืžื ืชื–ื™ืŸ ืžืชื—ืช ืจื’ืœื™ื” ื•ืฉื‘ืจื” ืืช ื”ื›ืœื™ื ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ื“ืจืกื” ืขืœ ื”ื›ืœื™ ื•ืฉื‘ืจืชื• ื•ื ืคืœ ืขืœ ื›ืœื™ ื•ืฉื‘ืจื• ืขืœ ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื ื•ืขืœ ื”ืื—ืจื•ืŸ ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง

By contrast, if the animal was kicking while it was walking, or it transpired that pebbles were inadvertently propelled from under its feet and those pebbles broke vessels, cases of that kind do not fit precisely into the primary category of Trampling. In both of these cases the owner of the animal pays half the cost of the damage. If an animal trod upon a vessel and broke it and then a shard of that vessel fell upon a second vessel and broke it, the owner pays the full cost of the damage for the first vessel, as its action is classified under the primary category of Trampling, and he pays half the cost of the damage for the latter vessel, as the damage caused by the shard is tantamount to damage caused by pebbles inadvertently propelled by the foot of an animal.

ื”ืชืจื ื’ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืžื•ืขื“ื™ืŸ ืœื”ืœืš ื›ื“ืจื›ืŸ ื•ืœืฉื‘ืจ ื”ื™ื” ื“ืœื™ืœ ืงืฉื•ืจ ื‘ืจื’ืœื™ื• ืื• ืฉื”ื™ื” ืžื”ื“ืก ื•ืžืฉื‘ืจ ืืช ื”ื›ืœื™ื ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง

Chickens are deemed forewarned with regard to walking in their typical manner and breaking objects, and therefore, the owner of a chicken pays the full restitution for the damage done to any objects broken by his chicken. If there was a string [delil] tied to a chickenโ€™s leg as an indication of ownership and it wrapped around a vessel and broke it, or if the chicken was hopping in an atypical manner and breaking vessels, its owner pays half the cost of the damage.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืœืจื‘ื ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืจื’ืœ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื‘ื”ืžื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืชื ื ืื‘ื•ืช ื•ืงืชื ื™ ืชื•ืœื“ื•ืช

GEMARA: The Gemara analyzes the mishna: Ravina said to Rava: In the context of the category of Trampling, damage caused by an animal trampling an object with its foot is the same as damage caused by an animal breaking an object with its body. Why does the mishna repeat the same halakha twice? Rava said to him: First, the tanna teaches the primary categories of damage, namely the category of Trampling with an animalโ€™s foot, which is mentioned explicitly in the Torah, and then he teaches the subcategories of those primary categories, i.e., the animal is deemed forewarned with regard to causing damage with other parts of its body in the course of its walking.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ืกื™ืคื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื”ืฉืŸ ืžื•ืขื“ืช ื”ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื•ืขื“ืช ืžืื™ ืื‘ื•ืช ื•ืžืื™ ืชื•ืœื“ื•ืช ืื™ื›ื ื”ื•ื” ืงืžื”ื“ืจ ืœื™ื” ื‘ื‘ื“ื™ื—ื•ืชื ื•ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื ื ืฉื ืื™ ื—ื“ื ื•ืืช ืฉื ื™ ื—ื“ื

Ravina challenges this explanation: If that is so, the latter clause of the mishna (19b), which teaches, concerning the primary category of Eating: For what damage caused by Eating is the animal deemed forewarned? It is deemed forewarned with regard to eating food items fit for its consumption, i.e., the animal is deemed forewarned with regard to eating fruits and vegetables. Ravina asks: What primary categories and what subcategories are there in that context? No subcategories of Eating are enumerated there, and nevertheless, the phrase: The animal is deemed forewarned, is repeated. Rava responded to Ravina with a humorous response and said to him: I resolved the difficulty in one mishna, now you resolve the difficulty in one mishna.

