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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 19, 2016 | 讬状讙 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讜

  • 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 Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Kamma 19

How do we view indirect damage – is it like keren and does it have all the criteria of keren or is it like regel and it has the criteria of regel 聽Or does it depend of whether the indirect damage was done in a typical way or an atypical way?


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

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

And it is with regard to this that they disagree: One Sage, the first tanna in the baraita cited by Rami bar Ye岣zkel, holds: There is forewarning for pebbles, and one Sage, Rav Yosef, holds: There is no forewarning for pebbles.

诇讗 讘讞讚 讝诪谞讗 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 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讘讝专谞讬

The Gemara rejects this resolution: No, perhaps the reference in the baraita is to a case where the rooster or animal damaged the vessel 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 it atypical behavior for an animal to insert its head into a glass vessel, and isn鈥檛 all atypical behavior classified within the category of Goring, meaning that the owner should be liable to pay only half the cost of the damage? The Gemara answers: The case is one where there were seeds in the vessel, and therefore the rooster extending its head into the vessel is considered typical behavior.

讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讬砖 砖谞讜讬 诇爪专讜专讜转 诇专讘讬注 谞讝拽 讗讜 讗讬谉 砖谞讜讬 诇爪专讜专讜转 诇专讘讬注 谞讝拽

Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: Is there any halakhic significance to deviation from typical behavior with regard to propelling pebbles, and therefore if an animal propelled pebbles in an atypical manner its owner is liable to pay one-quarter of the damage, i.e., half the restitution for damage caused by pebbles? Or, is there no halakhic significance to deviation from typical behavior with regard to propelling pebbles, resulting in its owner being liable to pay only one-quarter of the damage, and therefore, even in an atypical case, the owner pays the standard restitution of half the cost of the damage?

转驻砖讜讟 诇讬讛 诪讚专讘讗 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 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬谉 砖谞讜讬

The Gemara answers: Resolve Rav Ashi鈥檚 dilemma from Rava鈥檚 dilemma, as Rava raises a dilemma: Is there forewarning for pebbles, or is there no forewarning for pebbles? Based on that dilemma, one may conclude by inference that there is no halakhic significance to deviation from typical behavior with regard to pebbles propelled by an animal, resulting in its owner being liable to pay only one-quarter of the damage, as, were that the case, forewarning would lead to an animal owner鈥檚 liability to pay half the cost of the damage.

讚诇诪讗 专讘讗 讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 拽讗诪专 讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讗讬谉 砖谞讜讬 讬砖 讛注讚讗讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 讛注讚讗讛 转讬拽讜

The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps Rava stated his dilemma employing the style of: If you say. If you say that there is no halakhic significance to deviation from typical behavior with regard to propelling pebbles, resulting in its owner being liable to pay only one-quarter of the damage, and the owner pays half the cost of the damage in every case, is there forewarning for pebbles, meaning that after three incidents the owner pays the full cost of the damage, or is there no forewarning for pebbles? According to that understanding, the halakha with regard to Rav Ashi鈥檚 dilemma cannot be inferred from Rava鈥檚 dilemma. Rav Ashi鈥檚 dilemma shall stand unresolved.

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

Rav Ashi raises another dilemma with regard to pebbles: According to the opinion of Sumakhos, that one pays the full cost of the damage in the case of propelled pebbles, 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?

诪讬 讙诪讬专 讛诇讻讛 讜诪讜拽讬 诇讛 讘讻讞 讻讞讜 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 讙诪讬专 讛诇讻讛 讻诇诇 转讬拽讜

The Gemara elaborates: Did Sumakhos learn the halakha that one pays half the cost of the damage caused by pebbles as a tradition transmitted to Moses at Sinai, and he interprets that tradition as applying in a case where the damage was caused by a force generated by a force generated by the action of an animal? By contrast, in a typical case of damage caused by pebbles, which is an example of a force generated by the action of an animal, the owner pays the full cost of the damage, as it is a subcategory of Trampling. Or perhaps he did not learn any halakha as a tradition in this regard at all, and therefore even in a case where the damage was caused by a force generated by a force generated by the action of an animal, the owner pays the full cost of the damage, as it is a subcategory of Trampling. The Gemara concludes: This dilemma, too, shall stand unresolved.

讛讬转讛 诪讘注讟转 讗讜 砖讛讬讜 爪专讜专讜转 诪谞转讝讬谉 诪转讞转 专讙诇讬讛 讜砖讘专讛 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬讻讬 拽讗诪专

搂 The mishna teaches: If the animal was kicking while it was walking, or it occurred that pebbles were inadvertently propelled from under its feet and those pebbles broke vessels, the owner of the animal pays half the cost of the damage. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to what case is the tanna of the mishna speaking?

讛讬转讛 诪讘注讟转 讜讛讝讬拽讛 讘讘讬注讜讟讛 讗讜 爪专讜专讜转 讻讗讜专讞讬讬讛讜 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讜专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讬转讛 诪讘注讟转 讜讛讝讬拽讛 讘讘讬注讜讟讛 讗讜 爪专讜专讜转 诪讞诪转 讘讬注讜讟 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讛讗 讻讬 讗讜专讞讬讛 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 讜诪谞讬 住讜诪讻讜住 讛讬讗

The Gemara elaborates: Is the tanna saying that if the animal was kicking and caused damage directly with its kick, which is a subcategory of Goring, or if the animal was walking and propelled pebbles in its typical manner, the owner of the animal pays half the cost of the damage, and, accordingly, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that one pays half the cost of damage caused by pebbles? Or perhaps the tanna is saying: If the animal was kicking and caused damage directly with its kick, or if the animal propelled pebbles due to its kick and the pebbles caused damage, the owner of the animal pays half the cost of the damage. Accordingly, one may infer: But if the animal propelled pebbles as it was walking in its typical manner, the owner pays the full cost of the damage, and if so, in accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos.

转讗 砖诪注 诪住讬驻讗 讚专住讛 注诇 讛讻诇讬 讜砖讘专转讜 讜谞驻诇 讛砖讘专 注诇 讻诇讬 讗讞专 讜砖讘专讜 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 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 suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the latter clause of the mishna: 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, and he pays half the cost of the damage for the latter vessel. And if the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, does he hold that one pays half the cost of the damage caused by pebbles?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 诇讛转讝讛 讜砖谞讬 砖谞讬 诇讛转讝讛 讜砖讗谞讬 诇讬讛 诇住讜诪讻讜住 讘讬谉 讻讞讜 诇讻讞 讻讞讜

And if you would say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, and can be understood as follows: The first vessel, concerning which the owner of the animal pays the full cost of the damage, is the first vessel damaged following the propelling of shards from the vessel upon which the animal trod, i.e., the second vessel that was broken. And the second vessel, concerning which the owner of the animal pays half the cost of the damage, is the second vessel following the propelling of shards from the vessel upon which the animal trod, i.e., the third vessel that was broken by shards from the second vessel. And the reason for the difference in liability is that there is a difference, according to Sumakhos, between damage caused by a force generated by the action of an animal, for which the owner pays the full cost of the damage, and damage caused by a force generated by a force generated by its action, for which he pays for only half the cost of the damage.

