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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 21, 2016 | 讟状讜 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Kamma 21

The rabbis continue to debate the issue of someone who lives in someone else’s property without his knowledge – does he need to pay him rent or not? 聽The gemara bring an argument between Rav and Shmuel and debates exactly what their argument is about and whether or not they are arguing about soemthing the tannaim already debated. 聽A dog or goat who jump off the roof聽and break vessels聽is considered typical damage and the owner pays full damage. 聽However if he fell off, the owner would be exempt. 聽This seems to imply that if one started an act with negligence and ended with unexpected damage, one is exempt. 聽The gemara tries to explain how the mishna could fit in with the opinion that holds that if one begins with negligence, one is responsible even if at the end it was not from the negligence.

讻讛讚讬讜讟 诪讚注转 讚诪讬

is similar to an action involving non-sacred property belonging to an ordinary person, which was performed with the owner鈥檚 knowledge and against his wishes. This is because consecrated property belongs to the Almighty, and it is therefore meaningless to speak of a situation where the owner is unaware of what is being done. Consequently, anyone who derives benefit from consecrated property is in violation of the prohibition of misuse, but it cannot be inferred from this that one who resides in another鈥檚 courtyard without his knowledge must pay him rent.

砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 诇诪专讬 讘专 诪专 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讚专 讘讞爪专 讞讘讬专讜 砖诇讗 诪讚注转讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛注诇讜转 诇讜 砖讻专 讗讜 诇讗 讗讚讛讻讬 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗

Rabbi Abba bar Zavda sent a message to Mari bar Mar saying: Raise the following dilemma before Rav Huna: Does one who resides in another鈥檚 courtyard without his knowledge need to pay him rent or not? In the meantime, before he was able to respond to the question, Rav Huna died.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讗 诪专讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛注诇讜转 诇讜 砖讻专 讜讛砖讜讻专 讘讬转 诪专讗讜讘谉 诪注诇讛 砖讻专 诇砖诪注讜谉 砖诪注讜谉 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 谞诪爪讗 讛讘讬转 砖诇 砖诪注讜谉 诪注诇讛 诇讜 砖讻专

Rabba, son of Rav Huna, said to him in response to the question that was asked of his father: So did my father, my Master, say in the name of Rav: He does not need to pay him rent. And he also stated another halakha: One who rents a house from Reuven must pay rent to Shimon. The Gemara is puzzled: Shimon? What does he have to do with this? The Gemara explains: This is what he is saying, i.e., what he means: If it is discovered that the house he rented did not actually belong to Reuven but rather it was Shimon鈥檚, he must pay rent to Shimon.

转专转讬 讛讗 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇讗讙专讗 讛讗 讚诇讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇讗讙专讗

The Gemara questions this statement: Did Rav Huna state two contradictory halakhot? On the one hand he says that one who resides in a courtyard without the owner鈥檚 knowledge does not need to pay rent, but on the other hand he says that if it is discovered that the true owner of a rented house was someone else, and therefore the tenant was living in another鈥檚 courtyard without the owner鈥檚 knowledge, he is obligated to pay him rent. The Gemara resolves the difficulty: This second halakha, which stated that he is obligated to pay rent, is referring to a courtyard that stands to be rented out, while that halakha, which stated that he is not obligated to pay rent, is referring to a courtyard that does not stand to be rented out.

讗转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讚专 讘讞爪专 讞讘讬专讜 砖诇讗 诪讚注转讜 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛注诇讜转 诇讜 砖讻专 讜讛砖讜讻专 讘讬转 诪讘谞讬 讛注讬专 诪注诇讛 砖讻专 诇讘注诇讬诐 讘注诇讬诐 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讬讛讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 谞诪爪讗讜 诇讜 讘注诇讬诐 诪注诇讬谉 诇讛谉 砖讻专

It was also stated: Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin says that Rav says, and some say that Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin says that Rav Huna says: One who resides in another鈥檚 courtyard without his knowledge does not need to pay him rent, and one who rents a house from the residents of the city must pay rent to the owners. The Gemara is puzzled: Owners? What do they have to do with this? The case concerns one who rents a property from the residents of the city, i.e., the house is public property. The Gemara explains: This is what he said: If it is discovered that the house did have owners and was not public property, the renters must pay rent to those owners.

转专转讬 讛讗 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇讗讙专讗 讛讗 讚诇讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇讗讙专讗

The Gemara wonders about this: Did he state two contradictory halakhot? The Gemara answers: This second halakha, which stated that he is obligated to pay rent, is referring to a courtyard that stands to be rented out, while that halakha, which stated that he does not need to pay rent, is referring to a courtyard that does not stand to be rented out.

讗诪专 专讘 住讞讜专讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讚专 讘讞爪专 讞讘讬专讜 砖诇讗 诪讚注转讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛注诇讜转 诇讜 砖讻专 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖讗讬讛 讬讜讻转 砖注专 讗诪专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讚讬讚讬 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讜诪谞讙讞 讻讬 转讜专讗 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讘讬转讗 诪讬转讘讗 讬转讬讘

Rav Se岣ra says that Rav Huna says that Rav says: One who resides in another鈥檚 courtyard without his knowledge does not need to pay him rent because it is stated: 鈥淒esolation remains in the city, and the gate is stricken unto ruin鈥 (Isaiah 24:12), i.e., a house that is not lived in will collapse at some point due to neglect. Consequently, one who lives inside an otherwise uninhabited house is providing a service to the homeowner, as he maintains the house and prevents it from falling apart. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: I saw this ruin and it gores like an ox, i.e., it is devastating. Rav Yosef stated a similar idea: A home that is lived in is settled and safeguarded, while a home that is not lived in has no one to look after it and maintain it.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚拽讗 诪砖转诪砖 讘讬讛 讘爪讬讘讬 讜转讬讘谞讗

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between what Rav said and what Rav Yosef said? The Gemara answers: The difference between them is with regard to a house that the homeowner uses to store wood and straw. The house is not empty and desolate but there is nobody living in it. According to Rav Yosef鈥檚 reasoning, a squatter there would not have to pay rent to the homeowner.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讘谞讛 讗驻讚谞讗 讗拽讬诇拽诇转讗 讚讬转诪讬 讗讙讘讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗驻讚谞讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讬诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讚专 讘讞爪专 讞讘讬专讜 砖诇讗 诪讚注转讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛注诇讜转 诇讜 砖讻专 讛讛讜讗 诪注讬拽专讗 拽专诪谞讗讬 讛讜讜 讚讬讬专讬 讘讬讛 讜讬讛讘讬 诇讛讜 诇讬转诪讬 讚讘专 诪讜注讟 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 驻讬讬住讬谞讛讜 诇讬转诪讬 讜诇讗 讗砖讙讞 讗讙讘讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗驻讚谞讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who built a mansion [apadna] on a garbage heap [akilkalta] belonging to orphans, and Rav Na岣an confiscated his mansion from him as he did not pay the owners of the property. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Rav Na岣an holds that one who resides in another鈥檚 courtyard without his knowledge must pay him rent? The Gemara rejects this: No, there is no proof taken from this case, because it was a unique situation. In that case Carmanians, nomadic tribes, were initially living on the property, and they would pay the orphans a small amount for the use of the land, and when this man built his mansion he removed the Carmanians from there. Rav Na岣an had said to the man who built the mansion: Go and appease the orphans with regard to their lost income, but he did not pay attention to the ruling. Therefore, Rav Na岣an confiscated his mansion from him.

讻讬爪讚 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖谞讛谞讬转 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讜讘诪讞讝专转 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讞讝专转 谞诪讬 驻讟讜专

搂 The mishna teaches: Under what circumstances does the owner of the animal pay for the benefit that his animal derived? If the animal ate produce in the public square in the area before the storefronts, the owner of the animal pays for the food from which it benefits. 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. Rav said: When the mishna says that the owner of the animal pays for what it damaged, it is referring to a case where the animal turns its head to reach the food but the animal itself is standing completely inside the public domain and it eats while standing there. And Shmuel said: Even if it is standing in the public domain and it turns its head to eat from food placed at the side of the public square, its owner is also exempt, as the animal itself is in the public domain.

讜诇砖诪讜讗诇 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讻讙讜谉 讚砖讘拽转讛 诇专讞讘讛 讜讗讝诇讛 讜拽诪讛 讘爪讬讚讬 专讞讘讛

The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of Shmuel, how can you find a case in which the owner is liable to pay for all of the damage caused when his animal ate from food placed at the side of the public square, as indicated by the mishna? The Gemara answers: For example, when an animal leaves the public square and goes and stands at the side of the public square, and eats the food stored there. In that case its owner certainly pays for what it damaged, as this area is comparable to the property of the injured party.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讘讗驻讬 谞驻砖讛 诪讞讝专转 专讘 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘转 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 驻讟讜专讛 讜诇砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽讛 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚诪讞讬讬讘讗 讻讙讜谉 讚砖讘拽讛 诇专讞讘讛 讜讗讝诇讛 讜拽诪讛 讘爪讬讚讬 专讞讘讛

And there are those who teach this halakha as an independent dispute and not as an explanation of the mishna: If an animal is standing in the public domain and turns its head to eat from food placed at the side of the public square, Rav says: Its owner is liable, and Shmuel says: Its owner is exempt. The Sages asked: But according to the opinion of Shmuel, with regard to that which was said in the mishna, that its owner pays for what it damaged, how can you find a case in which its owner will be liable? The Gemara answers: For example, when an animal leaves the public square and goes and stands at the side of the public square, and eats the food stored there.

诪转讬讘 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪驻转讞 讛讞谞讜转 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖谞讛谞讬转 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讘诪讞讝专转 讜拽讗诪专 (诪专) 诪讛 砖谞讛谞讬转 诪讛 砖谞讛谞讬转 讗讬谉 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽讛 诇讗

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k raises an objection to this explanation of Rav鈥檚 opinion: The mishna says that if the animal ate produce from the entrance of the store, its owner pays for the benefit that the animal derived, as the status of a store entrance is like that of the public domain. How can you find these circumstances? It is obvious that the discussion in this case concerns an animal that turns its head from the public domain to the entrance of the store, and the Master says that the owner of the animal pays for the benefit that the animal derived. Evidently, for the benefit that the animal derived, yes, this is what the owner pays, but he does not pay for that which it damaged.

讛讜讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 诪驻专拽 诇讛 讚拽讬讬诪讗 讘拽专谉 讝讜讬转

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k raised the objection, and he resolved it by explaining that the case in the mishna is one where a store is located on a corner and it is situated in a way that some of the produce there would be in an animal鈥檚 path as it turns the corner, and therefore the animal would not need to turn its head away from the public domain in order to eat the produce.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪讞讝专转 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讞讬讬讘转 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪拽爪讛 诪拽讜诐 诪专砖讜转讜 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

There are those who state a different explanation of the dispute between Rav and Shmuel. In a case where it turns its head to eat from the sides of the public square, everyone agrees that its owner is liable to pay the full cost of the damage. When they disagree it is with regard to a case where one allocates space from his property, as he does not have a use for it, and he adds this space to the public domain by leaving it accessible for the public to use, and the damage took place in that area. The dispute is about whether the area is categorized as private property or the public domain.