ื•ื˜ืขืžื ืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืชื ื ืฉืŸ ื“ื—ื™ื” ื•ืงืชื ื™ ืฉืŸ ื“ื‘ื”ืžื” ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื•ืฉืœื— ืืช ื‘ืขื™ืจื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื” ืœื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ื—ื™ื” ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื‘ื”ืžื”

And what is the reason for the apparent redundancy in the mishna with regard to Eating? Rav Ashi said: First the tanna teaches the halakha of Eating by an undomesticated animal and then he teaches the halakha of Eating by a domesticated animal. And it was necessary to state both, as it enters your mind to say that since it is written: โ€œAnd he set his animal looseโ€ (Exodus 22:4), with regard to domesticated animals, yes, the primary category of Eating applies, but with regard to undomesticated animals, no, the primary category of Eating does not apply. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that undomesticated animals are included in the category of domesticated animals in this regard and the owner of an undomesticated animal is liable for damage caused by his animal eating another personโ€™s produce.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื”ื ืžื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืžื™ืชื ื™ ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ื”ืื™ ื“ืืชื™ื ืœื™ื” ืžื“ืจืฉื ื—ื‘ื™ื‘ื ืœื™ื”

The Gemara asks: If so, the tanna should have taught the halakha with regard to a domesticated animal first and only afterward taught the halakha with regard to an undomesticated animal, as the latter is included in the category of the former. The Gemara answers: On the contrary, that halakha, which is derived from an interpretation, is dear to him, and therefore the tanna preferred to begin with the derived halakha and only then proceed to the explicit halakha.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืจื™ืฉื ื ืžื™ ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื”ื”ื™ื ื“ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ื‘ืจื™ืฉื ื”ื›ื™ ื”ืฉืชื ื”ืชื ืื™ื“ื™ ื•ืื™ื“ื™ ืื‘ื•ืช ื ื™ื ื”ื• ื”ืš ื“ืืชื™ื ืœื™ื” ืžื“ืจืฉื ื—ื‘ื™ื‘ื ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ื ืฉื‘ื™ืง ืื‘ ื•ืชื ื™ ืชื•ืœื“ื”

The Gemara asks: If so, then with regard to the first clause, in this mishna too, let the tanna teach that which is not explicitly written first, as that which is derived from an interpretation is dear to him. The Gemara distinguishes between the cases: How can they be compared? There, with regard to Eating, this damage caused by a domesticated animal and that damage caused by an undomesticated animal are primary categories of damage; therefore, the tanna taught first that halakha, which is derived from an interpretation, is dear to him. But here, with regard to Trampling, would he leave aside the primary category of Trampling, done with the animalโ€™s foot, and teach a subcategory first?

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืกืœื™ืง ืžืจื’ืœ ืคืชื— ื‘ืจื’ืœ

If you wish, say instead that the reason that in this mishna the tanna begins with that which is written explicitly in the Torah and only then proceeds to teach that which is derived through an interpretation is as follows: Since the tanna concluded the discussion in the final mishna in the previous chapter (15b) with the primary category of Trampling by teaching the clause: The foot of an animal is deemed forewarned with regard to trampling objects and breaking them in the course of its walking, therefore, he began the first mishna in the second chapter with the primary category of Trampling.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื•ืขื“ืช ืœื”ืœืš ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื•ืœืฉื‘ืจ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืฉื ื›ื ืกื” ืœื—ืฆืจ ื”ื ื™ื–ืง ื•ื”ื–ื™ืงื” ื‘ื’ื•ืคื” ื“ืจืš ื”ืœื•ื›ื” ื•ื‘ืฉืขืจื” ื“ืจืš ื”ืœื•ื›ื” ื‘ืื•ื›ืฃ ืฉืขืœื™ื” ื•ื‘ืฉืœื™ืฃ ืฉืขืœื™ื” ื•ื‘ืคืจื•ืžื‘ื™ื ืฉื‘ืคื™ื” ื•ื‘ื–ื•ื’ ืฉื‘ืฆื•ืืจื” ื•ื—ืžื•ืจ ื‘ืžืฉืื• ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ืื•ืžืจ ืฆืจื•ืจื•ืช ื•ื—ื–ื™ืจ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื ื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ืืฉืคื” ื•ื”ื–ื™ืง ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื

ยง The Sages taught: An animal is deemed forewarned with regard to walking in its typical manner and, while doing so, breaking objects in the course of its walking. How so? If an animal entered into the courtyard of the injured party and it damaged an object with its body in the course of its walking; or if it caused damage with its hair in the course of its walking; or with the saddle that is on it; or with the packed saddlebag [shalif ] that is on it; or with the halter in its mouth; or with the bell [zog] around its neck; or if it was a donkey that caused damage with its burden; in all these cases the owner pays the full cost of the damage. Sumakhos says: In the case of pebbles propelled by an animal in the course of its walking, or in the case of a pig that was burrowing in the garbage heap and caused damage, the owner of the animal pays the full cost of the damage.

