Commentary for Bava Kamma 34:9
צרורות מאן דכר שמיהו חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני צרורות כי אורחייהו חצי נזק וחזיר שהיה נובר באשפה והתיז והזיק משלם חצי נזק סומכוס אומר צרורות וחזיר שהיה נובר באשפה והתיז והזיק משלם נזק שלם
— What a comparison! There [in the case of Tooth] where both [beast and cattle] are Principals, that which is introduced by means of interpretation is preferable; but here [in the case of Foot], how could the Principal be deferred and the derivative placed first?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Foot' is therefore put in the first place. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
Tosafot on Bava Kamma
It seems that if a person throws a rock or arrow towards a vessel and another person comes along and shatters the vessel before the projectile strikes it, certainly the one who shattered the vessel (and not the one who threw the rock) is liable. In this instance we do not apply the rationale of “the second one broke the vessel.” simple logic call for us to distinguish between throwing a rock (toward a vessel) and throwing the vessel itself.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy