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

Daf Yomi

November 20, 2023 | 讝壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖驻状讚

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Bava Kamma 18

Today’s daf is sponsored by Lesley Nadel in loving memory of her sister Ruth Lewis – Rachel bat Hershel haLevi v’Tova, on her 10th yahrzeit. “An aishet chayil who left us too soon, before seeing her children’s weddings and meeting her granddaughter. She is missed every day. May her memory be for a blessing.”聽

Today’s daf is sponsored by Judy Shapiro in loving memory of her father, Albert Tychman’s 16th yahrzeit. “He was a tireless and passionate advocate and volunteer fundraiser for the State of Israel during his five decades with the Minneapolis Jewish Federation.”聽

Rava asked three questions regarding indirect damages. If an animal stepped on a vessel and as a result it rolled and then broke, do we rule based on the first action of the animal and make the owner responsible for full damages or do we say it was on account of the rolling that it broke and the owner will only pay half damages? Second question: For the half damage payment for an animal who kicks rocks that then damages a vessel, is it paid from the body of the animal that damaged (gufo) or does the owner have to pay the complete value (aliya) even above and beyond the value of the animal? Third question: Is there a concept of shor tam/shor muad in the law of tzrorot? The Gemara provides sources in an attempt to answer Rava’s questions.

讘讛转讬讝 爪专讜专讜转 讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚住讜诪讻讜住 讜专讘谞谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬


The dispute concerns a case where the chicken propelled pebbles from underfoot as it was hopping, and it is with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute of Sumakhos and the Rabbis, cited earlier, that the tanna鈥檌m in the baraita disagree. One tanna holds that the owner pays the full cost of the damage for pebbles propelled by an animal in the course of its walking, and the other tanna holds that its owner pays half the cost of the damage.


转讗 砖诪注 转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 砖讛讬讜 诪讞讟讟讬谉 讘讞讘诇 讚诇讬 讜谞驻住拽 讛讞讘诇 讜谞砖讘专 讛讚诇讬 诪砖诇诪讬谉 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘转专 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 转专讙诪讗 讗讞讘诇


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an additional attempt to resolve the dilemma from a baraita: 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, the owner of the chickens pays the full cost of the damage. Conclude from the baraita that we follow the initial action that ultimately led to the damage in determining liability for damage. The Gemara rejects this conclusion, and one cannot adduce proof from the baraita. Interpret instead that the reference in the baraita is to the damage caused to the rope, while the owner pays only half the cost of the damage for breaking the bucket.


讜讛讗 讞讘诇 诪砖讜谞讛 讛讜讗 讚诪讗讜住 讘诇讬砖讛 讜讛讗 谞砖讘专 讚诇讬 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 住讜诪讻讜住 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 爪专讜专讜转 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 诪砖诇诐


The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 eating a rope atypical behavior for a chicken, and therefore it should be classified within the primary category of Goring, not the primary category of Eating? Why then must the owner of the chicken pay the full cost of the damage? The Gemara answers: The reference in the baraita is to a case where the rope was filthy [ma鈥檜s] with kneaded dough, and in those circumstances it is typical for a chicken to peck at it. The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 the tanna teach in the baraita: And the bucket broke, indicating that the dispute is with regard to damage done to the bucket, not to the rope? The Gemara explains: Rather, this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, who says: In the case of pebbles propelled by an animal, the owner pays the full cost of the damage.


讗讬 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 谞讬转讝 诪诪谞讜 砖讘专 讜谞驻诇 注诇 讻诇讬 讗讞专 讜砖讘专讛 注诇 讛专讗砖讜谉 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 讜注诇 讛讗讞专讜谉 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讜讗讬 住讜诪讻讜住 诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讞爪讬 谞讝拽


The Gemara asks: If it is in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, say the latter clause of the baraita: If a shard was propelled from the bucket broken by a chicken and it fell upon another vessel and broke it, the owner of the chicken pays the full cost of the damage for the first vessel, and half the cost of the damage for the second one. And if the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, is he of the opinion that one pays half the cost of the damage caused by pebbles?


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 诇讬讛 诇住讜诪讻讜住 讘讬谉 谞讝拽 讻讞讜 诇讻讞 讻讞讜 讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讞 讻讞讜 诇住讜诪讻讜住 讻讻讞讜 讚诪讬 讗讜 诇讗讜 讻讻讞讜 讚诪讬


And if you would say that there is a difference, according to Sumakhos, between damage resulting from a force generated by the animal鈥檚 action, e.g., pebbles, and damage caused by a force generated by a force generated by its action, e.g., damage caused by the shard of the bucket, and in the latter case Sumakhos concedes that the owner pays half the cost of the damage, that would result in a difficulty. The Gemara asks: But what of this dilemma raised by Rav Ashi: According to the opinion of Sumakhos, what is the halakha with regard to damage caused by a force generated by a force generated by the animal鈥檚 action? Is the status of that secondary force like that of damage caused by a force generated by its action, in which case the owner is liable, or is its status not like that of damage caused by a force generated by its action?


转驻砖讜讟 诇讬讛 讚诇讗讜 讻讻讞讜 讚诪讬


Why did Rav Ashi state his dilemma; why did he not resolve the dilemma and conclude that according to Sumakhos its status is not like that of damage caused by a force generated by its action? Since Rav Ashi does not resolve the dilemma based on this baraita, apparently, Sumakhos does not distinguish between the two types of force.


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘转专 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉


The Gemara suggests: Rather, is it not so that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and conclude from the baraita that we follow the initial action that ultimately led to the damage when determining one鈥檚 liability for the damage. Therefore, an owner is liable for any damage resulting from his animal鈥檚 typical behavior, and he pays the full cost of the damage done to the bucket even if the damage took place in another location.


讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讚拽讗讝讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛


Rav Beivai bar Abaye said: There is no proof from the baraita, as it could be explained that the reference in the baraita is to a case where the bucket is continually propelled from the impetus of the chicken, who caused the bucket to break. That is why the ruling in the baraita is that the owner of the chicken pays the full cost of the damage. The dilemma with regard to the case where an animal treads upon a vessel that rolls away and breaks elsewhere remains unresolved.


讘注讬 专讘讗 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 爪专讜专讜转 诪讙讜驻讜 诪砖诇诐 讗讜 诪注诇讬讬讛 诪砖诇诐 诪讙讜驻讜 诪砖诇诐 讚诇讗 讗砖讻讞谉 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讚诪砖诇诐 诪注诇讬讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪注诇讬讬讛 诪砖诇诐 讚诇讗 讗砖讻讞谉 讻讗讜专讞讬讛 讚诪砖诇诐 诪讙讜驻讬讛


Rava raises a dilemma: With regard to one鈥檚 liability to pay half the cost of the damage caused by pebbles inadvertently propelled by the foot of a walking animal, does the owner of the animal pay restitution exclusively from the body of the animal, just as one pays half the cost of the damage caused by an innocuous ox with regard to damage categorized under the primary category of Goring? Or does he pay restitution from his superiorquality land, as he does for other forms of damage? The Gemara elaborates: Does he pay restitution exclusively from the body of the animal, as we do not find any case where one pays half the cost of the damage from his superiorquality land? Or perhaps he pays restitution from his superiorquality land, as we do not find any case where an animal causes damage in its typical manner where the owner pays restitution exclusively from the body of his animal?


转讗 砖诪注 讛讬讚讜住 讗讬谞讜 诪讜注讚 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜注讚 讛讬讚讜住 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讬讚讜住 讜讛转讬讝


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


讜讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诪讜注讚 拽住讘专 诪讙讜驻讜 诪砖诇诐 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜注讚 拽住讘专 诪注诇讬讬讛 诪砖诇诐


And it is with regard to this matter that they disagree: The one who says that the chicken is not deemed forewarned holds that its owner pays restitution from the body of the animal, as is the halakha when an innocuous animal gores, while the one who says that the chicken is forewarned holds that he pays restitution from his superiorquality land, as is the halakha when a forewarned animal causes damage. According to this analysis, Rava鈥檚 dilemma is the subject of a tannaitic dispute.


诇讗 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚住讜诪讻讜住 讜专讘谞谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬


The Gemara rejects this: No, perhaps the dispute in the baraita is with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute of Sumakhos and the Rabbis with regard to the legal status of damage caused by a force generated by the animal鈥檚 action. It is with regard to the similarity of damage caused by an action performed by an animal鈥檚 body to the case where the chicken was hopping and propelled pebbles that caused the damage that the tanna鈥檌m in the baraita disagree.


转讗 砖诪注 讛讻诇讘 砖谞讟诇 讞专专讛 讜讛诇讱 诇讙讚讬砖 讜讗讻诇 讛讞专专讛 讜讛讚诇讬拽 讗转 讛讙讚讬砖 注诇 讛讞专专讛 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 讜注诇 讛讙讚讬砖 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution of this dilemma from a mishna (21b): If the dog took a loaf [岣rara] that was baking on hot coals and went to a stack of grain to eat the loaf, and the dog ate the loaf and ignited the stack of grain with one of the coals attached to the loaf, the owner of the dog pays the full cost of the damage for the damage to the loaf, as it is classified in the primary category of Eating, and he pays half the cost of the damage for the damage to the stack of grain. Rabbi Elazar says: He pays the full cost of the damage for the damage to the stack of grain as well.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讛讜 爪专讜专讜转 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 诪讙讜驻讜


What is the reason that the first tanna holds that the owner pays half the cost of the damage caused to the stack of grain? Is it not due to the fact that it is analogous to propelling pebbles, as the coal fell from the loaf held in its mouth and ignited the grain? And it is taught in a baraita in that regard that when the first tanna said that he pays half the cost of the damage, he pays restitution exclusively from proceeds of the sale of the body of his animal. Apparently, half the cost of the damage caused by pebbles is paid from the body of the animal that caused the damage.


讜转住讘专讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 诪讙讜驻讬讛 诪讬 讗砖讻讞谉


The Gemara rejects this explanation: And can you understand the baraita in that way? According to that understanding, with regard to Rabbi Elazar, who disagrees with the first tanna and holds that the owner of the dog pays the full cost of the damage caused to the grain, do we find anywhere that according to Rabbi Elazar one pays restitution exclusively from proceeds of the sale of the body of his animal?


讗诇讗 讻讙讜谉 讚砖谞讬 讘讛讗 讘讙讞诇转 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜谞讛 拽专谉 讘讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 诪砖诇诐


Rather, the baraita can be explained in a case where the dog acted atypically with this coal with which he lit the stack of grain. Since the dog鈥檚 behavior was atypical, the damage is classified under the primary category of Goring, not under the category of Eating. And Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, who says in a mishna (24b): The halakha of Goring in the courtyard of the injured party is atypical, as there, the owner of the ox pays the full cost of the damage, in contrast to half the cost of the damage that he pays when it transpires in the public domain. Nevertheless, since it was an innocuous animal that caused the damage, restitution is paid from its body.


讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讜拽诪转 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诪砖讜诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐


The Gemara rejects that explanation: But that is not so. What is the reason that you interpreted that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon? It is due to the difficulty presented by the halakha that he pays the full cost of the damage exclusively from proceeds of the sale of the body of the animal, which would not be so according to Rabbi Elazar.