讜讛讻讬 讗转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪讞讝专转 讗讘诇 诪拽爪讛 诪拽讜诐 诪专砖讜转讜 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 驻讟讜专讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪讛 诪拽讜诐 诪专砖讜转讜 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讞讬讬讘转

And this is what was stated, meaning this was their dispute: Rav says that in the mishna, they taught that one is liable only in a case where his animal turns its head to the sides of the public square, as this area is categorized as private property, but if one allocated some space from his property and added it to the public domain and the damage happened there, the owner is exempt, as that area is treated as part of the public domain. And Shmuel says: Even if he allocates space from his property and adds it to the public domain, the owner of the animal is liable as the damage took place in an area with the legal status of private property.

诇讬诪讗 讘讘讜专 讘专砖讜转讜 拽诪驻诇讙讬 专讘 讚讗诪专 驻讟讜专 拽住讘专 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转讜 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say they disagree with regard to the question of damage classified as Pit that one dug inside one鈥檚 own domain and then declared the area ownerless? Rav, who says that the owner of the animal is exempt for eating the produce placed in an area that the owner added to the public domain, holds that if one digs a pit or creates an obstacle that can cause damage within his own property and he then declares his property to be ownerless, he is liable for any damage that is caused by the pit, as now that it is in the public domain, he bears the responsibility for it. Similarly, the produce is viewed as if it is in the public domain, and the animal鈥檚 owner is exempt.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 拽住讘专 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转讜 驻讟讜专

And Shmuel, who says that the owner of an animal is liable for eating the produce placed in an area that the owner added to the public domain, holds that if one digs a pit within his own property and he then declares his property to be ownerless, he is exempt, as he dug the pit when the property was his. Similarly, the produce is viewed as if it is in the property of the injured party, and the animal鈥檚 owner is liable.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱

The Gemara rejects this: Rav could have said to you: Actually, I will say to you

讘注诇诪讗 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转讜 驻讟讜专 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗讜 讻诇 讻诪讬谞讱 讚诪拽专讘转 诇讛讜 诇驻讬专讜转讱 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诪讞讬讬讘转 诇讛讜 诇转讜专讗讬

that usually, if one digs a pit within his own property and he then declares his property to be ownerless, he is exempt, as he dug the pit when the property was his. But here it is different, because here the owner of the animal can say to the owner of the produce: It is not all in your power to bring your produce close to the public domain and to also hold my ox liable for eating it.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘注诇诪讗 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转讜 讞讬讬讘 讚讘砖诇诪讗 讘讜专 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讬讛 讗诇讗 驻讬专讜转 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讬讛 讛讗 讞讝讬 诇讛讜

And Shmuel can say: Usually, if one digs a pit or creates an obstacle that can cause damage within his own property and he then declares his property to be ownerless, he is liable for any damage that is caused by the pit. As with regard to the pit, granted, it is possible to say that he was not aware, meaning the injured party was not thinking about the possibility that there may be a pit there that could cause him harm, and therefore the one who dug the pit is liable. But with regard to produce that is spread out over the ground, can it be said that the animal was not aware of it? It cannot be, because the animal sees the produce.

诇讬诪讗 诪讞讝专转 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 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 诪爪讬讚讬 讛专讞讘讛 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讚专讻讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讗诇讗 诇讛诇讱

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that actually, the amoraic dispute about an animal that turns its head and eats produce at the side of the road is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. As it is taught in a baraita: If an animal ate produce from the public square, the owner of the animal pays for the benefit that the animal derived; but if it ate from the sides of the public square, he pays for that which it damaged. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda. But Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Elazar say: It is not typical for an animal to eat in the public domain but only to walk there. Consequently, the owner is liable.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诇讗 诪讞讝专转 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诪讞讝专转 谞诪讬 诪砖诇诐 诪讛 砖谞讛谞讬转 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽讛

Initially, the Gemara understands Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion as also referring to a situation in which the animal eats from the sides of the public square, and since this is so, it seems that the opinion of Rabbi Yosei is the same as that of the first tanna, Rabbi Meir, and the mishna presents their opinions as differing. Rather, it is clear that there is a difference between them with regard to a case in which the animal turns its head to eat. The first tanna holds that with regard to an animal that turns its head, the owner of the animal also pays for the benefit that the animal derived, while Rabbi Yosei holds that he pays for that which it damaged.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讞讝专转 讗讬 讻专讘 讗讬 讻砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讻讗 讘讘注专 讘砖讚讛 讗讞专 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讜讘注专 讘砖讚讛 讗讞专 讜诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诪专 住讘专 讜讘注专 讘砖讚讛 讗讞专 讜诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讛诪讝讬拽

The Gemara rejects this: No, it is possible to say that everyone agrees about the halakha in the case of an animal that turns its head, either in accordance with the opinion of Rav or in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. And here they disagree about the exemption inferred from the verse: 鈥淚t consumed in the field of another鈥 (Exodus 22:4), which renders the owner of an animal liable for damage classified as Eating. One Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that only if it ate from private property is its owner liable, as the verse stating the owner鈥檚 liability means: 鈥淎nd it consumed in the field of another,鈥 but not when it eats in the public domain. And one Sage, Rabbi Yosei, holds it means that even if it ate from the public domain its owner is liable, as the verse stating the owner鈥檚 liability means: 鈥淎nd it consumed in the field of another,鈥 but not when it eats in the domain of the one responsible for the damage; only if the animal ate produce of another that was on the property of the animal鈥檚 owner, is its owner is exempt.

讘专砖讜转 讛诪讝讬拽 诇讬诪讗 驻讬专讱 讘专砖讜转讬 诪讗讬 讘注讬 讗诇讗 讚讗讬诇驻讗 讜专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara challenges this: But not when it eats in the domain of the one responsible for the damage? What is the novelty in this statement? Let the owner of the animal say to the owner of the produce: What is your produce doing on my property? The owner would certainly not be liable if the produce is damaged in that case. Rather, it must be that the difference between them is with regard to the dispute between Ilfa and Rabbi Oshaya concerning an animal that ate produce from the back of another animal or the like. Rabbi Meir holds that one is never liable for damage classified as Eating in the public domain, even if his animal ate from the back of another, and Rabbi Yosei holds that if it ate off the back of another animal, this is equivalent to Eating from the property of the injured party.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讻诇讘 讜讛讙讚讬 砖拽驻爪讜 诪专讗砖 讛讙讙 讜砖讘专讜 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 诪讜注讚讬谉 讛讻诇讘 砖谞讟诇 讞专专讛 讜讛诇讱 诇讙讚讬砖 讗讻诇 讛讞专专讛 讜讛讚诇讬拽 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

MISHNA: With regard to a dog or a goat that jumped from a rooftop and broke vessels while doing so, their owners must pay the full cost of the damage to the vessels because these animals are deemed forewarned concerning to jumping. With regard to a dog that took a cake that had been baked directly on hot coals, and went to a stack of grain to eat it, and it ate the cake and at the same time ignited the stack of grain with a coal that it had taken along with the cake, the owner of the dog must pay the full cost of the damage for the cake, and he must pay for half the cost of the damage to the stack of grain.

讙诪壮 讟注诪讗 讚拽驻爪讜 讛讗 谞驻诇讜 驻讟讜专 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 转讞诇转讜 讘驻砖讬注讛 讜住讜驻讜 讘讗讜谞住 驻讟讜专

GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the mishna: The reason the owners must pay the full cost of the damage is because the animals jumped off the rooftop. This indicates that if they fell off the roof, they would be exempt from all liability despite his obligation to keep them from climbing onto the roof and jumping down from there. Apparently, the tanna holds that in an incident that begins with negligence, meaning carelessness or even an intention to cause damage, and ends in an accident, the one who caused the damage is exempt, as in this case the owner was careless in allowing the animals to go to the rooftop, but since they did not jump off the roof but rather fell accidentally, he is exempt.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛讻诇讘 讜讛讙讚讬 砖拽驻爪讜 诪专讗砖 讛讙讙 讜砖讘专讜 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 谞驻诇讜 驻讟讜专讬谉 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转讞诇转讜 讘驻砖讬注讛 讜住讜驻讜 讘讗讜谞住 驻讟讜专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara notes: This is also taught in a baraita: If a dog or a goat jumped from a rooftop and broke vessels while doing so, their owners must pay the full cost of the damage. If they fell from there, they are exempt from all liability. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that if an incident begins with negligence and ends in an accident, the one who caused the damage is exempt, but according to the one who says that in such a case he is liable, what can be said? It seems that this baraita constitutes conclusive proof against that opinion.

讻讙讜谉 讚诪拽专讘讬 讻诇讬诐 诇讙讘讬 讻讜转诇 讚讻讬 拽驻爪讬 讘拽驻讬爪讛 诇讗 谞驻诇讬 注诇讬讬讛讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 转讞诇转讜 讘驻砖讬注讛 诇讬讻讗

The Gemara answers: The case in the baraita is a case where the vessels were brought close to the wall by their owners, so that when the animals jump off the rooftop in an ordinary leap they do not fall on top of them, and the vessels broke because the animal fell and didn鈥檛 jump. And since in an ordinary circumstance no damage should occur, this case does not even begin with negligence. Since the damage was caused by falling, the entire case is ruled an accident.

讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 驻注诪讬诐 砖讗驻讬诇讜 谞驻诇讜 谞诪讬 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘讻讜转诇 专注讜注 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讚讗讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗住讜拽讬 讚注转讗 讚谞驻讬诇 讗专讞讬 住讜祝 住讜祝 诇讗 谞驻诇 讗专讞讬 讜谞驻讜诇 讗讬谞讛讜 转讞诇转讜 讘驻砖讬注讛 讜住讜驻讜 讘讗讜谞住 讛讜讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘讻讜转诇 爪专

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: Sometimes one can be obligated to pay even in a case where the animals fell from the wall of their owner鈥檚 house. You find such a case where the wall was unstable, and the owner was negligent in allowing the animals to go up to the roof due to the danger of the wall collapsing. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Is it because it should have occurred to him that bricks may fall from the wall and break the vessels? But ultimately, no bricks fell and instead the animals fell, so this is actually a case that begins with negligence and ends in an accident. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state this halakha with regard to a case of a narrow wall, in which case it is clear that if when they climb up there they will fall, and that is why he is liable for the damage they cause by falling.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讻诇讘 讜讛讙讚讬 砖讚诇讙讜 诪诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讚诐 讜转专谞讙讜诇 砖讚诇讙讜 讘讬谉 诪诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 讘讬谉 诪诇诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉

The Sages taught in a baraita: If a dog or a goat jumped from below to something that was above them and thereby caused damage, their owners are exempt, as this is atypical behavior. But if they jumped from above to below, their owners are liable to pay the full cost of any damage they cause, as this is typical behavior. If a person or a chicken jumped and broke something, regardless of whether they jumped from above to below or from below to above, they are liable.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 21

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 21

讻讛讚讬讜讟 诪讚注转 讚诪讬

is similar to an action involving non-sacred property belonging to an ordinary person, which was performed with the owner鈥檚 knowledge and against his wishes. This is because consecrated property belongs to the Almighty, and it is therefore meaningless to speak of a situation where the owner is unaware of what is being done. Consequently, anyone who derives benefit from consecrated property is in violation of the prohibition of misuse, but it cannot be inferred from this that one who resides in another鈥檚 courtyard without his knowledge must pay him rent.