ื”ื–ื™ืง ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืืœื ืื™ืžื ื”ืชื™ื– ื•ื”ื–ื™ืง ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื

The Gemara asks: If a pig caused damage, it is obvious that its owner must pay the full cost of the damage. What novel element is Sumakhos introducing? The Gemara answers: Rather, say: If it propelled pebbles and thereby caused damage, the owner pays the full cost of the damage.

ืฆืจื•ืจื•ืช ืžืืŸ ื“ื›ืจ ืฉืžื™ื”ื• ื—ืกื•ืจื™ ืžื—ืกืจื ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ืฆืจื•ืจื•ืช ื›ื™ ืื•ืจื—ื™ื™ื”ื• ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ื•ื—ื–ื™ืจ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื ื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ืืฉืคื” ื•ื”ืชื™ื– ื•ื”ื–ื™ืง ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ืื•ืžืจ ืฆืจื•ืจื•ืช ื•ื—ื–ื™ืจ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื ื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ืืฉืคื” ื•ื”ืชื™ื– ื•ื”ื–ื™ืง ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื

The Gemara asks: Pebbles, who mentioned anything about it? The Gemara answers: The baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: For damage caused by pebbles that were propelled by animals walking in their typical manner, the owner pays half the cost of the damage, and for damage caused by a pig that was burrowing in the garbage heap and propelled pebbles and that damaged an object, its owner pays half the cost of the damage. Sumakhos says: Both in the case of pebbles that were propelled and in the case of a pig that was burrowing in the garbage heap and propelled pebbles and damaged an object, the owner pays the full cost of the damage. Sumakhos does not accept the halakha that the owner pays only half the cost of the damage caused by pebbles inadvertently propelled by the foot of an animal in the course of its walking, i.e., in its typical manner. He holds that since the damage results from the animalโ€™s typical behavior, the owner pays the full cost of the damage.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืชืจื ื’ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื• ืžืคืจื™ื—ื™ืŸ ืžืžืงื•ื ืœืžืงื•ื ื•ืฉื‘ืจื• ื›ืœื™ื ื‘ื›ื ืคื™ื”ืŸ ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื ื‘ืจื•ื— ืฉื‘ื›ื ืคื™ื”ืŸ ืžืฉืœืžื™ืŸ ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ืื•ืžืจ ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื ืชื ื™ื ืื™ื“ืš ืชืจื ื’ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื• ืžื”ื“ืกื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืขื™ืกื” ื•ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื•ื˜ื™ื ืคื• ืื• ื ื™ืงืจื• ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื ื”ืขืœื• ืขืคืจ ืื• ืฆืจื•ืจื•ืช ืžืฉืœืžื™ืŸ ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ืื•ืžืจ ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื

The Sages taught (Tosefta 2:1): If chickens were flying from place to place and broke vessels with their wings, their owner pays the full cost of the damage as this is a subcategory of Trampling. By contrast, if the damage was caused by the wind generated by their wings, the owner pays half the cost of the damage, in accordance with the halakha in the case of pebbles. Sumakhos says: The owner pays the full cost of the damage. It is taught in another baraita: If chickens were hopping upon dough or upon produce and they sullied it with their feet, or if they pecked at it and caused damage, their owner pays the full cost of the damage. If in the course of their hopping they stirred up dust or propelled pebbles, the owner pays half the cost of the damage. Sumakhos says: He pays the full cost of the damage.

ืชื ื™ื ืื™ื“ืš ืชืจื ื’ื•ืœ ืฉื”ื™ื” ืžืคืจื™ื— ืžืžืงื•ื ืœืžืงื•ื ื•ื™ืฆืชื” ืจื•ื— ืžืชื—ืช ื›ื ืคื™ื• ื•ืฉื™ื‘ืจื” ืืช ื”ื›ืœื™ื ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ืกืชืžื ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ

It is taught in another baraita: If a chicken was flying from place to place and wind emerged from beneath its wings and the wind caused vessels to break, the owner pays half the cost of the damage. The Gemara notes: This unattributed baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Sumakhos and hold that the owner pays half the cost of the damage in these cases, just as he does in the case of pebbles propelled by the feet of an animal.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืกื•ืžื›ื•ืก ืงืกื‘ืจ ื›ื—ื• ื›ื’ื•ืคื• ื“ืžื™ ืืœื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ ื›ื’ื•ืคื• ื“ืžื™ ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ื ื–ืง ื‘ืขื™ ืœืฉืœื ื•ืื™ ืœืื• ื›ื’ื•ืคื• ื“ืžื™ ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ื ืžื™ ืœื ืœืฉืœื