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 转驻砖讜讟 诇讬讛 讚诇讗讜 讻讻讞讜 讚诪讬

But if one were to say this explanation, what can be said of that dilemma which Rav Ashi raised: According to the opinion of Sumakhos, that one pays the full cost of the damage in the case of propelled pebbles, 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? Why does he have a dilemma? Let him resolve from here that its status is not like that of damage caused by a force generated by its action.

专讘 讗砖讬 讻专讘谞谉 诪讜拽讬 诇讛 讜讘注讬 诇讛 讛讻讬 讛讬转讛 诪讘注讟转 讜讛讝讬拽讛 讘讘讬注讜讟讛 讗讜 爪专讜专讜转 讻讗讜专讞讬讬讛讜 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讛讗 诪讞诪转 讘讬注讜讟 专讘讬注 谞讝拽 讜讬砖 砖谞讜讬

The Gemara answers: Perhaps Rav Ashi interprets the mishna in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that one pays half the cost of the damage in the case of propelled pebbles, and he raises this dilemma: If the animal was kicking and caused damage directly with its kick, which is a subcategory of Goring, or if the animal was walking and propelled pebbles in its typical manner, the owner of the animal pays half the cost of the damage. Accordingly, one may infer: But if the pebbles were propelled due to a kick, the owner pays one-quarter of the damage. And there is halakhic significance to deviation from typical behavior with regard to a case of pebbles, resulting in its owner being liable to pay only one-quarter of the damage.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讬转讛 诪讘注讟转 讜讛讝讬拽讛 讘讘讬注讜讟讛 讗讜 爪专讜专讜转 诪讞诪转 讘讬注讜讟 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讜讗讬谉 砖谞讜讬 转讬拽讜

Or perhaps the tanna is saying: If the animal was kicking and caused damage directly with its kick or if the animal propelled pebbles due to its kick and the pebbles caused damage, the owner of the animal pays half the cost of the damage. And there is no halakhic significance to deviation from typical behavior with regard to a case of pebbles. The Gemara concludes: Rav Ashi鈥檚 dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 诪专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诪专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讛讬转讛 诪讛诇讻转 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 诪谞转讝转 讜讘注讟讛 讜讛转讬讝讛 讜讛讝讬拽讛 诪讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讛 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 诪讞诪转 讘讬注讜讟 拽诪谞转讝讛 爪专讜专讜转 转讬拽讜

Rabbi Abba bar Memel raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ami, and some say that it was before Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba: If the animal was walking in a place where it is impossible for it to walk without propelling pebbles as it proceeds, and it kicked and propelled pebbles and caused damage, what is the halakha? The Gemara elaborates: Does one say that since it is impossible for it to walk without propelling pebbles, propelling pebbles is its typical manner in that situation and the halakha in this case would be the same as any case of pebbles? Or perhaps, since now, in any event, the pebbles were propelled due to a kick, it is different. The Gemara concludes: Rabbi Abba bar Memel鈥檚 dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讬转讛 诪讛诇讻转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讘注讟讛 讜讛转讬讝讛 讜讛讝讬拽讛 诪讛讜 诇拽专谉 诪讚诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讞讬讬讘转 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 转讜诇讚讛 讚专讙诇 讛讜讗 讜驻讟讜专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪住转讘专讗 转讜诇讚讛 讚专讙诇 讛讜讗

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma before Rabbi Zeira: If the animal was walking in the public domain and it kicked and propelled pebbles and caused damage, what is the halakha? The Gemara elaborates: Do we liken the damage in this instance to Goring, since the action was performed with intent, and therefore the owner of the animal is liable even though the incident transpired in the public domain? Or perhaps, since this is a case of pebbles, it is classified as a subcategory of Trampling and the owner is exempt from liability in the public domain. Rabbi Zeira said to him: It stands to reason that it is a subcategory of Trampling.

讛转讬讝讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讝讬拽讛 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注拽讬专讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讛谞讞讛 讬砖 讻讗谉

Rabbi Yirmeya continued and asked Rabbi Zeira another question: If an animal propelled pebbles in the public domain and caused damage on private property, what is the halakha? Rabbi Zeira said to him, employing terminology from the halakhot of Shabbat: If there is no act of lifting here, is there an act of placing here? Since the animal propelled the pebbles in the public domain, the owner is exempt from liability for any damage that it causes. The fact that the damage occurred on private property is not relevant.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讛讬转讛 诪讛诇讻转 讘讚专讱 讜讛转讬讝讛 讘讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讘讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛转讬讝讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讝讬拽讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讗 讛转讬讝讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讝讬拽讛 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讛讗诪专转 注拽讬专讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讛谞讞讛 讬砖 讻讗谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讚专讬 讘讬

Rabbi Yirmeya raised an objection to Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 first statement, that one is exempt from liability for one鈥檚 animal propelling pebbles in the public domain because it is classified as a subcategory of Trampling, from a baraita: If an animal was walking along the way and it propelled pebbles, whether it was on private property and whether it was in the public domain, the owner is liable to pay damages. What, is it not a case where the pebbles were propelled in the public domain and caused damage in the public domain? Rabbi Zeira replied: No, the reference is to a case where the animal propelled the pebbles in the public domain and caused damage on private property. Rabbi Yirmeya asked him: But didn鈥檛 you say: If there is no act of lifting here, is there an act of placing here? Rabbi Zeira said to him: I retract my previous statement, as there is proof from the baraita that there is liability in that case.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讚专住讛 注诇 讛讻诇讬 讜砖讘专转讜 讜谞驻诇 讛砖讘专 注诇 讻诇讬 讗讞专 讜砖讘专讜 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 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 讗讘诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注诇 讛专讗砖讜谉 驻讟讜专讛 讜注诇 讛讗讞专讜谉 讞讬讬讘转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛转讬讝讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讝讬拽讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

Rabbi Yirmeya raised an objection to Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 first statement from the mishna: 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. And it is taught in a baraita with regard to this halakha: In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where the incident transpired on the private property of the injured party; but if it transpired in the public domain, the owner of the animal is exempt from liability for the first vessel, as it is classified as a subcategory of Trampling, and he is liable for the damage to the second vessel. What, is it not that the animal propelled the pebbles in the public domain and it caused damage in the public domain, indicating that one does not pay for damage caused by pebbles in the public domain?

诇讗 讛转讬讝讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讝讬拽讛 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讛讗诪专转 注拽讬专讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讛谞讞讛 讬砖 讻讗谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讚专讬 讘讬

Rabbi Zeira replied: No, perhaps the reference in the mishna is to a case where the animal propelled the pebbles in the public domain and it caused damage on private property. Rabbi Yirmeya said: But didn鈥檛 you say: If there is no act of lifting here, is there an act of placing here? Rabbi Zeira said to him: I retract my previous statement.

讗讬谞讬

Rabbi Yirmeya raises an additional objection to Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 statement: Is that so? Is the owner of the animal exempt from liability for pebbles propelled by his animal in the public domain?