专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 住讘专 讻住讜诪讻讜住 讚讗诪专 爪专讜专讜转 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 诪砖诇诐 讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 爪讚 转诪讜转 讘诪拽讜诪讛 注讜诪讚转 讜讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讙讜驻讜 讗爪讚 转诪讜转


The Gemara suggests: There is an alternative explanation. Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, who says that one pays the full cost of the damage caused by pebbles, and he also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says with regard to a forewarned ox: The aspect of innocuousness, which dictates that the owner pays half the cost of the damage from the body of the ox, remains intact. According to Rabbi Yehuda, the owner of a forewarned ox pays half the cost of the damage from the body of his ox and half the cost of the damage from his superiorquality land. And when the tanna of the baraita teaches that the owner pays restitution from the body of his animal, the reference is to the aspect of innocuousness, i.e., half the cost of the damage. He pays the other half from his superiorquality land as he would in the case of any forewarned animal.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 住诪讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讗讬诪讜专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘转诐 讜谞注砖讛 诪讜注讚 讘诪讜注讚 诪转讞讬诇转讜


Rav Samma, son of Rav Ashi, said to Ravina: Say that you heard that Rabbi Yehuda stated that the aspect of innocuousness remains intact with regard to damage categorized under the primary category of Goring, where the ox was initially innocuous and then became forewarned. In the case of propelled pebbles, which is a subcategory of Trampling, where the ox is forewarned from the outset,


诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛


did you hear him distinguish between the different parts of the payment? There is no aspect of innocuousness in the case of pebbles.


讗诇讗 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讬注讚 讜讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讬砖 讛注讚讗讛 诇爪专讜专讜转 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讛注讚讗讛 诇爪专讜专讜转


Rather, when Rabbi Elazar says that the owner of the dog pays the full cost of the damage in a case that is similar to one of propelled pebbles, he was referring to a case where the owner of the animal was forewarned with regard to this matter. And they disagree about this point: One Sage, Rabbi Elazar, holds that there is forewarning with regard to propelling pebbles; therefore, if there was testimony given in court that a particular animal regularly propels pebbles in the course of its walking, the animal is deemed forewarned and its owner pays the full cost of the damage. And one Sage, the first tanna, holds that there is no forewarning with regard to pebbles. Apparently, payment for damage caused by pebbles is paid from the body of the animal.


讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讘注讬 专讘讗 讬砖 讛注讚讗讛 诇爪专讜专讜转 讗讜 讗讬谉 讛注讚讗讛 诇爪专讜专讜转 讗讬 诇专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 讛注讚讗讛 诇爪专讜专讜转 讗讬 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讬砖 讛注讚讗讛 诇爪专讜专讜转


The Gemara asks: But if this is the case, then the dilemma raised by Rava concerning whether there is forewarning for propelling pebbles or there is no forewarning for propelling pebbles, can be resolved from this dispute. If the dilemma is raised according to the Rabbis, i.e., the first tanna, there is no forewarning for propelling pebbles. If the dilemma is raised according to Rabbi Elazar, there is forewarning for propelling pebbles.


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 讻讬 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬 诇讚讬讚讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讚住讜诪讻讜住 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讘讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻住讜诪讻讜住 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讚讗诪专 爪专讜专讜转 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 诪砖诇诐


The Gemara answers that Rava could have said to you: When I raise the dilemma, I do so specifically according to the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Sumakhos and hold that one pays half the cost of the damage in the case of pebbles; but here in this baraita, both the Rabbis, i.e., the first tanna, and Rabbi Elazar hold in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, who says that in the case of pebbles, one pays the full cost of the damage.


讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讚砖谞讬 讜诇讗 讗讬讬注讚 讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讜专讘谞谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬


And what is the reason that the Rabbis say that one pays half the cost of the damage in the case of pebbles? It is that in the case of pebbles the animal acted atypically and was not forewarned. And in this baraita, concerning the dog that lit the stack of grain, the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Elazar is with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Tarfon and the Rabbis, i.e., the halakha in the case of damage caused by an innocuous ox on the property of the injured party.


讗讬诪讜专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 诪讙讜驻讜 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛


The Gemara rejects the parallel between the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon. Say that you heard that according to Rabbi Tarfon the owner pays the full cost of the damage; but did you hear that according to Rabbi Tarfon restitution is paid only from the body of the animal that caused the damage?


讗讬谉 诪讛讬讻讗 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诪拽专谉 诪专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐


The Gemara answers: Yes, Rabbi Tarfon holds that restitution is paid only from the body of the animal that caused the damage. From where does Rabbi Tarfon derive the halakha that when damage is caused by an innocuous ox on the property of the injured party its owner is liable to pay the full cost of the damage and not merely half? He derives it via an a fortiori inference from damage categorized as Goring that is caused in the public domain, as explained in the mishna (24b).


讚讬讜 诇讘讗 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 诇讛讬讜转 讻谞讚讜谉


His ruling is based on the principle: It is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source, i.e., a halakha derived from an a fortiori inference cannot be more stringent than the source of that derivation. Since restitution for damage categorized as Goring that is caused in the public domain is paid only from the body of the damaging animal, the same is true with regard to restitution for damage categorized as Goring that is caused on the property of the injured party.


讜讛讗 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚讬讜


The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it clear from that mishna that Rabbi Tarfon does not accept the principle: It is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source, as, if he accepted that principle, not only would he hold that payment is only from the body of the animal, he would also require payment of half the cost of the damage.