Rava analyzed the baraita and said: Granted, the opinion of Sumakhos is understood, as he holds that the status of damage resulting from a force generated by the animalโ€™s action is like that of damage directly caused by the animal itself, and therefore the owner pays the full cost of the damage in both cases. But the opinion of the Rabbis is difficult, as if they hold that the status of damage resulting from a force generated by the animalโ€™s action is like that of damage directly caused by the animal itself, the owner should be required to pay the full cost of the damage. And if they hold that the status of damage resulting from a force generated by the animalโ€™s action is not like that of damage directly caused by the animal itself, and is not attributed to the animal, then the owner should not be required to pay even half the cost of the damage.

ื”ื“ืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœืขื•ืœื ื›ื’ื•ืคื• ื“ืžื™ ื•ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง ืฆืจื•ืจื•ืช ื”ืœื›ืชื ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ืœื”

Then Rava said: Actually, the Rabbis hold that the status of damage resulting from a force generated by the animalโ€™s action is like that of damage directly caused by the animal itself, and in principle the owner should be required to pay the full cost of the damage. And the liability to pay for half the cost of the damage caused by pebbles is because the Rabbis learned this halakha through tradition, and it does not correspond to the standard halakhot of damages.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื›ืœ ืฉื‘ื–ื‘ ื˜ืžื ื‘ื ื–ืงื™ืŸ ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื ื›ืœ ืฉื‘ื–ื‘ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื‘ื ื–ืงื™ืŸ ืžืฉืœื ื—ืฆื™ ื ื–ืง

ยง Rava says: With regard to any type of action which, when a zav interacts with a vessel in that manner, he renders it ritually impure, if the same type of action was done by an animal, resulting in damage, the owner of the animal is liable to pay the full cost of the damage. Conversely, with regard to any type of action which, when a zav interacts with a vessel in that manner, he leaves it ritually pure, e.g., where the contact is indirect, if the same type of action was done by an animal, resulting in damage, the owner of the animal is liable to pay only half the cost of the damage.

ื•ืจื‘ื ืฆืจื•ืจื•ืช ืืชื ืœืืฉืžื•ืขื™ื ืŸ ืœื ืจื‘ื ืขื’ืœื” ืžื•ืฉื›ืช ื‘ืงืจื•ืŸ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara asks: And Rava, did he come to teach us the halakha of pebbles? The substance of Ravaโ€™s statement is that for damage caused by the indirect action of an animal, its owner pays half the cost of the damage. That is identical to the halakha of pebbles articulated in the baraitot cited earlier. The Gemara answers: No, Rava teaches us the halakha in the case of a calf pulling a cart [karon]. Just as with regard to a zav, the status of a vessel that a zav moves is like that of a vessel with which he came into contact, so too, the status of damage caused by the cart pulled by the animal is like that of damage caused by the animalโ€™s body, and it is not considered indirect damage like in the case of pebbles.

ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื•ืขื“ืช ืœืฉื‘ืจ ื‘ื“ืจืš ื”ืœื•ื›ื” ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืฉื ื›ื ืกื” ืœื—ืฆืจ ื”ื ื™ื–ืง ื•ื”ื–ื™ืงื” ื‘ื’ื•ืคื” ื“ืจืš ื”ืœื•ื›ื” ื•ื‘ืฉืขืจื” ื“ืจืš ื”ืœื•ื›ื” ื‘ืื•ื›ืฃ ืฉืขืœื™ื” ื•ื‘ืฉืœื™ืฃ ืฉืขืœื™ื” ื•ื‘ืคืจื•ืžื‘ื™ื ืฉื‘ืคื™ื” ื•ื‘ื–ื•ื’ ืฉื‘ืฆื•ืืจื” ื•ื—ืžื•ืจ ื‘ืžืฉืื• ื•ืขื’ืœื” ืžื•ืฉื›ืช ื‘ืงืจื•ืŸ ืžืฉืœื ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava: An animal is deemed forewarned with regard to breaking objects in the course of its walking. How so? If an animal entered into the courtyard of the injured party, and it damaged an object with its body in the course of its walking; or with its hair in the course of its walking; or with the saddle that is on it; or with the packed saddlebag that is on it; or with the halter that is in its mouth; or with the bell that is around its neck; or if a donkey caused damage with its burden; or if a calf caused damage while pulling a cart; in all these cases the owner pays the full cost of the damage.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืชืจื ื’ื•ืœื™ื ืฉื”ื™ื• ืžื—ื˜ื˜ื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ื‘ืœ ื“ืœื™ ื•ื ืคืกืง ื”ื—ื‘ืœ ื•ื ืฉื‘ืจ ื”ื“ืœื™ ืžืฉืœืžื™ืŸ ื ื–ืง ืฉืœื

