Commentary for Bava Kamma 36:18

מאי לאו כגון דעבד תלתא זימני

but where the Kal wa-<i>homer</i> would not be rendered ineffective he too upholds Dayyo.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The full payment in the case of Tam on the plaintiff's premises which is deduced from the Hal wa-homer, will therefore be collected only out of the body of the tort-feasant animal, on the strength of the Dayyo. ');">¹⁷</span> To revert to the previous theme:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 85. ');">¹⁸</span> Raba asked: Is there such a thing as becoming <i>Mu'ad</i> regarding [the law of] Pebbles, or is there no such thing as becoming <i>Mu'ad</i> in the case of Pebbles? Do we compare Pebbles to Horn [which is subject to the law of <i>Mu'ad</i>] or do we not do so since the law of Pebbles is a derivative of Foot<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 3b; v. also p. 85, n. 5. ');">¹⁹</span> [to which the law of <i>Mu'ad</i> has no application]? Come and hear: 'Hopping is not <i>Mu'ad</i> [with poultry]. Some, however, say: It is <i>Mu'ad</i>.' Could 'hopping' be thought [in any way not to be habitual with poultry]? It, therefore, of course means 'Hopping and making thereby [pebbles] fly.' Now, does it not deal with a case where the same act has been repeated three times, so that the point at issue between the authorities will be that the one Master [the latter] maintains that the law of <i>Mu'ad</i> applies [also to Pebbles] whereas the other Master [the former] holds that the law of <i>Mu'ad</i> does not apply [to Pebbles]? — No, it presents a case where no repetition took place; the point at issue between them being the same as between Symmachus and the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., whether the payment for Pebbles generally be in full or half; cf. supra 17b. ');">²⁰</span> Come and hear: In the case of an animal dropping excrements into dough. R. Judah maintains that the payment must be in full, but R. Eleazar says that only half damages will be paid. Now, does it not deal here with a case where the act has been repeated three times, so that the point at issue between the authorities will be that R. Judah maintains that the animal has thus become <i>Mu'ad</i> whereas R. Eleazar holds that it has not become <i>Mu'ad</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus the problem propounded by Raba is a point at issue between Tannaim. ');">²¹</span> — No, it deals with a case where no repetition took place, the point at issue between them being the same which is between Symmachus and the Rabbis. But is it not unusual [with an animal to do so]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case must accordingly come under the category of Horn where only half damages should he paid in the first three occasions. ');">²²</span> — The animal was pressed for space [in which case it is no more unusual]. But why should not R. Judah have explicitly stated that the <i>Halachah</i> is in accordance with Symmachus and similarly R. Eleazar should have stated that the <i>Halachah</i> is in accordance with the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why deal at all with the specific case of an animal dropping excrements? ');">²³</span> — [A specific ruling in regard to] excrements is of importance, for otherwise you might have thought that since these [excrements formed a part of the animal and] were poured out from its body, they should still be considered as a part of its body,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Any damage done by them should thus be compensated in full on the analogy of any other derivative of Foot proper. ');">²⁴</span> it has therefore been made known to us that this is not so.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it does not come under the category of Foot proper but under that of Pebbles. ');">²⁵</span> Come and hear: Rami b. Ezekiel learned:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Kid. 24b. ');">²⁶</span> In the case of a cock putting its head into an empty utensil of glass where it crowed so that the utensil thereby broke, the payment must be in full, while R. Joseph on the other hand said<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Kid. 24b. ');">²⁶</span> that it has been stated in the School of Rab that in the case of a horse neighing or an ass braying so that utensils were thereby broken, only half damages will be paid. Now, does it not mean that the same act has already been repeated three times,

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 36:18. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.