Commentary for Bava Kamma 38:19

חיה בשר אורחיה הוא דמטוי ואיבעית אימא בטביא ואיבעית אימא לעולם בבהמה ובפתורא

[IT IS <i>MU'AD</i>] TO CONSUME WHATEVER IS FIT FOR IT. ANIMAL IS MUA'D TO CONSUME BOTH FRUITS AND VEGETABLES. BUT IF IT HAS DESTROYED CLOTHES OR UTENSILS, [ONLY] HALF DAMAGES WILL BE PAID.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For being an unusual act, it comes under the category of Horn. ');">¹⁷</span> THIS RULING APPLIES ONLY TO DAMAGE DONE ON THE PLAINTIFF'S PREMISES, BUT IF IT IS DONE ON PUBLIC GROUND THERE WOULD BE EXEMPTION.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 17. ');">¹⁸</span> WHERE, HOWEVER, THE ANIMAL HAS DERIVED SOME BENEFIT [FROM THE DAMAGE DONE BY IT], PAYMENT WILL [IN ANY CASE] BE MADE TO THE EXTENT OF THE BENEFIT. WHEN WILL PAYMENT BE MADE TO THE EXTENT OF THE BENEFIT? IF IT CONSUMED [FOOD] IN THE MARKET, PAYMENT TO THE EXTENT OF THE BENEFIT WILL BE MADE; [BUT IF IT CONSUMED] IN THE SIDEWAYS OF THE MARKET, THE PAYMENT WILL BE FOR THE ACTUAL DAMAGE DONE BY THE ANIMAL. [SO ALSO IF IT CONSUMED] AT THE ENTRANCE OF A SHOP, PAYMENT TO THE EXTENT OF THE BENEFIT WILL BE MADE, [BUT IF IT CONSUMED] INSIDE THE SHOP, THE PAYMENT WILL BE FOR THE ACTUAL DAMAGE DONE BY THE ANIMAL. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Our Rabbis taught: Tooth is <i>Mu'ad</i> to consume whatever is fit for it. How is that? In the case of an animal entering the plaintiff's premises and consuming food that is fit for it or drinking liquids that are fit for it, the payment will be in full. Similarly in the case of a wild beast entering the plaintiff's premises, tearing an animal to pieces and consuming its flesh, the payment will be in full. So also in the case of a cow consuming barley, an ass consuming horse-beans, a dog licking oil, or a pig consuming a piece of meat, the payment will be in full. R. Papa [thereupon] said: Since it has been stated that things which in the usual way would be unfit as food [for particular animals] but which under pressing circumstances are consumed by them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., horse-beans by an ass, or meat by a pig. ');">¹⁹</span> come under the designation of food, in the case of a cat consuming dates, and an ass consuming fish, the payment will similarly be in full. There was a case where an ass consumed bread and chewed also the basket<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or 'split it', 'picked it to pieces' (Rashi). ');">²⁰</span> [in which the bread had been kept]. Rab Judah thereupon ordered full payment for the bread, but only half damages for the basket. Why can it not be argued that since it was usual for the ass to consume the bread, it was similarly usual for it to chew at the same time the basket too? — It was only after it had already completed consuming the bread, that the ass chewed the basket. But could bread be considered the usual food of an animal? Here is [a Baraitha] which contradicts this: If it [the animal] consumed bread, meat or broth, only half damages will be paid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the ground that the act was unusual and as such would come under the category of Horn. ');">²¹</span> Now, does not this ruling refer to [a domestic] animal?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This shows that bread is not the usual food of animal. ');">²²</span> — No, it refers to a wild beast. To a wild beast? Is not meat its usual food? — The meat was roasted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is in such a state not usually consumed even by a wild beast. ');">²³</span> Alternatively, you may say: It refers to a deer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which, as a rule, does not feed on meat. ');">²⁴</span> You may still further say alternatively that it refers to a [domestic] animal, but the bread was consumed upon a table.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was indeed unusual. ');">²⁵</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 38:19. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.