讻讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚讬讜 讛讬讻讗 讚诪驻专讬讱 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 诪驻专讬讱 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚讬讜


The Gemara answers: He does not reject the principle. When he does not accept the principle: It is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source, it is in a case where the result of rejecting the principle is that the a fortiori inference is refuted. But in a case where the result of rejecting the principle is that the a fortiori inference is not refuted, but will be applied in a more limited fashion, he accepts the principle: It is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source. Therefore, in this case the payment of the full cost of the damage, which is derived by means of the a fortiori inference, is paid only from the body of the animal based on the principle: It is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source.


讙讜驻讗 讘注讬 专讘讗 讬砖 讛注讚讗讛 诇爪专讜专讜转 讗讜 讗讬谉 讛注讚讗讛 诇爪专讜专讜转 诇拽专谉 诪讚诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 转讜诇讚讛 讚专讙诇 讛讜讗


搂 The Gemara discusses the matter itself, cited earlier. Rava raises a dilemma: Is there forewarning for propelling pebbles, so that the owner would pay the full cost of the damage if he had been forewarned three times, or is there no forewarning for propelling pebbles, and he will always pay half the cost of the damage? The Gemara elaborates: Do we liken the case of propelled pebbles to damage categorized as Goring? Accordingly, when an innocuous ox causes damage by propelling pebbles its owner pays half the cost of the damage, and when a forewarned ox does so the owner pays the full cost of the damage. Or perhaps, is it a subcategory of the primary category of Trampling, which is deemed forewarned from the outset? Accordingly, the owner would always pay half the cost of the damage, as there is no change in status after the third warning.


转讗 砖诪注 讛讬讚讜住 讗讬谞讜 诪讜注讚 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜注讚 讛讬讚讜住 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讛讬讚讜住 讜讛转讬讝


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. 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 propelled pebbles that caused damage?


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讙讜谉 讚注讘讚 转诇转讗 讝讬诪谞讬 讜讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讬砖 讛注讚讗讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讛注讚讗讛 诇讗 讘讞讚 讝讬诪谞讗 讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚住讜诪讻讜住 讜专讘谞谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬


What, is it not referring to a case where the chicken has done so three times? And it is with regard to this that they disagree: One Sage holds: There is forewarning for pebbles, and one Sage holds: There is no forewarning for pebbles. According to this analysis, Rava鈥檚 dilemma is the subject of a tannaitic dispute. The Gemara rejects this resolution: No, perhaps the reference in the baraita is to a case where the chicken hopped only one time. And the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Sumakhos and the Rabbis, concerning the compensation for damage caused by pebbles.


转讗 砖诪注 讘讛诪讛 砖讛讟讬诇讛 讙诇诇讬诐 诇注讬住讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讙讜谉 讚注讘讚 转诇转讗 讝讬诪谞讬 讜讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讬砖 讛注讚讗讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讛注讚讗讛


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear the resolution to the dilemma from an amoraic dispute: If an animal dropped excrement onto dough and damaged it, Rav Yehuda says: The owner of the animal pays the full cost of the damage, and Rabbi Elazar says: He pays half the cost of the damage. What, is it not referring to a case where the animal has done so three times? And it is with regard to this that they disagree, as one Sage holds: There is forewarning for pebbles, and one Sage holds: There is no forewarning for pebbles.


诇讗 讘讞讚 讝讬诪谞讗 讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚住讜诪讻讜住 讜专讘谞谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讜讛讗 诪砖讜谞讛 讛讜讗 讚讚讞讬拽 诇讬讛 注诇诪讗


The Gemara rejects this resolution: No, perhaps the reference in the baraita is to a case where the animal dropped excrement only one time. And the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Sumakhos and the Rabbis, concerning compensation for damage caused by pebbles. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 this atypical behavior of the animal, and since all behavior that deviates from the norm is classified within the category of Goring, the owner should be liable to pay only half the cost of the damage? The Gemara answers: The case is one where the animal was forced into a narrow place and had no alternative to relieving itself onto the dough; therefore, it does not constitute atypical behavior.


讜诇讬诪讗 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛诇讻讛 讻住讜诪讻讜住 讜诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谞谉 讙诇诇讬诐 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘转专 讙讜驻讬讛 讙专讬专讬谉 讻讙讜驻讬讛 讚诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara asks: But if the amoraic dispute parallels the tannaitic dispute, let Rav Yehuda say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, and let Rabbi Elazar say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, instead of stating their dispute in the context of the particular case of the animal and the dough. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for them to state their dispute in this case, as there is a novel element concerning excrement. It would enter your mind to say: Since the excrement is drawn after the body of the animal, its legal status is like that of damage caused by its body, not like pebbles propelled by the animal. Therefore, their stating the dispute with regard to excrement teaches us that its status is like that of propelling pebbles. Therefore, the dispute between Rav Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar can be explained as parallel to the dispute between Sumakhos and the Rabbis with regard to pebbles.


转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 转专谞讙讜诇 砖讛讜砖讬讟 专讗砖讜 诇讗讜讬专 讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 讜转拽注 讘讜 讜砖讘专讜 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专讬 讘讬 专讘 住讜住 砖爪谞祝 讜讞诪讜专 砖谞注专 讜砖讬讘专 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear the resolution to the dilemma from a baraita: Rami bar Ye岣zkel taught: In the case of a rooster that extended its head into the airspace of a glass vessel and crowed in the vessel and broke it with the sound waves, its owner pays the full cost of the damage. And Rav Yosef said that the Sages from the school of Rav say: If a horse neighed or a donkey brayed and the sound waves broke vessels, the owner pays half the cost of the damage. These are cases similar to the case of pebbles, and there is a dispute between the Sages with regard to these cases.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讙讜谉 讚注讘讚 转诇转讗 讝讬诪谞讬


What, is it not referring to a case where the rooster or animal has done so three times?


