Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Commentary for Bava Kamma 34:16

תניא כותיה דרבא בהמה מועדת לשבר בדרך הלוכה כיצד בהמה שנכנסה לחצר הניזק והזיקה בגופה דרך הלוכה ובשערה דרך הלוכה באוכף שעליה ובשליף שעליה ובפרומביא שבפיה ובזוג שבצוארה וחמור במשאו ועגלה מושכת בקרון משלם נזק שלם

— Read therefore: 'When it had caused [something of the dunghill] to fly out so that damage resulted therefrom, the payment will be in full.' But have Pebbles ever been mentioned [in this Baraitha, that Symmachus makes reference to them]? — There is something missing [in the text of the Baraitha where] the reading should be as follows: Pebbles, though being quite usual [with cattle, involve nevertheless] only half-damages; in the case of a pig digging in a dunghill and causing [something of it] to fly out so that damage resulted therefrom, only half-damages will therefore be paid. Symmachus, however, says: In the case of Pebbles, and similarly in the case of a pig digging in a dunghill and causing [something of it] to fly out so that damage resulted therefrom, the payment must he in full.

Tosafot on Bava Kamma

It seems that if a person throws a rock or arrow towards a vessel and another person comes along and shatters the vessel before the projectile strikes it, certainly the one who shattered the vessel (and not the one who threw the rock) is liable. In this instance we do not apply the rationale of “the second one broke the vessel.” simple logic call for us to distinguish between throwing a rock (toward a vessel) and throwing the vessel itself.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse