Commentary for Bava Kamma 41:16

והכי אתמר אמר רב ל"ש אלא מחזרת אבל מקצה מקום מרשותו לרה"ר פטורה ושמואל אמר אפילו מקצה מקום מרשותו לרשות הרבים חייבת

But according to Samuel, how then can it happen that there will be liability to pay for actual damage? — Only when, e.g., the animal had quitted the market place altogether and walked right into the sideways of the market place. There are some [authorities] who read this argument [between Rab and Samuel] independent of any [Mishnaic] text: In the case of an animal [standing in a market place but] turning its head into the sideways [and unlawfully consuming food which was lying there], Rab maintains that there will be liability [for the actual damage] whereas Samuel says that there will be no liability [for the actual damage]. But according to Samuel, how then can it happen that there will be liability to pay for actual damage? — Only when, e.g., the animal had quitted the market place altogether and had walked right into the sideways of the market place. R. Nahman b. Isaac raised an objection: [SO ALSO IF IT CONSUMED] AT THE ENTRANCE OF A SHOP, PAYMENT TO THE EXTENT OF THE BENEFIT WILL BE MADE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 94. ');">¹²</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 41:16. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.