砖诇讞 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讝讘讚讗 诇诪专讬 讘专 诪专 讘注讬 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讚专 讘讞爪专 讞讘讬专讜 砖诇讗 诪讚注转讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛注诇讜转 诇讜 砖讻专 讗讜 诇讗 讗讚讛讻讬 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗

Rabbi Abba bar Zavda sent a message to Mari bar Mar saying: Raise the following dilemma before Rav Huna: Does one who resides in another鈥檚 courtyard without his knowledge need to pay him rent or not? In the meantime, before he was able to respond to the question, Rav Huna died.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讗讘讗 诪专讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛注诇讜转 诇讜 砖讻专 讜讛砖讜讻专 讘讬转 诪专讗讜讘谉 诪注诇讛 砖讻专 诇砖诪注讜谉 砖诪注讜谉 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 谞诪爪讗 讛讘讬转 砖诇 砖诪注讜谉 诪注诇讛 诇讜 砖讻专

Rabba, son of Rav Huna, said to him in response to the question that was asked of his father: So did my father, my Master, say in the name of Rav: He does not need to pay him rent. And he also stated another halakha: One who rents a house from Reuven must pay rent to Shimon. The Gemara is puzzled: Shimon? What does he have to do with this? The Gemara explains: This is what he is saying, i.e., what he means: If it is discovered that the house he rented did not actually belong to Reuven but rather it was Shimon鈥檚, he must pay rent to Shimon.

转专转讬 讛讗 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇讗讙专讗 讛讗 讚诇讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇讗讙专讗

The Gemara questions this statement: Did Rav Huna state two contradictory halakhot? On the one hand he says that one who resides in a courtyard without the owner鈥檚 knowledge does not need to pay rent, but on the other hand he says that if it is discovered that the true owner of a rented house was someone else, and therefore the tenant was living in another鈥檚 courtyard without the owner鈥檚 knowledge, he is obligated to pay him rent. The Gemara resolves the difficulty: This second halakha, which stated that he is obligated to pay rent, is referring to a courtyard that stands to be rented out, while that halakha, which stated that he is not obligated to pay rent, is referring to a courtyard that does not stand to be rented out.

讗转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讚专 讘讞爪专 讞讘讬专讜 砖诇讗 诪讚注转讜 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛注诇讜转 诇讜 砖讻专 讜讛砖讜讻专 讘讬转 诪讘谞讬 讛注讬专 诪注诇讛 砖讻专 诇讘注诇讬诐 讘注诇讬诐 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讬讛讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 谞诪爪讗讜 诇讜 讘注诇讬诐 诪注诇讬谉 诇讛谉 砖讻专

It was also stated: Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin says that Rav says, and some say that Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin says that Rav Huna says: One who resides in another鈥檚 courtyard without his knowledge does not need to pay him rent, and one who rents a house from the residents of the city must pay rent to the owners. The Gemara is puzzled: Owners? What do they have to do with this? The case concerns one who rents a property from the residents of the city, i.e., the house is public property. The Gemara explains: This is what he said: If it is discovered that the house did have owners and was not public property, the renters must pay rent to those owners.

转专转讬 讛讗 讚拽讬讬诪讗 诇讗讙专讗 讛讗 讚诇讗 拽讬讬诪讗 诇讗讙专讗

The Gemara wonders about this: Did he state two contradictory halakhot? The Gemara answers: This second halakha, which stated that he is obligated to pay rent, is referring to a courtyard that stands to be rented out, while that halakha, which stated that he does not need to pay rent, is referring to a courtyard that does not stand to be rented out.

讗诪专 专讘 住讞讜专讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛讚专 讘讞爪专 讞讘讬专讜 砖诇讗 诪讚注转讜 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛注诇讜转 诇讜 砖讻专 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜砖讗讬讛 讬讜讻转 砖注专 讗诪专 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讚讬讚讬 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讜诪谞讙讞 讻讬 转讜专讗 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讘讬转讗 诪讬转讘讗 讬转讬讘

Rav Se岣ra says that Rav Huna says that Rav says: One who resides in another鈥檚 courtyard without his knowledge does not need to pay him rent because it is stated: 鈥淒esolation remains in the city, and the gate is stricken unto ruin鈥 (Isaiah 24:12), i.e., a house that is not lived in will collapse at some point due to neglect. Consequently, one who lives inside an otherwise uninhabited house is providing a service to the homeowner, as he maintains the house and prevents it from falling apart. Mar bar Rav Ashi said: I saw this ruin and it gores like an ox, i.e., it is devastating. Rav Yosef stated a similar idea: A home that is lived in is settled and safeguarded, while a home that is not lived in has no one to look after it and maintain it.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚拽讗 诪砖转诪砖 讘讬讛 讘爪讬讘讬 讜转讬讘谞讗