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讞诇讜拽 诇讗 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜诇讗 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛转讬讝讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讝讬拽讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讗 讛转讬讝讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讝讬拽讛 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚

But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say: Payment of half the cost of the damage is not differentiated between private and public domains, as there is no exemption from payment neither for damage on private property nor for damage in the public domain? What, is this principle not stated even in a case where the animal propelled pebbles in the public domain and caused damage in the public domain? Rabbi Zeira said to him: No, Rabbi Yo岣nan stated this principle in a case where the animal propelled pebbles in the public domain and caused damage on private property.

讜讛讗诪专转 注拽讬专讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讛谞讞讛 讬砖 讻讗谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讚专讬 讘讬 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗拽专谉

Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: But didn鈥檛 you say: If there is no act of lifting here, is there an act of placing here? Rabbi Zeira said to him: I retract my previous statement. Or, if you wish, say instead: When Rabbi Yo岣nan said that payment of half the cost of the damage is not differentiated between private and public domains, and there is no exemption from payment neither for damage on private property nor for damage in the public domain, he said it only with regard to damage in the category of Goring, but not with regard to the case of propelled pebbles, for which one is exempt in the public domain.

讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 讜专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗拽讬诇注讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞驻拽 诪讬诇转讗 诪讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻砖讻砖讛 讘讝谞讘讛 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讚讱 讜讻讬 讬讗讞讝谞讛 讘讝谞讘讛 讜讬诇讱 讗讬 讛讻讬 拽专谉 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 讜讻讬 讬讗讞讝谞讛 讘拽专谉 讜讬诇讱

搂 The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yehuda Nesia and Rabbi Oshaya sat in the antechamber [akil鈥檃] of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia. A matter emerged from among them and one of them raised a dilemma: If an animal swung its tail and thereby caused damage, what is the halakha? The other Sage said to him: Must the owner grasp its tail and walk to prevent the animal from causing damage? Since this is typical behavior for the animal, the owner should be exempt from liability. The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to damage in the category of Goring, too, let us say: Must the owner grasp its horn and walk to prevent the animal from causing damage? Nevertheless, the halakha is that the owner is liable for damage in the category of Goring.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 拽专谉 诇讗讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讗 讗讜专讞讬讛

The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared? Damage in the category of Goring is not caused in the course of the typical behavior of the animal. Consequently, the owner is required to prevent his animal from causing damage in that manner. This damage caused by the swinging of an animal鈥檚 tail is caused in the course of its typical behavior, and one cannot hold the owner responsible for an animal’s normal behavior.

讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 讚讗讜专讞讬讛 诪讗讬 诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻砖讻讜砖 讬转讬专讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And since that is its typical behavior, what is the dilemma that he raised? Obviously one has no liability for the damage caused by the typical behavior of his animal in the public domain. The Gemara answers: He raised a dilemma with regard to a case of excessive tail swinging; is excessive tail swinging considered typical behavior?

讘注讬 专讘 注讬谞讗 讻砖讻砖讛 讘讗诪转讛 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗拽专谉 拽专谉 诇讗讜 讬爪专讗 拽转拽讬祝 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 拽专谉 讻讜讜谞转讜 诇讛讝讬拽 讛讗 讗讬谉 讻讜讜谞转讛 诇讛讝讬拽 转讬拽讜

Rav Eina raises a dilemma: If an animal swung its penis and caused damage, what is the halakha? The Gemara elaborates: Do we say just as it is with regard to Goring: Is it not so in a case of Goring that the animal鈥檚 inclination overcame it and caused it to gore? Here too, it is no different: The animal鈥檚 inclination overcame it and that is why it caused damage. Or perhaps the cases are different, as in the case of damage in the category of Goring the objective of its action is to cause damage, whereas in this case the objective of its action is not to cause damage. The Gemara concludes: This dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讛转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 诪讜注讚讬谉 诇讛诇讱 讻讚专讻谉 讜诇砖讘专 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞拽砖专 诪讗诇讬讜 讗讘诇 拽砖专讜 讗讚诐 讞讬讬讘

搂 The mishna teaches: Chickens are deemed forewarned with regard to walking in their typical manner and breaking objects. If there was a string tied to a chicken鈥檚 leg and it broke a vessel, or if the chicken was hopping in an atypical manner and breaking vessels, its owner pays half the cost of the damage. Rav Huna says: They taught that one pays half the cost of the damage only in a case where the string was tied to the leg of the chicken on its own, i.e., a string became entangled on the leg of a chicken without the involvement of the owner and an item was broken by the string; but if a person tied the string to the chicken, he is liable to pay the full cost of the damage, as the string is in the category of Pit.

谞拽砖专 诪讗诇讬讜 诪讗谉 讞讬讬讘 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘注诇 讛讚诇讬诇 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗爪谞注讬讛 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 讗爪谞注讬讛 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: If the string was tied on its own, who is liable to pay half the cost of the damage? If we say it is the owner of the string who pays, as the damage was caused by the string, what are the circumstances? If it is a case where the owner of the string concealed the string in a secure place and the chicken became entangled in it, the owner of the string is a victim of circumstances beyond his control and would be exempt from payment. And if he did not conceal it and instead left it exposed where it could become entangled in the feet of a passing chicken, he is negligent and liable as though he actually tied the string to the chicken.

讗诇讗 讞讬讬讘 讘注诇 转专谞讙讜诇 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讻讜诇讬讛 谞讝拽 讚诇讗 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬驻转讞 讗讬砖 讘讜专 讜诇讗 砖讜专 讘讜专 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 谞诪讬 讗讬砖 讘讜专 讜诇讗 砖讜专 讘讜专

Rather, the case in the mishna is one where the owner of the string concealed it and is exempt from liability, and Rav Huna means that the owner of the chicken is liable. Here too, the question arises: What is different in this case where one is not obligated to pay the full cost of the damage, as it is written (Exodus 21:33): 鈥淚f a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit and not cover it, and an ox or a donkey fall therein,鈥 he pays the damage, and it is not written: If an ox shall open a pit. This indicates that if an ox opens a pit, the owner of the ox is exempt from liability. With regard to the payment of half the cost of the damage as well, the owner should be exempt from liability, as it is written: 鈥淚f a man shall open a pit,鈥 and it is not written: If an ox shall open a pit.

讗诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讚讗讚讬讬讛 讗讚讜讬讬 讜讻讬 讗转诪专 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘注诇诪讗 讗转诪专 讚诇讬诇 讛驻拽专 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 谞拽砖专 诪讗诇讬讜 驻讟讜专 拽砖专讜 讗讚诐 讞讬讬讘

Rather, the case in the mishna is one where the chicken moved the string and thereby caused damage. Since the chicken did not cause damage with its body, the owner pays half the cost of the damage, as he does in a case of pebbles. And when Rav Huna鈥檚 distinction between whether the string was tied on its own or by a person was stated, it was stated in a general sense, and not with regard to the halakha in the mishna. With regard to an ownerless string tied to the leg of a chicken, Rav Huna says: If the string was tied to the leg of the chicken on its own, the owner of the chicken is exempt; but if a person tied the string to the chicken, he is liable to pay the full cost of the damage.

诪砖讜诐 诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 诪谞讜讞 诪砖讜诐 讘讜专讜 讛诪转讙诇讙诇 讘专讙诇讬 讗讚诐 讜讘专讙诇讬 讘讛诪讛

The Gemara asks: Due to what primary category of damage is he liable? Rav Huna bar Manoa岣 says: He is liable due to the fact that although the string is not stationary, as in the standard obstacle in the primary category of Pit, this is an example of his pit that is rolled at the feet of a person and at the hooves of an animal, and that too is a subcategory of Pit.