  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Copy of One week at a time (1)

Bava Kamma 14-20 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn the difference between a Tam (innocent) ox and a Muad (warned) ox. The payment of...
talking talmud_square

Bava Kamma 18: Don’t… Excrete Where You Eat

Why are chickens pecking at a rope from which a bucket will drop, if they peck through? Will that make...
talking talmud_square

Bava Kamma 16: Lions and Tigers and Bears Oh My!

The daf discusses how different wild animals are damagers and can they ever be not considered muad. The Mishnah finally...

Bava Kamma 18

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 18

讘讛转讬讝 爪专讜专讜转 讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚住讜诪讻讜住 讜专讘谞谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬


The dispute concerns a case where the chicken propelled pebbles from underfoot as it was hopping, and it is with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute of Sumakhos and the Rabbis, cited earlier, that the tanna鈥檌m in the baraita disagree. One tanna holds that the owner pays the full cost of the damage for pebbles propelled by an animal in the course of its walking, and the other tanna holds that its owner pays half the cost of the damage.


转讗 砖诪注 转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 砖讛讬讜 诪讞讟讟讬谉 讘讞讘诇 讚诇讬 讜谞驻住拽 讛讞讘诇 讜谞砖讘专 讛讚诇讬 诪砖诇诪讬谉 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘转专 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉 转专讙诪讗 讗讞讘诇


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an additional attempt to resolve the dilemma from a baraita: 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, the owner of the chickens pays the full cost of the damage. Conclude from the baraita that we follow the initial action that ultimately led to the damage in determining liability for damage. The Gemara rejects this conclusion, and one cannot adduce proof from the baraita. Interpret instead that the reference in the baraita is to the damage caused to the rope, while the owner pays only half the cost of the damage for breaking the bucket.


讜讛讗 讞讘诇 诪砖讜谞讛 讛讜讗 讚诪讗讜住 讘诇讬砖讛 讜讛讗 谞砖讘专 讚诇讬 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 住讜诪讻讜住 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 爪专讜专讜转 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 诪砖诇诐


The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 eating a rope atypical behavior for a chicken, and therefore it should be classified within the primary category of Goring, not the primary category of Eating? Why then must the owner of the chicken pay the full cost of the damage? The Gemara answers: The reference in the baraita is to a case where the rope was filthy [ma鈥檜s] with kneaded dough, and in those circumstances it is typical for a chicken to peck at it. The Gemara asks: But doesn鈥檛 the tanna teach in the baraita: And the bucket broke, indicating that the dispute is with regard to damage done to the bucket, not to the rope? The Gemara explains: Rather, this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, who says: In the case of pebbles propelled by an animal, the owner pays the full cost of the damage.


讗讬 住讜诪讻讜住 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 谞讬转讝 诪诪谞讜 砖讘专 讜谞驻诇 注诇 讻诇讬 讗讞专 讜砖讘专讛 注诇 讛专讗砖讜谉 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 讜注诇 讛讗讞专讜谉 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讜讗讬 住讜诪讻讜住 诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讞爪讬 谞讝拽


The Gemara asks: If it is in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, say the latter clause of the baraita: If a shard was propelled from the bucket broken by a chicken and it fell upon another vessel and broke it, the owner of the chicken pays the full cost of the damage for the first vessel, and half the cost of the damage for the second one. And if the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, is he of the opinion that one pays half the cost of the damage caused by pebbles?


讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 诇讬讛 诇住讜诪讻讜住 讘讬谉 谞讝拽 讻讞讜 诇讻讞 讻讞讜 讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讻讞 讻讞讜 诇住讜诪讻讜住 讻讻讞讜 讚诪讬 讗讜 诇讗讜 讻讻讞讜 讚诪讬


And if you would say that there is a difference, according to Sumakhos, between damage resulting from a force generated by the animal鈥檚 action, e.g., pebbles, and damage caused by a force generated by a force generated by its action, e.g., damage caused by the shard of the bucket, and in the latter case Sumakhos concedes that the owner pays half the cost of the damage, that would result in a difficulty. The Gemara asks: But what of this dilemma raised by Rav Ashi: According to the opinion of Sumakhos, what is the halakha with regard to damage caused by a force generated by a force generated by the animal鈥檚 action? Is the status of that secondary force like that of damage caused by a force generated by its action, in which case the owner is liable, or is its status not like that of damage caused by a force generated by its action?


转驻砖讜讟 诇讬讛 讚诇讗讜 讻讻讞讜 讚诪讬


Why did Rav Ashi state his dilemma; why did he not resolve the dilemma and conclude that according to Sumakhos its status is not like that of damage caused by a force generated by its action? Since Rav Ashi does not resolve the dilemma based on this baraita, apparently, Sumakhos does not distinguish between the two types of force.


讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘转专 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讝诇讬谞谉


The Gemara suggests: Rather, is it not so that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and conclude from the baraita that we follow the initial action that ultimately led to the damage when determining one鈥檚 liability for the damage. Therefore, an owner is liable for any damage resulting from his animal鈥檚 typical behavior, and he pays the full cost of the damage done to the bucket even if the damage took place in another location.


讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讚拽讗讝讬诇 诪讬谞讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛


Rav Beivai bar Abaye said: There is no proof from the baraita, as it could be explained that the reference in the baraita is to a case where the bucket is continually propelled from the impetus of the chicken, who caused the bucket to break. That is why the ruling in the baraita is that the owner of the chicken pays the full cost of the damage. The dilemma with regard to the case where an animal treads upon a vessel that rolls away and breaks elsewhere remains unresolved.