ยง The Sages taught: In a case where chickens were pecking at the rope tied to a bucket and the rope was severed and the bucket fell and broke, their owner pays the full cost of the damage.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื ื“ืจืกื” ืขืœ ื›ืœื™ ื•ืœื ืฉื‘ืจืชื• ื•ื ืชื’ืœื’ืœ ืœืžืงื•ื ืื—ืจ ื•ื ืฉื‘ืจ ืžื”ื• ื‘ืชืจ ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืื–ืœื™ื ื ื•ื’ื•ืคื™ื” ื”ื•ื ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื‘ืชืจ ืชื‘ืจ ืžื ื ืื–ืœื™ื ื ื•ืฆืจื•ืจื•ืช ื ื™ื ื”ื•

Rava raises a dilemma: If an animal trod upon a vessel but did not break it and the vessel then rolled to another place and broke there, what is the halakha? Rava elaborates: In determining oneโ€™s liability for causing damage, do we follow the initial action that ultimately led to the damage and this case is regarded as damage caused by the animal itself? Accordingly, the owner would pay the full cost of the damage as he would in any case classified under the primary category of Trampling. Or perhaps do we follow the breaking of the vessel and therefore this case is regarded as similar to the case of pebbles propelled by the foot of an animal in the course of its walking, since the vessel was not broken by a direct action of the animal, but rather, as an indirect result of the animalโ€™s action?

ืชืคืฉื•ื˜ ืœื™ื” ืžื“ืจื‘ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื–ืจืง ื›ืœื™ ืžืจืืฉ ื”ื’ื’ ื•ื‘ื ืื—ืจ ื•ืฉื‘ืจื• ื‘ืžืงืœ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื“ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืžื ื ืชื‘ื™ืจื ืชื‘ืจ ืœืจื‘ื” ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื ืžื‘ืขื™ื ืœื™ื”

The Gemara suggests: Resolve Ravaโ€™s dilemma from the statement of Rabba, as Rabba says: If one threw a vessel from a roof and another came and broke it with a stick as it was falling, the one who hit it with the stick is exempt from all liability as we say to him that he broke a broken vessel. From the moment the vessel was tossed from the roof it was inevitable that it would break. Consequently, breaking it with a stick as it was falling had no real effect. Apparently, the initial action is the decisive factor in determining liability for damages. The same should be the halakha in a case where a vessel was trod upon by an animal but it did not break, and the vessel then rolled to another place and broke there. The liability should be determined based on the initial action that caused the damage. The Gemara rejects this proof: The halakha in this case is clear to Rabba, who ruled as he did, but it remains a dilemma to Rava. One cannot prove the opinion of one amora from the opinion of another.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ื™ื“ื•ืก ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืขื“ ื•ื™ืฉ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืžื•ืขื“

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear the resolution of this dilemma from a baraita: With regard to hopping, a chicken is not deemed forewarned. And some say that it is forewarned.

ื”ื™ื“ื•ืก ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืœื ืœืื• ื”ื™ื“ื•ืก ื•ื”ืชื™ื– ื•ื‘ื”ื ืงืžืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื‘ืชืจ ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืื–ืœื™ื ืŸ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื‘ืชืจ ืชื‘ืจ ืžื ื ืื–ืœื™ื ืŸ

The Gemara questions the formulation of the baraita: Does it enter your mind to raise the possibility that a chicken is not forewarned with regard to hopping? Hopping is the typical manner of movement for chickens. Rather, is it not that the reference in the baraita is to a case where the chicken was hopping and the hopping propelled the vessel to roll to another place, and the vessel was broken there? And they disagree with regard to this: One Sage holds that we follow the initial action that ultimately led to the damage, and since hopping is typical manner of movement for a chicken, its owner is responsible for any damage that resulted from its hopping. And one Sage holds: We follow the breaking of the vessel, and since there was an additional factor that broke the vessel, the owner of the chicken is not liable.

ืœื

The Gemara rejects the parallel between the dispute and the dilemma: No, the dispute in the baraita can be explained differently.

Scroll To Top