诪转谞讬壮 讻讬爪讚 讛砖谉 诪讜注讚转 诇讗讻讜诇 讗转 讛专讗讜讬 诇讛 讛讘讛诪讛 诪讜注讚转 诇讗讻讜诇 驻讬专讜转 讜讬专拽讜转 讗讻诇讛 讻住讜转 讗讜 讻诇讬诐 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 讗讘诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 驻讟讜专

MISHNA: Within the context of the primary category of Eating, for what damage caused with the tooth is an animal deemed forewarned? It is deemed forewarned with regard to eating food items fit for its consumption. The domesticated animal is deemed forewarned with regard to eating fruits and vegetables. If the animal ate garments or vessels, the owner pays half the cost of the damage. As these are not items fit for its consumption, the animal is not deemed forewarned in this case. In what case is this statement applied, that one pays the full value of the food eaten by the animal? It is a case where the animal ate the food on the property of the injured party; but if the animal ate food in the public domain, the owner of the animal is exempt from liability.

讜讗诐 谞讛谞讬转 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖谞讛谞讬转

And even if the animal ate food in the public domain, if the animal derives benefit from eating another鈥檚 produce in the public domain, the owner pays for the benefit that it derives, just not for the full cost of the food.

讻讬爪讚 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖谞讛谞讬转 讗讻诇讛 诪转讜讱 讛专讞讘讛 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖谞讛谞讬转 诪爪讚讬 讛专讞讘讛 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽讛 诪驻转讞 讛讞谞讜转 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖谞讛谞讬转 诪转讜讱 讛讞谞讜转 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽讛

Under what circumstances does the owner of the animal pay for the benefit that it derives? If the animal ate produce in the public square in the area before the storefronts, the owner of the animal pays for the benefit that it derives. If the animal ate from food placed at the side of the public square, which is not a public thoroughfare, the owner of the animal pays for what it damaged, as the legal status of that area is like that of the property of the injured party. If the animal ate produce from the entrance of the store, its owner pays for the benefit that it derives, as the status of a store entrance is like that of the public domain. If the animal ate produce from inside the store, its owner pays for what it damaged.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛砖谉 诪讜注讚转 诇讗讻讜诇 讗转 讛专讗讜讬 诇讛 讻讬爪讚 讘讛诪讛 砖谞讻谞住讛 诇讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽 讜讗讻诇讛 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讛专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讛 讜砖转转讛 诪砖拽讬谉 讛专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讛 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 讜讻谉 讞讬讛 砖谞讻谞住讛 诇讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽 讜讟专驻讛 讘讛诪讛 讜讗讻诇讛 讘砖专 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐

GEMARA: The Sages taught: Eating is deemed forewarned in that an animal tends to eat that which is fit for it to eat. How is this applied? In the case of a domesticated animal that entered the courtyard of the injured party and it ate food fit for it to eat, or if it drank drinks fit for it to drink, the owner of the animal must pay the full cost of the damage. And similarly, in the case of an undomesticated animal that entered the courtyard of the injured party and tore apart a domesticated animal and ate its meat there, the owner must pay the full cost of the damage.

讜驻专讛 砖讗讻诇讛 砖注讜专讬谉 讜讞诪讜专 砖讗讻诇 讻专砖讬谞谉 讜讻诇讘 砖诇讬拽拽 讗转 讛砖诪谉 讜讞讝讬专 砖讗讻诇 讞转讬讻讛 砖诇 讘砖专 诪砖诇诪讬谉 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 讻诇 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讜讗讻诇讛 诇讬讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽 砖诪讬讛 讗讻讬诇讛 讛讗讬 砖讜谞专讗 讚讗讻诇 转诪专讬 讜讞诪专讗 讚讗讻讬诇 讘讬谞讬转讗 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐

And in the case of a cow that ate barley, although this is not normally a food that a cow would eat, or in the case of a donkey that ate vetches, i.e., legumes which are usually fed to cows but not to donkeys, or in the case of a dog that licked oil or a pig ate meat, the owner of the animal must pay the full cost of the damage. Although these animals do not ordinarily consume these items, doing so is not a significant deviation from the animal鈥檚 typical behavior. Rav Pappa said: Now that you said that eating anything that is not typical for an animal to eat but it eats it under duress is considered an ordinary act of eating, it can be deduced that in the case of a cat that eats dates or a donkey that is eating fish, the owner must pay the full cost of the damage, despite the fact that these animals do not ordinarily eat these items.

讛讛讜讗 讞诪专讗 讚讗讻诇 谞讛诪讗 讜驻诇住讬讛 诇住诇讗 讞讬讬讘讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 讗谞讛诪讗 讜讗住诇讗 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讜讗诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讜专讞讬讛 诇诪讬讻诇 谞讛诪讗 讗讜专讞讬讛 谞诪讬 诇驻诇讜住讬 住诇讗 讚讗讻诇 讜讛讚专 驻诇讬住

The Gemara relates: There was a certain donkey that ate bread and while eating it also broke the basket in which the bread was stored. Rav Yehuda obligated the owner to pay the full cost of the damage for the loss of the bread and half the cost of the damage to the basket. The Gemara asks: But why? Since it is typical for a donkey to eat bread, it is also typical for it to break the basket in which the bread is stored; therefore, the owner should pay the full cost of the damage for the basket as well. The Gemara answers: This case is one where the donkey ate the bread and then afterward broke the basket, a sequence which demonstrates that its intent was to cause damage. The breaking of the basket is therefore a subcategory of Goring, and the owner is liable to pay only half the cost of the damage.

讜驻转 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讗讻诇讛 驻转 讜讘砖专 讜转讘砖讬诇 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讘讛诪讛 诇讗 讘讞讬讛

The Gemara asks: But is it typical for a donkey to eat bread? The Gemara raises a contradiction against this based on a baraita: If it ate bread or meat or a cooked dish, its owner must pay for half the cost of the damage. What, is it not referring to a domesticated animal and thereby implying that it is not typical for a domesticated animal to eat bread? The Gemara rejects this: No, it is discussing an undomesticated animal, which does not typically eat bread, but a domesticated animal does eat bread.

讞讬讛 讘砖专 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗 讚诪讟讜讬 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讟讘讬讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘讘讛诪讛 讜讘驻转讜专讗

The Gemara questions this explanation: If the baraita is discussing an undomesticated animal, then it is typical for it to eat meat. The Gemara clarifies: The baraita is referring meat that is roasted, and it is not typical for an undomesticated animal to eat roasted meat. Or, if you wish, say instead that the halakha of the baraita is not stated with regard to an undomesticated predator, but with regard to a deer, which does not ordinarily eat meat and bread. Or, if you wish, say that actually it is discussing a domesticated animal, but it is discussing a case where the animal ate at the table, and this is not typical behavior for an animal.

  • 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 Shlemah 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 19

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 19

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

And it is with regard to this that they disagree: One Sage, the first tanna in the baraita cited by Rami bar Ye岣zkel, holds: There is forewarning for pebbles, and one Sage, Rav Yosef, holds: There is no forewarning for pebbles.