讘注讬 专讘讗 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 爪专讜专讜转 诪讙讜驻讜 诪砖诇诐 讗讜 诪注诇讬讬讛 诪砖诇诐 诪讙讜驻讜 诪砖诇诐 讚诇讗 讗砖讻讞谉 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讚诪砖诇诐 诪注诇讬讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪注诇讬讬讛 诪砖诇诐 讚诇讗 讗砖讻讞谉 讻讗讜专讞讬讛 讚诪砖诇诐 诪讙讜驻讬讛


Rava raises a dilemma: With regard to one鈥檚 liability to pay half the cost of the damage caused by pebbles inadvertently propelled by the foot of a walking animal, does the owner of the animal pay restitution exclusively from the body of the animal, just as one pays half the cost of the damage caused by an innocuous ox with regard to damage categorized under the primary category of Goring? Or does he pay restitution from his superiorquality land, as he does for other forms of damage? The Gemara elaborates: Does he pay restitution exclusively from the body of the animal, as we do not find any case where one pays half the cost of the damage from his superiorquality land? Or perhaps he pays restitution from his superiorquality land, as we do not find any case where an animal causes damage in its typical manner where the owner pays restitution exclusively from the body of his animal?


转讗 砖诪注 讛讬讚讜住 讗讬谞讜 诪讜注讚 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜注讚 讛讬讚讜住 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讬讚讜住 讜讛转讬讝


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


讜讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谞讜 诪讜注讚 拽住讘专 诪讙讜驻讜 诪砖诇诐 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讜注讚 拽住讘专 诪注诇讬讬讛 诪砖诇诐


And it is with regard to this matter that they disagree: The one who says that the chicken is not deemed forewarned holds that its owner pays restitution from the body of the animal, as is the halakha when an innocuous animal gores, while the one who says that the chicken is forewarned holds that he pays restitution from his superiorquality land, as is the halakha when a forewarned animal causes damage. According to this analysis, Rava鈥檚 dilemma is the subject of a tannaitic dispute.


诇讗 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚住讜诪讻讜住 讜专讘谞谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬


The Gemara rejects this: No, perhaps the dispute in the baraita is with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute of Sumakhos and the Rabbis with regard to the legal status of damage caused by a force generated by the animal鈥檚 action. It is with regard to the similarity of damage caused by an action performed by an animal鈥檚 body to the case where the chicken was hopping and propelled pebbles that caused the damage that the tanna鈥檌m in the baraita disagree.


转讗 砖诪注 讛讻诇讘 砖谞讟诇 讞专专讛 讜讛诇讱 诇讙讚讬砖 讜讗讻诇 讛讞专专讛 讜讛讚诇讬拽 讗转 讛讙讚讬砖 注诇 讛讞专专讛 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 讜注诇 讛讙讚讬砖 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution of this dilemma from a mishna (21b): If the dog took a loaf [岣rara] that was baking on hot coals and went to a stack of grain to eat the loaf, and the dog ate the loaf and ignited the stack of grain with one of the coals attached to the loaf, the owner of the dog pays the full cost of the damage for the damage to the loaf, as it is classified in the primary category of Eating, and he pays half the cost of the damage for the damage to the stack of grain. Rabbi Elazar says: He pays the full cost of the damage for the damage to the stack of grain as well.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬讗 诇讛讜 爪专讜专讜转 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 诪讙讜驻讜


What is the reason that the first tanna holds that the owner pays half the cost of the damage caused to the stack of grain? Is it not due to the fact that it is analogous to propelling pebbles, as the coal fell from the loaf held in its mouth and ignited the grain? And it is taught in a baraita in that regard that when the first tanna said that he pays half the cost of the damage, he pays restitution exclusively from proceeds of the sale of the body of his animal. Apparently, half the cost of the damage caused by pebbles is paid from the body of the animal that caused the damage.


讜转住讘专讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 诪讙讜驻讬讛 诪讬 讗砖讻讞谉


The Gemara rejects this explanation: And can you understand the baraita in that way? According to that understanding, with regard to Rabbi Elazar, who disagrees with the first tanna and holds that the owner of the dog pays the full cost of the damage caused to the grain, do we find anywhere that according to Rabbi Elazar one pays restitution exclusively from proceeds of the sale of the body of his animal?


讗诇讗 讻讙讜谉 讚砖谞讬 讘讛讗 讘讙讞诇转 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪砖讜谞讛 拽专谉 讘讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 诪砖诇诐


Rather, the baraita can be explained in a case where the dog acted atypically with this coal with which he lit the stack of grain. Since the dog鈥檚 behavior was atypical, the damage is classified under the primary category of Goring, not under the category of Eating. And Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon, who says in a mishna (24b): The halakha of Goring in the courtyard of the injured party is atypical, as there, the owner of the ox pays the full cost of the damage, in contrast to half the cost of the damage that he pays when it transpires in the public domain. Nevertheless, since it was an innocuous animal that caused the damage, restitution is paid from its body.


讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讜拽诪转 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诪砖讜诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐


The Gemara rejects that explanation: But that is not so. What is the reason that you interpreted that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon? It is due to the difficulty presented by the halakha that he pays the full cost of the damage exclusively from proceeds of the sale of the body of the animal, which would not be so according to Rabbi Elazar.


