Commentary for Bava Kamma 38:2

והאמרת עקירה אין כאן הנחה יש כאן א"ל הדרי בי איבעית אימא כי אמר רבי יוחנן אקרן

But behold R. Johanan said that in regard to the liability of half damages there is no distinction between the plaintiff's premises and public ground. Now, does not this statement also deal with a case where the pebbles were made both to fly up on public ground and to do damage on public ground? — No, though the pebbles were made to fly up on public ground, the damage resulted on the plaintiff's premises. But did you not say [that in such a case there would still be exemption on account of the argument], 'If the cause of raising [the pebbles] is not there [to institute liability], how could any liability be attached to the falling down [of the pebbles]?' — He answered him: 'I have since changed my mind [on this matter].' Alternatively, you might say that R. Johanan referred only to [the liability attached to] Horn.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where indeed there is no distinction between public ground and the plaintiff's premises; (cf. however, the views of R. Tarfon, supra 14a; 18a and infra 24b), but in regard to Pebbles, there is a distinction, and liability is restricted to the plaintiff's premises, according to the ruling of R. Zera. ');">¹</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 38:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.