诇讗 讘讞讚 讝诪谞讗 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 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 讘讝专谞讬

The Gemara rejects this resolution: No, perhaps the reference in the baraita is to a case where the rooster or animal damaged the vessel 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 it atypical behavior for an animal to insert its head into a glass vessel, and isn鈥檛 all atypical behavior classified within the category of Goring, meaning that the owner should be liable to pay only half the cost of the damage? The Gemara answers: The case is one where there were seeds in the vessel, and therefore the rooster extending its head into the vessel is considered typical behavior.

讘注讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讬砖 砖谞讜讬 诇爪专讜专讜转 诇专讘讬注 谞讝拽 讗讜 讗讬谉 砖谞讜讬 诇爪专讜专讜转 诇专讘讬注 谞讝拽

Rav Ashi raises a dilemma: Is there any halakhic significance to deviation from typical behavior with regard to propelling pebbles, and therefore if an animal propelled pebbles in an atypical manner its owner is liable to pay one-quarter of the damage, i.e., half the restitution for damage caused by pebbles? Or, is there no halakhic significance to deviation from typical behavior with regard to propelling pebbles, resulting in its owner being liable to pay only one-quarter of the damage, and therefore, even in an atypical case, the owner pays the standard restitution of half the cost of the damage?

转驻砖讜讟 诇讬讛 诪讚专讘讗 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 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬谉 砖谞讜讬

The Gemara answers: Resolve Rav Ashi鈥檚 dilemma from Rava鈥檚 dilemma, as Rava raises a dilemma: Is there forewarning for pebbles, or is there no forewarning for pebbles? Based on that dilemma, one may conclude by inference that there is no halakhic significance to deviation from typical behavior with regard to pebbles propelled by an animal, resulting in its owner being liable to pay only one-quarter of the damage, as, were that the case, forewarning would lead to an animal owner鈥檚 liability to pay half the cost of the damage.

讚诇诪讗 专讘讗 讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 拽讗诪专 讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讗讬谉 砖谞讜讬 讬砖 讛注讚讗讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 讛注讚讗讛 转讬拽讜

The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps Rava stated his dilemma employing the style of: If you say. If you say that there is no halakhic significance to deviation from typical behavior with regard to propelling pebbles, resulting in its owner being liable to pay only one-quarter of the damage, and the owner pays half the cost of the damage in every case, is there forewarning for pebbles, meaning that after three incidents the owner pays the full cost of the damage, or is there no forewarning for pebbles? According to that understanding, the halakha with regard to Rav Ashi鈥檚 dilemma cannot be inferred from Rava鈥檚 dilemma. Rav Ashi鈥檚 dilemma shall stand unresolved.

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

Rav Ashi raises another dilemma with regard to pebbles: According to the opinion of Sumakhos, that one pays the full cost of the damage in the case of propelled pebbles, 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?

诪讬 讙诪讬专 讛诇讻讛 讜诪讜拽讬 诇讛 讘讻讞 讻讞讜 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 讙诪讬专 讛诇讻讛 讻诇诇 转讬拽讜

The Gemara elaborates: Did Sumakhos learn the halakha that one pays half the cost of the damage caused by pebbles as a tradition transmitted to Moses at Sinai, and he interprets that tradition as applying in a case where the damage was caused by a force generated by a force generated by the action of an animal? By contrast, in a typical case of damage caused by pebbles, which is an example of a force generated by the action of an animal, the owner pays the full cost of the damage, as it is a subcategory of Trampling. Or perhaps he did not learn any halakha as a tradition in this regard at all, and therefore even in a case where the damage was caused by a force generated by a force generated by the action of an animal, the owner pays the full cost of the damage, as it is a subcategory of Trampling. The Gemara concludes: This dilemma, too, shall stand unresolved.

讛讬转讛 诪讘注讟转 讗讜 砖讛讬讜 爪专讜专讜转 诪谞转讝讬谉 诪转讞转 专讙诇讬讛 讜砖讘专讛 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讬讻讬 拽讗诪专

搂 The mishna teaches: If the animal was kicking while it was walking, or it occurred that pebbles were inadvertently propelled from under its feet and those pebbles broke vessels, the owner of the animal pays half the cost of the damage. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to what case is the tanna of the mishna speaking?

讛讬转讛 诪讘注讟转 讜讛讝讬拽讛 讘讘讬注讜讟讛 讗讜 爪专讜专讜转 讻讗讜专讞讬讬讛讜 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讜专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讬转讛 诪讘注讟转 讜讛讝讬拽讛 讘讘讬注讜讟讛 讗讜 爪专讜专讜转 诪讞诪转 讘讬注讜讟 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讛讗 讻讬 讗讜专讞讬讛 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 讜诪谞讬 住讜诪讻讜住 讛讬讗

The Gemara elaborates: Is the tanna saying that if the animal was kicking and caused damage directly with its kick, which is a subcategory of Goring, or if the animal was walking and propelled pebbles in its typical manner, the owner of the animal pays half the cost of the damage, and, accordingly, the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that one pays half the cost of damage caused by pebbles? Or perhaps the tanna is saying: If the animal was kicking and caused damage directly with its kick, or if the animal propelled pebbles due to its kick and the pebbles caused damage, the owner of the animal pays half the cost of the damage. Accordingly, one may infer: But if the animal propelled pebbles as it was walking in its typical manner, the owner pays the full cost of the damage, and if so, in accordance with whose opinion is the mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos.

转讗 砖诪注 诪住讬驻讗 讚专住讛 注诇 讛讻诇讬 讜砖讘专转讜 讜谞驻诇 讛砖讘专 注诇 讻诇讬 讗讞专 讜砖讘专讜 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 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 suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from the latter clause of the mishna: 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, and he pays half the cost of the damage for the latter vessel. And if the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, does he hold that one pays half the cost of the damage caused by pebbles?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 专讗砖讜谉 专讗砖讜谉 诇讛转讝讛 讜砖谞讬 砖谞讬 诇讛转讝讛 讜砖讗谞讬 诇讬讛 诇住讜诪讻讜住 讘讬谉 讻讞讜 诇讻讞 讻讞讜

And if you would say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Sumakhos, and can be understood as follows: The first vessel, concerning which the owner of the animal pays the full cost of the damage, is the first vessel damaged following the propelling of shards from the vessel upon which the animal trod, i.e., the second vessel that was broken. And the second vessel, concerning which the owner of the animal pays half the cost of the damage, is the second vessel following the propelling of shards from the vessel upon which the animal trod, i.e., the third vessel that was broken by shards from the second vessel. And the reason for the difference in liability is that there is a difference, according to Sumakhos, between damage caused by a force generated by the action of an animal, for which the owner pays the full cost of the damage, and damage caused by a force generated by a force generated by its action, for which he pays for only half the cost of the damage.

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 转驻砖讜讟 诇讬讛 讚诇讗讜 讻讻讞讜 讚诪讬

But if one were to say this explanation, what can be said of that dilemma which Rav Ashi raised: According to the opinion of Sumakhos, that one pays the full cost of the damage in the case of propelled pebbles, 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? Why does he have a dilemma? Let him resolve from here that its status is not like that of damage caused by a force generated by its action.

