Commentary for Bava Kamma 35:7

אלא לאו רבנן היא ש"מ בתר מעיקרא אזלינן

This Baraitha must therefore be in accordance with Symmachus, who maintains that also in the case of Pebbles full payment must be made. But if it is in accordance with Symmachus, read the concluding clause: Were a fragment of the broken bucket to fly and fall upon another utensil, breaking it, the payment for the former [i.e., the bucket] must be in full, but for the latter only half damages will be paid. Now does Symmachus ever recognise half damages [in the case of Pebbles]? If you, however, submit that there is a difference according to Symmachus between damage occasioned by direct force<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as in the case of a bucket upon which pebbles were thrown directly by an animal. ');">⁷</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 35:7. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.