专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 住讘专 讻住讜诪讻讜住 讚讗诪专 爪专讜专讜转 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 诪砖诇诐 讜住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 爪讚 转诪讜转 讘诪拽讜诪讛 注讜诪讚转 讜讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讙讜驻讜 讗爪讚 转诪讜转


The Gemara suggests: There is an alternative explanation. Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, who says that one pays the full cost of the damage caused by pebbles, and he also holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says with regard to a forewarned ox: The aspect of innocuousness, which dictates that the owner pays half the cost of the damage from the body of the ox, remains intact. According to Rabbi Yehuda, the owner of a forewarned ox pays half the cost of the damage from the body of his ox and half the cost of the damage from his superiorquality land. And when the tanna of the baraita teaches that the owner pays restitution from the body of his animal, the reference is to the aspect of innocuousness, i.e., half the cost of the damage. He pays the other half from his superiorquality land as he would in the case of any forewarned animal.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 住诪讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讗讬诪讜专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘转诐 讜谞注砖讛 诪讜注讚 讘诪讜注讚 诪转讞讬诇转讜


Rav Samma, son of Rav Ashi, said to Ravina: Say that you heard that Rabbi Yehuda stated that the aspect of innocuousness remains intact with regard to damage categorized under the primary category of Goring, where the ox was initially innocuous and then became forewarned. In the case of propelled pebbles, which is a subcategory of Trampling, where the ox is forewarned from the outset,


诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛


did you hear him distinguish between the different parts of the payment? There is no aspect of innocuousness in the case of pebbles.


讗诇讗 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬讬注讚 讜讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讬砖 讛注讚讗讛 诇爪专讜专讜转 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讛注讚讗讛 诇爪专讜专讜转


Rather, when Rabbi Elazar says that the owner of the dog pays the full cost of the damage in a case that is similar to one of propelled pebbles, he was referring to a case where the owner of the animal was forewarned with regard to this matter. And they disagree about this point: One Sage, Rabbi Elazar, holds that there is forewarning with regard to propelling pebbles; therefore, if there was testimony given in court that a particular animal regularly propels pebbles in the course of its walking, the animal is deemed forewarned and its owner pays the full cost of the damage. And one Sage, the first tanna, holds that there is no forewarning with regard to pebbles. Apparently, payment for damage caused by pebbles is paid from the body of the animal.


讗诇讗 讛讗 讚讘注讬 专讘讗 讬砖 讛注讚讗讛 诇爪专讜专讜转 讗讜 讗讬谉 讛注讚讗讛 诇爪专讜专讜转 讗讬 诇专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 讛注讚讗讛 诇爪专讜专讜转 讗讬 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讬砖 讛注讚讗讛 诇爪专讜专讜转


The Gemara asks: But if this is the case, then the dilemma raised by Rava concerning whether there is forewarning for propelling pebbles or there is no forewarning for propelling pebbles, can be resolved from this dispute. If the dilemma is raised according to the Rabbis, i.e., the first tanna, there is no forewarning for propelling pebbles. If the dilemma is raised according to Rabbi Elazar, there is forewarning for propelling pebbles.


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讗 讻讬 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬 诇讚讬讚讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚驻诇讬讙讬 注诇讬讛 讚住讜诪讻讜住 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讘讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 讘讬谉 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讻住讜诪讻讜住 住讘讬专讗 诇讛讜 讚讗诪专 爪专讜专讜转 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 诪砖诇诐


The Gemara answers that Rava could have said to you: When I raise the dilemma, I do so specifically according to the opinion of the Rabbis who disagree with Sumakhos and hold that one pays half the cost of the damage in the case of pebbles; but here in this baraita, both the Rabbis, i.e., the first tanna, and Rabbi Elazar hold in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, who says that in the case of pebbles, one pays the full cost of the damage.


讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讚砖谞讬 讜诇讗 讗讬讬注讚 讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讜专讘谞谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬


And what is the reason that the Rabbis say that one pays half the cost of the damage in the case of pebbles? It is that in the case of pebbles the animal acted atypically and was not forewarned. And in this baraita, concerning the dog that lit the stack of grain, the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Elazar is with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Tarfon and the Rabbis, i.e., the halakha in the case of damage caused by an innocuous ox on the property of the injured party.


讗讬诪讜专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 诪讙讜驻讜 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛


The Gemara rejects the parallel between the opinion of Rabbi Elazar and the opinion of Rabbi Tarfon. Say that you heard that according to Rabbi Tarfon the owner pays the full cost of the damage; but did you hear that according to Rabbi Tarfon restitution is paid only from the body of the animal that caused the damage?


讗讬谉 诪讛讬讻讗 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诪拽专谉 诪专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐


The Gemara answers: Yes, Rabbi Tarfon holds that restitution is paid only from the body of the animal that caused the damage. From where does Rabbi Tarfon derive the halakha that when damage is caused by an innocuous ox on the property of the injured party its owner is liable to pay the full cost of the damage and not merely half? He derives it via an a fortiori inference from damage categorized as Goring that is caused in the public domain, as explained in the mishna (24b).


讚讬讜 诇讘讗 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 诇讛讬讜转 讻谞讚讜谉


His ruling is based on the principle: It is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source, i.e., a halakha derived from an a fortiori inference cannot be more stringent than the source of that derivation. Since restitution for damage categorized as Goring that is caused in the public domain is paid only from the body of the damaging animal, the same is true with regard to restitution for damage categorized as Goring that is caused on the property of the injured party.


讜讛讗 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚讬讜


The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it clear from that mishna that Rabbi Tarfon does not accept the principle: It is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source, as, if he accepted that principle, not only would he hold that payment is only from the body of the animal, he would also require payment of half the cost of the damage.


讻讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讚讬讜 讛讬讻讗 讚诪驻专讬讱 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 诪驻专讬讱 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讚讬讜


The Gemara answers: He does not reject the principle. When he does not accept the principle: It is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source, it is in a case where the result of rejecting the principle is that the a fortiori inference is refuted. But in a case where the result of rejecting the principle is that the a fortiori inference is not refuted, but will be applied in a more limited fashion, he accepts the principle: It is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source. Therefore, in this case the payment of the full cost of the damage, which is derived by means of the a fortiori inference, is paid only from the body of the animal based on the principle: It is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source.