专讘 讗砖讬 讻专讘谞谉 诪讜拽讬 诇讛 讜讘注讬 诇讛 讛讻讬 讛讬转讛 诪讘注讟转 讜讛讝讬拽讛 讘讘讬注讜讟讛 讗讜 爪专讜专讜转 讻讗讜专讞讬讬讛讜 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讛讗 诪讞诪转 讘讬注讜讟 专讘讬注 谞讝拽 讜讬砖 砖谞讜讬

The Gemara answers: Perhaps Rav Ashi interprets the mishna in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that one pays half the cost of the damage in the case of propelled pebbles, and he raises this dilemma: If the animal was kicking and caused damage directly with its kick, which is a subcategory of Goring, or if the animal was walking and propelled pebbles in its typical manner, the owner of the animal pays half the cost of the damage. Accordingly, one may infer: But if the pebbles were propelled due to a kick, the owner pays one-quarter of the damage. And there is halakhic significance to deviation from typical behavior with regard to a case of pebbles, resulting in its owner being liable to pay only one-quarter of the damage.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讬转讛 诪讘注讟转 讜讛讝讬拽讛 讘讘讬注讜讟讛 讗讜 爪专讜专讜转 诪讞诪转 讘讬注讜讟 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讜讗讬谉 砖谞讜讬 转讬拽讜

Or perhaps the tanna is saying: If the animal was kicking and caused damage directly with its kick or if the animal propelled pebbles due to its kick and the pebbles caused damage, the owner of the animal pays half the cost of the damage. And there is no halakhic significance to deviation from typical behavior with regard to a case of pebbles. The Gemara concludes: Rav Ashi鈥檚 dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 诪专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 诪专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讛讬转讛 诪讛诇讻转 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 诪谞转讝转 讜讘注讟讛 讜讛转讬讝讛 讜讛讝讬拽讛 诪讛讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讛 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 诪讞诪转 讘讬注讜讟 拽诪谞转讝讛 爪专讜专讜转 转讬拽讜

Rabbi Abba bar Memel raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ami, and some say that it was before Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba: If the animal was walking in a place where it is impossible for it to walk without propelling pebbles as it proceeds, and it kicked and propelled pebbles and caused damage, what is the halakha? The Gemara elaborates: Does one say that since it is impossible for it to walk without propelling pebbles, propelling pebbles is its typical manner in that situation and the halakha in this case would be the same as any case of pebbles? Or perhaps, since now, in any event, the pebbles were propelled due to a kick, it is different. The Gemara concludes: Rabbi Abba bar Memel鈥檚 dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讬转讛 诪讛诇讻转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讘注讟讛 讜讛转讬讝讛 讜讛讝讬拽讛 诪讛讜 诇拽专谉 诪讚诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讞讬讬讘转 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 转讜诇讚讛 讚专讙诇 讛讜讗 讜驻讟讜专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪住转讘专讗 转讜诇讚讛 讚专讙诇 讛讜讗

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma before Rabbi Zeira: If the animal was walking in the public domain and it kicked and propelled pebbles and caused damage, what is the halakha? The Gemara elaborates: Do we liken the damage in this instance to Goring, since the action was performed with intent, and therefore the owner of the animal is liable even though the incident transpired in the public domain? Or perhaps, since this is a case of pebbles, it is classified as a subcategory of Trampling and the owner is exempt from liability in the public domain. Rabbi Zeira said to him: It stands to reason that it is a subcategory of Trampling.

讛转讬讝讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讝讬拽讛 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注拽讬专讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讛谞讞讛 讬砖 讻讗谉

Rabbi Yirmeya continued and asked Rabbi Zeira another question: If an animal propelled pebbles in the public domain and caused damage on private property, what is the halakha? Rabbi Zeira said to him, employing terminology from the halakhot of Shabbat: If there is no act of lifting here, is there an act of placing here? Since the animal propelled the pebbles in the public domain, the owner is exempt from liability for any damage that it causes. The fact that the damage occurred on private property is not relevant.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讛讬转讛 诪讛诇讻转 讘讚专讱 讜讛转讬讝讛 讘讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讘讬谉 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛转讬讝讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讝讬拽讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讗 讛转讬讝讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讝讬拽讛 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讛讗诪专转 注拽讬专讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讛谞讞讛 讬砖 讻讗谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讚专讬 讘讬

Rabbi Yirmeya raised an objection to Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 first statement, that one is exempt from liability for one鈥檚 animal propelling pebbles in the public domain because it is classified as a subcategory of Trampling, from a baraita: If an animal was walking along the way and it propelled pebbles, whether it was on private property and whether it was in the public domain, the owner is liable to pay damages. What, is it not a case where the pebbles were propelled in the public domain and caused damage in the public domain? Rabbi Zeira replied: No, the reference is to a case where the animal propelled the pebbles in the public domain and caused damage on private property. Rabbi Yirmeya asked him: But didn鈥檛 you say: If there is no act of lifting here, is there an act of placing here? Rabbi Zeira said to him: I retract my previous statement, as there is proof from the baraita that there is liability in that case.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讚专住讛 注诇 讛讻诇讬 讜砖讘专转讜 讜谞驻诇 讛砖讘专 注诇 讻诇讬 讗讞专 讜砖讘专讜 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 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 讗讘诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 注诇 讛专讗砖讜谉 驻讟讜专讛 讜注诇 讛讗讞专讜谉 讞讬讬讘转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛转讬讝讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讝讬拽讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

Rabbi Yirmeya raised an objection to Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 first statement from the mishna: 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. And it is taught in a baraita with regard to this halakha: In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where the incident transpired on the private property of the injured party; but if it transpired in the public domain, the owner of the animal is exempt from liability for the first vessel, as it is classified as a subcategory of Trampling, and he is liable for the damage to the second vessel. What, is it not that the animal propelled the pebbles in the public domain and it caused damage in the public domain, indicating that one does not pay for damage caused by pebbles in the public domain?

诇讗 讛转讬讝讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讝讬拽讛 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜讛讗诪专转 注拽讬专讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讛谞讞讛 讬砖 讻讗谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讚专讬 讘讬

Rabbi Zeira replied: No, perhaps the reference in the mishna is to a case where the animal propelled the pebbles in the public domain and it caused damage on private property. Rabbi Yirmeya said: But didn鈥檛 you say: If there is no act of lifting here, is there an act of placing here? Rabbi Zeira said to him: I retract my previous statement.

讗讬谞讬

Rabbi Yirmeya raises an additional objection to Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 statement: Is that so? Is the owner of the animal exempt from liability for pebbles propelled by his animal in the public domain?

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讞诇讜拽 诇讗 诇专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讜诇讗 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛转讬讝讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讝讬拽讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诇讗 讛转讬讝讛 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛讝讬拽讛 讘专砖讜转 讛讬讞讬讚

But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say: Payment of half the cost of the damage is not differentiated between private and public domains, as there is no exemption from payment neither for damage on private property nor for damage in the public domain? What, is this principle not stated even in a case where the animal propelled pebbles in the public domain and caused damage in the public domain? Rabbi Zeira said to him: No, Rabbi Yo岣nan stated this principle in a case where the animal propelled pebbles in the public domain and caused damage on private property.

