Commentary for Bava Kamma 41:19

אמר לך רב לעולם אימא לך

answered it: The entrance to the shop might have been at a corner [in which case the animal had access to the food placed there without having to turn its head]. There are some [authorities], however, who say that in the case of an animal turning [its head to the sideways of the market place] there was never any argument whatsoever that there would be liability [for the actual damage done]. The point at issue between Rab and Samuel was in the case of a plaintiff who left unfenced a part of his site abutting on public ground, and the statement ran as follows: Rab said that the liability for the actual damage done could arise only in a case where [the food was placed in the sideways of the market to which] the animal turned [its head]. But in the case of a plaintiff leaving unfenced a part of his site abutting on public ground [and spreading out there fruits which were consumed by the defendant's animal] there would be no liability to pay [for the loss sustained].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But only for the benefit the animal derived from the fruits. ');">¹⁵</span> Samuel, however, said that even in the case of a plaintiff leaving unfenced a part of his site abutting on to the public ground, there would be liability to pay [for the loss sustained]. Might it not be suggested that the basic issue [between Rab and Samuel] would be that of a defendant having dug a pit on his own site [and while abandoning the site still retains his ownership of the pit]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fruits kept near the public ground are a public nuisance and equal a pit, the ownership of which was retained and which was dug on a site to which the public has full access. ');">¹⁶</span> Rab who here upholds exemption [for the loss sustained by the owner of the fruits] maintains that a pit dug on one's own site is subject to the law of Pit [so that fruits left on an unfenced site adjoining the public ground constitute a nuisance which may in fact be abated by all and everybody],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. infra 30a. ');">¹⁷</span> whereas Samuel who declares liability [for the loss sustained by the owner of the fruits] would maintain that a pit dug on one's own site could never be subject to the law of Pit!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the pit still remains private property. ');">¹⁸</span> — Rab could, however, [refute this suggestion and] reason thus: [In spite of your argument] I may nevertheless maintain

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 41:19. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.