讙讜驻讗 讘注讬 专讘讗 讬砖 讛注讚讗讛 诇爪专讜专讜转 讗讜 讗讬谉 讛注讚讗讛 诇爪专讜专讜转 诇拽专谉 诪讚诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 转讜诇讚讛 讚专讙诇 讛讜讗


搂 The Gemara discusses the matter itself, cited earlier. Rava raises a dilemma: Is there forewarning for propelling pebbles, so that the owner would pay the full cost of the damage if he had been forewarned three times, or is there no forewarning for propelling pebbles, and he will always pay half the cost of the damage? The Gemara elaborates: Do we liken the case of propelled pebbles to damage categorized as Goring? Accordingly, when an innocuous ox causes damage by propelling pebbles its owner pays half the cost of the damage, and when a forewarned ox does so the owner pays the full cost of the damage. Or perhaps, is it a subcategory of the primary category of Trampling, which is deemed forewarned from the outset? Accordingly, the owner would always pay half the cost of the damage, as there is no change in status after the third warning.


转讗 砖诪注 讛讬讚讜住 讗讬谞讜 诪讜注讚 讜讬砖 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛专讬 讝讛 诪讜注讚 讛讬讚讜住 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讛讬讚讜住 讜讛转讬讝


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. 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 propelled pebbles that caused damage?


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讙讜谉 讚注讘讚 转诇转讗 讝讬诪谞讬 讜讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讬砖 讛注讚讗讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讛注讚讗讛 诇讗 讘讞讚 讝讬诪谞讗 讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚住讜诪讻讜住 讜专讘谞谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬


What, is it not referring to a case where the chicken has done so three times? And it is with regard to this that they disagree: One Sage holds: There is forewarning for pebbles, and one Sage holds: There is no forewarning for pebbles. According to this analysis, Rava鈥檚 dilemma is the subject of a tannaitic dispute. The Gemara rejects this resolution: No, perhaps the reference in the baraita is to a case where the chicken hopped only one time. And the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Sumakhos and the Rabbis, concerning the compensation for damage caused by pebbles.


转讗 砖诪注 讘讛诪讛 砖讛讟讬诇讛 讙诇诇讬诐 诇注讬住讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讙讜谉 讚注讘讚 转诇转讗 讝讬诪谞讬 讜讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讬砖 讛注讚讗讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 讛注讚讗讛


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear the resolution to the dilemma from an amoraic dispute: If an animal dropped excrement onto dough and damaged it, Rav Yehuda says: The owner of the animal pays the full cost of the damage, and Rabbi Elazar says: He pays half the cost of the damage. What, is it not referring to a case where the animal has done so three times? And it is with regard to this that they disagree, as one Sage holds: There is forewarning for pebbles, and one Sage holds: There is no forewarning for pebbles.


诇讗 讘讞讚 讝讬诪谞讗 讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚住讜诪讻讜住 讜专讘谞谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讜讛讗 诪砖讜谞讛 讛讜讗 讚讚讞讬拽 诇讬讛 注诇诪讗


The Gemara rejects this resolution: No, perhaps the reference in the baraita is to a case where the animal dropped excrement only one time. And the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Sumakhos and the Rabbis, concerning compensation for damage caused by pebbles. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 this atypical behavior of the animal, and since all behavior that deviates from the norm is classified within the category of Goring, the owner should be liable to pay only half the cost of the damage? The Gemara answers: The case is one where the animal was forced into a narrow place and had no alternative to relieving itself onto the dough; therefore, it does not constitute atypical behavior.


讜诇讬诪讗 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛诇讻讛 讻住讜诪讻讜住 讜诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谞谉 讙诇诇讬诐 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘转专 讙讜驻讬讛 讙专讬专讬谉 讻讙讜驻讬讛 讚诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara asks: But if the amoraic dispute parallels the tannaitic dispute, let Rav Yehuda say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, and let Rabbi Elazar say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, instead of stating their dispute in the context of the particular case of the animal and the dough. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for them to state their dispute in this case, as there is a novel element concerning excrement. It would enter your mind to say: Since the excrement is drawn after the body of the animal, its legal status is like that of damage caused by its body, not like pebbles propelled by the animal. Therefore, their stating the dispute with regard to excrement teaches us that its status is like that of propelling pebbles. Therefore, the dispute between Rav Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar can be explained as parallel to the dispute between Sumakhos and the Rabbis with regard to pebbles.


转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专诪讬 讘专 讬讞讝拽讗诇 转专谞讙讜诇 砖讛讜砖讬讟 专讗砖讜 诇讗讜讬专 讻诇讬 讝讻讜讻讬转 讜转拽注 讘讜 讜砖讘专讜 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专讬 讘讬 专讘 住讜住 砖爪谞祝 讜讞诪讜专 砖谞注专 讜砖讬讘专 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear the resolution to the dilemma from a baraita: Rami bar Ye岣zkel taught: In the case of a rooster that extended its head into the airspace of a glass vessel and crowed in the vessel and broke it with the sound waves, its owner pays the full cost of the damage. And Rav Yosef said that the Sages from the school of Rav say: If a horse neighed or a donkey brayed and the sound waves broke vessels, the owner pays half the cost of the damage. These are cases similar to the case of pebbles, and there is a dispute between the Sages with regard to these cases.


诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讙讜谉 讚注讘讚 转诇转讗 讝讬诪谞讬


What, is it not referring to a case where the rooster or animal has done so three times?


Scroll To Top