讜讛讗诪专转 注拽讬专讛 讗讬谉 讻讗谉 讛谞讞讛 讬砖 讻讗谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讚专讬 讘讬 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗拽专谉

Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: But didn鈥檛 you say: If there is no act of lifting here, is there an act of placing here? Rabbi Zeira said to him: I retract my previous statement. Or, if you wish, say instead: When Rabbi Yo岣nan said that payment of half the cost of the damage is not differentiated between private and public domains, and there is no exemption from payment neither for damage on private property nor for damage in the public domain, he said it only with regard to damage in the category of Goring, but not with regard to the case of propelled pebbles, for which one is exempt in the public domain.

讬转讬讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖讬讗讛 讜专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗拽讬诇注讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞驻拽 诪讬诇转讗 诪讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讻砖讻砖讛 讘讝谞讘讛 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讚讱 讜讻讬 讬讗讞讝谞讛 讘讝谞讘讛 讜讬诇讱 讗讬 讛讻讬 拽专谉 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 讜讻讬 讬讗讞讝谞讛 讘拽专谉 讜讬诇讱

搂 The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yehuda Nesia and Rabbi Oshaya sat in the antechamber [akil鈥檃] of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia. A matter emerged from among them and one of them raised a dilemma: If an animal swung its tail and thereby caused damage, what is the halakha? The other Sage said to him: Must the owner grasp its tail and walk to prevent the animal from causing damage? Since this is typical behavior for the animal, the owner should be exempt from liability. The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to damage in the category of Goring, too, let us say: Must the owner grasp its horn and walk to prevent the animal from causing damage? Nevertheless, the halakha is that the owner is liable for damage in the category of Goring.

讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 拽专谉 诇讗讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讗 讗讜专讞讬讛

The Gemara rejects this: How can these cases be compared? Damage in the category of Goring is not caused in the course of the typical behavior of the animal. Consequently, the owner is required to prevent his animal from causing damage in that manner. This damage caused by the swinging of an animal鈥檚 tail is caused in the course of its typical behavior, and one cannot hold the owner responsible for an animal’s normal behavior.

讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 讚讗讜专讞讬讛 诪讗讬 诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 讻砖讻讜砖 讬转讬专讗 诪讘注讬讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And since that is its typical behavior, what is the dilemma that he raised? Obviously one has no liability for the damage caused by the typical behavior of his animal in the public domain. The Gemara answers: He raised a dilemma with regard to a case of excessive tail swinging; is excessive tail swinging considered typical behavior?

讘注讬 专讘 注讬谞讗 讻砖讻砖讛 讘讗诪转讛 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗拽专谉 拽专谉 诇讗讜 讬爪专讗 拽转拽讬祝 诇讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 拽专谉 讻讜讜谞转讜 诇讛讝讬拽 讛讗 讗讬谉 讻讜讜谞转讛 诇讛讝讬拽 转讬拽讜

Rav Eina raises a dilemma: If an animal swung its penis and caused damage, what is the halakha? The Gemara elaborates: Do we say just as it is with regard to Goring: Is it not so in a case of Goring that the animal鈥檚 inclination overcame it and caused it to gore? Here too, it is no different: The animal鈥檚 inclination overcame it and that is why it caused damage. Or perhaps the cases are different, as in the case of damage in the category of Goring the objective of its action is to cause damage, whereas in this case the objective of its action is not to cause damage. The Gemara concludes: This dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讛转专谞讙讜诇讬谉 诪讜注讚讬谉 诇讛诇讱 讻讚专讻谉 讜诇砖讘专 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞拽砖专 诪讗诇讬讜 讗讘诇 拽砖专讜 讗讚诐 讞讬讬讘

搂 The mishna teaches: Chickens are deemed forewarned with regard to walking in their typical manner and breaking objects. If there was a string tied to a chicken鈥檚 leg and it broke a vessel, or if the chicken was hopping in an atypical manner and breaking vessels, its owner pays half the cost of the damage. Rav Huna says: They taught that one pays half the cost of the damage only in a case where the string was tied to the leg of the chicken on its own, i.e., a string became entangled on the leg of a chicken without the involvement of the owner and an item was broken by the string; but if a person tied the string to the chicken, he is liable to pay the full cost of the damage, as the string is in the category of Pit.

谞拽砖专 诪讗诇讬讜 诪讗谉 讞讬讬讘 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘注诇 讛讚诇讬诇 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗爪谞注讬讛 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 讗爪谞注讬讛 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: If the string was tied on its own, who is liable to pay half the cost of the damage? If we say it is the owner of the string who pays, as the damage was caused by the string, what are the circumstances? If it is a case where the owner of the string concealed the string in a secure place and the chicken became entangled in it, the owner of the string is a victim of circumstances beyond his control and would be exempt from payment. And if he did not conceal it and instead left it exposed where it could become entangled in the feet of a passing chicken, he is negligent and liable as though he actually tied the string to the chicken.

讗诇讗 讞讬讬讘 讘注诇 转专谞讙讜诇 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讻讜诇讬讛 谞讝拽 讚诇讗 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬驻转讞 讗讬砖 讘讜专 讜诇讗 砖讜专 讘讜专 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 谞诪讬 讗讬砖 讘讜专 讜诇讗 砖讜专 讘讜专

Rather, the case in the mishna is one where the owner of the string concealed it and is exempt from liability, and Rav Huna means that the owner of the chicken is liable. Here too, the question arises: What is different in this case where one is not obligated to pay the full cost of the damage, as it is written (Exodus 21:33): 鈥淚f a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit and not cover it, and an ox or a donkey fall therein,鈥 he pays the damage, and it is not written: If an ox shall open a pit. This indicates that if an ox opens a pit, the owner of the ox is exempt from liability. With regard to the payment of half the cost of the damage as well, the owner should be exempt from liability, as it is written: 鈥淚f a man shall open a pit,鈥 and it is not written: If an ox shall open a pit.

讗诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘讚讗讚讬讬讛 讗讚讜讬讬 讜讻讬 讗转诪专 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘注诇诪讗 讗转诪专 讚诇讬诇 讛驻拽专 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 谞拽砖专 诪讗诇讬讜 驻讟讜专 拽砖专讜 讗讚诐 讞讬讬讘

Rather, the case in the mishna is one where the chicken moved the string and thereby caused damage. Since the chicken did not cause damage with its body, the owner pays half the cost of the damage, as he does in a case of pebbles. And when Rav Huna鈥檚 distinction between whether the string was tied on its own or by a person was stated, it was stated in a general sense, and not with regard to the halakha in the mishna. With regard to an ownerless string tied to the leg of a chicken, Rav Huna says: If the string was tied to the leg of the chicken on its own, the owner of the chicken is exempt; but if a person tied the string to the chicken, he is liable to pay the full cost of the damage.

诪砖讜诐 诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 诪谞讜讞 诪砖讜诐 讘讜专讜 讛诪转讙诇讙诇 讘专讙诇讬 讗讚诐 讜讘专讙诇讬 讘讛诪讛

The Gemara asks: Due to what primary category of damage is he liable? Rav Huna bar Manoa岣 says: He is liable due to the fact that although the string is not stationary, as in the standard obstacle in the primary category of Pit, this is an example of his pit that is rolled at the feet of a person and at the hooves of an animal, and that too is a subcategory of Pit.