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between what Rav said and what Rav Yosef said? The Gemara answers: The difference between them is with regard to a house that the homeowner uses to store wood and straw. The house is not empty and desolate but there is nobody living in it. According to Rav Yosef鈥檚 reasoning, a squatter there would not have to pay rent to the homeowner.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讘谞讛 讗驻讚谞讗 讗拽讬诇拽诇转讗 讚讬转诪讬 讗讙讘讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗驻讚谞讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛 诇讬诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讚专 讘讞爪专 讞讘讬专讜 砖诇讗 诪讚注转讜 爪专讬讱 诇讛注诇讜转 诇讜 砖讻专 讛讛讜讗 诪注讬拽专讗 拽专诪谞讗讬 讛讜讜 讚讬讬专讬 讘讬讛 讜讬讛讘讬 诇讛讜 诇讬转诪讬 讚讘专 诪讜注讟 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 驻讬讬住讬谞讛讜 诇讬转诪讬 讜诇讗 讗砖讙讞 讗讙讘讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讗驻讚谞讬讛 诪讬谞讬讛

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who built a mansion [apadna] on a garbage heap [akilkalta] belonging to orphans, and Rav Na岣an confiscated his mansion from him as he did not pay the owners of the property. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Rav Na岣an holds that one who resides in another鈥檚 courtyard without his knowledge must pay him rent? The Gemara rejects this: No, there is no proof taken from this case, because it was a unique situation. In that case Carmanians, nomadic tribes, were initially living on the property, and they would pay the orphans a small amount for the use of the land, and when this man built his mansion he removed the Carmanians from there. Rav Na岣an had said to the man who built the mansion: Go and appease the orphans with regard to their lost income, but he did not pay attention to the ruling. Therefore, Rav Na岣an confiscated his mansion from him.

讻讬爪讚 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖谞讛谞讬转 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讜讘诪讞讝专转 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讞讝专转 谞诪讬 驻讟讜专

搂 The mishna teaches: Under what circumstances does the owner of the animal pay for the benefit that his animal derived? If the animal ate produce in the public square in the area before the storefronts, the owner of the animal pays for the food from which it benefits. 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. Rav said: When the mishna says that the owner of the animal pays for what it damaged, it is referring to a case where the animal turns its head to reach the food but the animal itself is standing completely inside the public domain and it eats while standing there. And Shmuel said: Even if it is standing in the public domain and it turns its head to eat from food placed at the side of the public square, its owner is also exempt, as the animal itself is in the public domain.

讜诇砖诪讜讗诇 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚诪讞讬讬讘 讻讙讜谉 讚砖讘拽转讛 诇专讞讘讛 讜讗讝诇讛 讜拽诪讛 讘爪讬讚讬 专讞讘讛

The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of Shmuel, how can you find a case in which the owner is liable to pay for all of the damage caused when his animal ate from food placed at the side of the public square, as indicated by the mishna? The Gemara answers: For example, when an animal leaves the public square and goes and stands at the side of the public square, and eats the food stored there. In that case its owner certainly pays for what it damaged, as this area is comparable to the property of the injured party.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛讗 砖诪注转讗 讘讗驻讬 谞驻砖讛 诪讞讝专转 专讘 讗诪专 讞讬讬讘转 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 驻讟讜专讛 讜诇砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽讛 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚诪讞讬讬讘讗 讻讙讜谉 讚砖讘拽讛 诇专讞讘讛 讜讗讝诇讛 讜拽诪讛 讘爪讬讚讬 专讞讘讛

And there are those who teach this halakha as an independent dispute and not as an explanation of the mishna: If an animal is standing in the public domain and turns its head to eat from food placed at the side of the public square, Rav says: Its owner is liable, and Shmuel says: Its owner is exempt. The Sages asked: But according to the opinion of Shmuel, with regard to that which was said in the mishna, that its owner pays for what it damaged, how can you find a case in which its owner will be liable? The Gemara answers: For example, when an animal leaves the public square and goes and stands at the side of the public square, and eats the food stored there.

诪转讬讘 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪驻转讞 讛讞谞讜转 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖谞讛谞讬转 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 驻砖讬讟讗 讘诪讞讝专转 讜拽讗诪专 (诪专) 诪讛 砖谞讛谞讬转 诪讛 砖谞讛谞讬转 讗讬谉 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽讛 诇讗

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k raises an objection to this explanation of Rav鈥檚 opinion: The mishna says that if the animal ate produce from the entrance of the store, its owner pays for the benefit that the animal derived, as the status of a store entrance is like that of the public domain. How can you find these circumstances? It is obvious that the discussion in this case concerns an animal that turns its head from the public domain to the entrance of the store, and the Master says that the owner of the animal pays for the benefit that the animal derived. Evidently, for the benefit that the animal derived, yes, this is what the owner pays, but he does not pay for that which it damaged.

讛讜讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 诪驻专拽 诇讛 讚拽讬讬诪讗 讘拽专谉 讝讜讬转

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k raised the objection, and he resolved it by explaining that the case in the mishna is one where a store is located on a corner and it is situated in a way that some of the produce there would be in an animal鈥檚 path as it turns the corner, and therefore the animal would not need to turn its head away from the public domain in order to eat the produce.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诪讞讝专转 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讞讬讬讘转 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘诪拽爪讛 诪拽讜诐 诪专砖讜转讜 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

There are those who state a different explanation of the dispute between Rav and Shmuel. In a case where it turns its head to eat from the sides of the public square, everyone agrees that its owner is liable to pay the full cost of the damage. When they disagree it is with regard to a case where one allocates space from his property, as he does not have a use for it, and he adds this space to the public domain by leaving it accessible for the public to use, and the damage took place in that area. The dispute is about whether the area is categorized as private property or the public domain.