诪转谞讬壮 讻讬爪讚 讛砖谉 诪讜注讚转 诇讗讻讜诇 讗转 讛专讗讜讬 诇讛 讛讘讛诪讛 诪讜注讚转 诇讗讻讜诇 驻讬专讜转 讜讬专拽讜转 讗讻诇讛 讻住讜转 讗讜 讻诇讬诐 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘专砖讜转 讛谞讬讝拽 讗讘诇 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 驻讟讜专

MISHNA: Within the context of the primary category of Eating, for what damage caused with the tooth is an animal deemed forewarned? It is deemed forewarned with regard to eating food items fit for its consumption. The domesticated animal is deemed forewarned with regard to eating fruits and vegetables. If the animal ate garments or vessels, the owner pays half the cost of the damage. As these are not items fit for its consumption, the animal is not deemed forewarned in this case. In what case is this statement applied, that one pays the full value of the food eaten by the animal? It is a case where the animal ate the food on the property of the injured party; but if the animal ate food in the public domain, the owner of the animal is exempt from liability.

讜讗诐 谞讛谞讬转 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖谞讛谞讬转

And even if the animal ate food in the public domain, if the animal derives benefit from eating another鈥檚 produce in the public domain, the owner pays for the benefit that it derives, just not for the full cost of the food.

讻讬爪讚 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖谞讛谞讬转 讗讻诇讛 诪转讜讱 讛专讞讘讛 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖谞讛谞讬转 诪爪讚讬 讛专讞讘讛 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽讛 诪驻转讞 讛讞谞讜转 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖谞讛谞讬转 诪转讜讱 讛讞谞讜转 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽讛

Under what circumstances does the owner of the animal pay for the benefit that it derives? If the animal ate produce in the public square in the area before the storefronts, the owner of the animal pays for the benefit that it derives. If the animal ate from food placed at the side of the public square, which is not a public thoroughfare, the owner of the animal pays for what it damaged, as the legal status of that area is like that of the property of the injured party. If the animal ate produce from the entrance of the store, its owner pays for the benefit that it derives, as the status of a store entrance is like that of the public domain. If the animal ate produce from inside the store, its owner pays for what it damaged.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛砖谉 诪讜注讚转 诇讗讻讜诇 讗转 讛专讗讜讬 诇讛 讻讬爪讚 讘讛诪讛 砖谞讻谞住讛 诇讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽 讜讗讻诇讛 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讛专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讛 讜砖转转讛 诪砖拽讬谉 讛专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讛 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 讜讻谉 讞讬讛 砖谞讻谞住讛 诇讞爪专 讛谞讬讝拽 讜讟专驻讛 讘讛诪讛 讜讗讻诇讛 讘砖专 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐

GEMARA: The Sages taught: Eating is deemed forewarned in that an animal tends to eat that which is fit for it to eat. How is this applied? In the case of a domesticated animal that entered the courtyard of the injured party and it ate food fit for it to eat, or if it drank drinks fit for it to drink, the owner of the animal must pay the full cost of the damage. And similarly, in the case of an undomesticated animal that entered the courtyard of the injured party and tore apart a domesticated animal and ate its meat there, the owner must pay the full cost of the damage.

讜驻专讛 砖讗讻诇讛 砖注讜专讬谉 讜讞诪讜专 砖讗讻诇 讻专砖讬谞谉 讜讻诇讘 砖诇讬拽拽 讗转 讛砖诪谉 讜讞讝讬专 砖讗讻诇 讞转讬讻讛 砖诇 讘砖专 诪砖诇诪讬谉 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 讻诇 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讜讗讻诇讛 诇讬讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讚讞拽 砖诪讬讛 讗讻讬诇讛 讛讗讬 砖讜谞专讗 讚讗讻诇 转诪专讬 讜讞诪专讗 讚讗讻讬诇 讘讬谞讬转讗 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐

And in the case of a cow that ate barley, although this is not normally a food that a cow would eat, or in the case of a donkey that ate vetches, i.e., legumes which are usually fed to cows but not to donkeys, or in the case of a dog that licked oil or a pig ate meat, the owner of the animal must pay the full cost of the damage. Although these animals do not ordinarily consume these items, doing so is not a significant deviation from the animal鈥檚 typical behavior. Rav Pappa said: Now that you said that eating anything that is not typical for an animal to eat but it eats it under duress is considered an ordinary act of eating, it can be deduced that in the case of a cat that eats dates or a donkey that is eating fish, the owner must pay the full cost of the damage, despite the fact that these animals do not ordinarily eat these items.

讛讛讜讗 讞诪专讗 讚讗讻诇 谞讛诪讗 讜驻诇住讬讛 诇住诇讗 讞讬讬讘讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 讗谞讛诪讗 讜讗住诇讗 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 讜讗诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讜专讞讬讛 诇诪讬讻诇 谞讛诪讗 讗讜专讞讬讛 谞诪讬 诇驻诇讜住讬 住诇讗 讚讗讻诇 讜讛讚专 驻诇讬住

The Gemara relates: There was a certain donkey that ate bread and while eating it also broke the basket in which the bread was stored. Rav Yehuda obligated the owner to pay the full cost of the damage for the loss of the bread and half the cost of the damage to the basket. The Gemara asks: But why? Since it is typical for a donkey to eat bread, it is also typical for it to break the basket in which the bread is stored; therefore, the owner should pay the full cost of the damage for the basket as well. The Gemara answers: This case is one where the donkey ate the bread and then afterward broke the basket, a sequence which demonstrates that its intent was to cause damage. The breaking of the basket is therefore a subcategory of Goring, and the owner is liable to pay only half the cost of the damage.

讜驻转 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讗讻诇讛 驻转 讜讘砖专 讜转讘砖讬诇 诪砖诇诐 讞爪讬 谞讝拽 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讘讛诪讛 诇讗 讘讞讬讛

The Gemara asks: But is it typical for a donkey to eat bread? The Gemara raises a contradiction against this based on a baraita: If it ate bread or meat or a cooked dish, its owner must pay for half the cost of the damage. What, is it not referring to a domesticated animal and thereby implying that it is not typical for a domesticated animal to eat bread? The Gemara rejects this: No, it is discussing an undomesticated animal, which does not typically eat bread, but a domesticated animal does eat bread.

讞讬讛 讘砖专 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗 讚诪讟讜讬 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讟讘讬讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘讘讛诪讛 讜讘驻转讜专讗

The Gemara questions this explanation: If the baraita is discussing an undomesticated animal, then it is typical for it to eat meat. The Gemara clarifies: The baraita is referring meat that is roasted, and it is not typical for an undomesticated animal to eat roasted meat. Or, if you wish, say instead that the halakha of the baraita is not stated with regard to an undomesticated predator, but with regard to a deer, which does not ordinarily eat meat and bread. Or, if you wish, say that actually it is discussing a domesticated animal, but it is discussing a case where the animal ate at the table, and this is not typical behavior for an animal.

Scroll To Top