讜讛讻讬 讗转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪讞讝专转 讗讘诇 诪拽爪讛 诪拽讜诐 诪专砖讜转讜 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 驻讟讜专讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪拽爪讛 诪拽讜诐 诪专砖讜转讜 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讞讬讬讘转

And this is what was stated, meaning this was their dispute: Rav says that in the mishna, they taught that one is liable only in a case where his animal turns its head to the sides of the public square, as this area is categorized as private property, but if one allocated some space from his property and added it to the public domain and the damage happened there, the owner is exempt, as that area is treated as part of the public domain. And Shmuel says: Even if he allocates space from his property and adds it to the public domain, the owner of the animal is liable as the damage took place in an area with the legal status of private property.

诇讬诪讗 讘讘讜专 讘专砖讜转讜 拽诪驻诇讙讬 专讘 讚讗诪专 驻讟讜专 拽住讘专 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转讜 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara suggests: Shall we say they disagree with regard to the question of damage classified as Pit that one dug inside one鈥檚 own domain and then declared the area ownerless? Rav, who says that the owner of the animal is exempt for eating the produce placed in an area that the owner added to the public domain, holds that if one digs a pit or creates an obstacle that can cause damage within his own property and he then declares his property to be ownerless, he is liable for any damage that is caused by the pit, as now that it is in the public domain, he bears the responsibility for it. Similarly, the produce is viewed as if it is in the public domain, and the animal鈥檚 owner is exempt.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 拽住讘专 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转讜 驻讟讜专

And Shmuel, who says that the owner of an animal is liable for eating the produce placed in an area that the owner added to the public domain, holds that if one digs a pit within his own property and he then declares his property to be ownerless, he is exempt, as he dug the pit when the property was his. Similarly, the produce is viewed as if it is in the property of the injured party, and the animal鈥檚 owner is liable.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱

The Gemara rejects this: Rav could have said to you: Actually, I will say to you

讘注诇诪讗 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转讜 驻讟讜专 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗讜 讻诇 讻诪讬谞讱 讚诪拽专讘转 诇讛讜 诇驻讬专讜转讱 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诪讞讬讬讘转 诇讛讜 诇转讜专讗讬

that usually, if one digs a pit within his own property and he then declares his property to be ownerless, he is exempt, as he dug the pit when the property was his. But here it is different, because here the owner of the animal can say to the owner of the produce: It is not all in your power to bring your produce close to the public domain and to also hold my ox liable for eating it.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讘注诇诪讗 讘讜专 讘专砖讜转讜 讞讬讬讘 讚讘砖诇诪讗 讘讜专 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讬讛 讗诇讗 驻讬专讜转 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讬讛 讛讗 讞讝讬 诇讛讜

And Shmuel can say: Usually, if one digs a pit or creates an obstacle that can cause damage within his own property and he then declares his property to be ownerless, he is liable for any damage that is caused by the pit. As with regard to the pit, granted, it is possible to say that he was not aware, meaning the injured party was not thinking about the possibility that there may be a pit there that could cause him harm, and therefore the one who dug the pit is liable. But with regard to produce that is spread out over the ground, can it be said that the animal was not aware of it? It cannot be, because the animal sees the produce.

诇讬诪讗 诪讞讝专转 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 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 诪爪讬讚讬 讛专讞讘讛 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讚专讻讛 诇讗讻讜诇 讗诇讗 诇讛诇讱

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that actually, the amoraic dispute about an animal that turns its head and eats produce at the side of the road is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. As it is taught in a baraita: If an animal ate produce from the public square, the owner of the animal pays for the benefit that the animal derived; but if it ate from the sides of the public square, he pays for that which it damaged. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda. But Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Elazar say: It is not typical for an animal to eat in the public domain but only to walk there. Consequently, the owner is liable.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诇讗 诪讞讝专转 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 诪讞讝专转 谞诪讬 诪砖诇诐 诪讛 砖谞讛谞讬转 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 住讘专 诪砖诇诪转 诪讛 砖讛讝讬拽讛

Initially, the Gemara understands Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion as also referring to a situation in which the animal eats from the sides of the public square, and since this is so, it seems that the opinion of Rabbi Yosei is the same as that of the first tanna, Rabbi Meir, and the mishna presents their opinions as differing. Rather, it is clear that there is a difference between them with regard to a case in which the animal turns its head to eat. The first tanna holds that with regard to an animal that turns its head, the owner of the animal also pays for the benefit that the animal derived, while Rabbi Yosei holds that he pays for that which it damaged.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪讞讝专转 讗讬 讻专讘 讗讬 讻砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讻讗 讘讘注专 讘砖讚讛 讗讞专 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讜讘注专 讘砖讚讛 讗讞专 讜诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诪专 住讘专 讜讘注专 讘砖讚讛 讗讞专 讜诇讗 讘专砖讜转 讛诪讝讬拽

The Gemara rejects this: No, it is possible to say that everyone agrees about the halakha in the case of an animal that turns its head, either in accordance with the opinion of Rav or in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. And here they disagree about the exemption inferred from the verse: 鈥淚t consumed in the field of another鈥 (Exodus 22:4), which renders the owner of an animal liable for damage classified as Eating. One Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that only if it ate from private property is its owner liable, as the verse stating the owner鈥檚 liability means: 鈥淎nd it consumed in the field of another,鈥 but not when it eats in the public domain. And one Sage, Rabbi Yosei, holds it means that even if it ate from the public domain its owner is liable, as the verse stating the owner鈥檚 liability means: 鈥淎nd it consumed in the field of another,鈥 but not when it eats in the domain of the one responsible for the damage; only if the animal ate produce of another that was on the property of the animal鈥檚 owner, is its owner is exempt.

讘专砖讜转 讛诪讝讬拽 诇讬诪讗 驻讬专讱 讘专砖讜转讬 诪讗讬 讘注讬 讗诇讗 讚讗讬诇驻讗 讜专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

The Gemara challenges this: But not when it eats in the domain of the one responsible for the damage? What is the novelty in this statement? Let the owner of the animal say to the owner of the produce: What is your produce doing on my property? The owner would certainly not be liable if the produce is damaged in that case. Rather, it must be that the difference between them is with regard to the dispute between Ilfa and Rabbi Oshaya concerning an animal that ate produce from the back of another animal or the like. Rabbi Meir holds that one is never liable for damage classified as Eating in the public domain, even if his animal ate from the back of another, and Rabbi Yosei holds that if it ate off the back of another animal, this is equivalent to Eating from the property of the injured party.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讻诇讘 讜讛讙讚讬 砖拽驻爪讜 诪专讗砖 讛讙讙 讜砖讘专讜 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 诪讜注讚讬谉 讛讻诇讘 砖谞讟诇 讞专专讛 讜讛诇讱 诇讙讚讬砖 讗讻诇 讛讞专专讛 讜讛讚诇讬拽 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

MISHNA: With regard to a dog or a goat that jumped from a rooftop and broke vessels while doing so, their owners must pay the full cost of the damage to the vessels because these animals are deemed forewarned concerning to jumping. With regard to a dog that took a cake that had been baked directly on hot coals, and went to a stack of grain to eat it, and it ate the cake and at the same time ignited the stack of grain with a coal that it had taken along with the cake, the owner of the dog must pay the full cost of the damage for the cake, and he must pay for half the cost of the damage to the stack of grain.

讙诪壮 讟注诪讗 讚拽驻爪讜 讛讗 谞驻诇讜 驻讟讜专 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 转讞诇转讜 讘驻砖讬注讛 讜住讜驻讜 讘讗讜谞住 驻讟讜专

GEMARA: The Gemara infers from the mishna: The reason the owners must pay the full cost of the damage is because the animals jumped off the rooftop. This indicates that if they fell off the roof, they would be exempt from all liability despite his obligation to keep them from climbing onto the roof and jumping down from there. Apparently, the tanna holds that in an incident that begins with negligence, meaning carelessness or even an intention to cause damage, and ends in an accident, the one who caused the damage is exempt, as in this case the owner was careless in allowing the animals to go to the rooftop, but since they did not jump off the roof but rather fell accidentally, he is exempt.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛讻诇讘 讜讛讙讚讬 砖拽驻爪讜 诪专讗砖 讛讙讙 讜砖讘专讜 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 诪砖诇诐 谞讝拽 砖诇诐 谞驻诇讜 驻讟讜专讬谉 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转讞诇转讜 讘驻砖讬注讛 讜住讜驻讜 讘讗讜谞住 驻讟讜专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara notes: This is also taught in a baraita: If a dog or a goat jumped from a rooftop and broke vessels while doing so, their owners must pay the full cost of the damage. If they fell from there, they are exempt from all liability. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that if an incident begins with negligence and ends in an accident, the one who caused the damage is exempt, but according to the one who says that in such a case he is liable, what can be said? It seems that this baraita constitutes conclusive proof against that opinion.

讻讙讜谉 讚诪拽专讘讬 讻诇讬诐 诇讙讘讬 讻讜转诇 讚讻讬 拽驻爪讬 讘拽驻讬爪讛 诇讗 谞驻诇讬 注诇讬讬讛讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 转讞诇转讜 讘驻砖讬注讛 诇讬讻讗

The Gemara answers: The case in the baraita is a case where the vessels were brought close to the wall by their owners, so that when the animals jump off the rooftop in an ordinary leap they do not fall on top of them, and the vessels broke because the animal fell and didn鈥檛 jump. And since in an ordinary circumstance no damage should occur, this case does not even begin with negligence. Since the damage was caused by falling, the entire case is ruled an accident.

讗诪专 专讘 讝讘讬讚 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 驻注诪讬诐 砖讗驻讬诇讜 谞驻诇讜 谞诪讬 讞讬讬讘 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘讻讜转诇 专注讜注 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讚讗讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗住讜拽讬 讚注转讗 讚谞驻讬诇 讗专讞讬 住讜祝 住讜祝 诇讗 谞驻诇 讗专讞讬 讜谞驻讜诇 讗讬谞讛讜 转讞诇转讜 讘驻砖讬注讛 讜住讜驻讜 讘讗讜谞住 讛讜讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘讻讜转诇 爪专

Rav Zevid said in the name of Rava: Sometimes one can be obligated to pay even in a case where the animals fell from the wall of their owner鈥檚 house. You find such a case where the wall was unstable, and the owner was negligent in allowing the animals to go up to the roof due to the danger of the wall collapsing. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Is it because it should have occurred to him that bricks may fall from the wall and break the vessels? But ultimately, no bricks fell and instead the animals fell, so this is actually a case that begins with negligence and ends in an accident. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state this halakha with regard to a case of a narrow wall, in which case it is clear that if when they climb up there they will fall, and that is why he is liable for the damage they cause by falling.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讻诇讘 讜讛讙讚讬 砖讚诇讙讜 诪诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 驻讟讜专讬谉 诪诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讗讚诐 讜转专谞讙讜诇 砖讚诇讙讜 讘讬谉 诪诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 讘讬谉 诪诇诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉

The Sages taught in a baraita: If a dog or a goat jumped from below to something that was above them and thereby caused damage, their owners are exempt, as this is atypical behavior. But if they jumped from above to below, their owners are liable to pay the full cost of any damage they cause, as this is typical behavior. If a person or a chicken jumped and broke something, regardless of whether they jumped from above to below or from below to above, they are liable.

Scroll To Top