Commentary for Bava Kamma 42:12

תנו רבנן הכלב והגדי שדלגו ממטה למעלה פטורין מלמעלה למטה חייבין אדם ותרנגול שדלגו בין מלמעלה למטה בין מלמטה למעלה חייבין

but how could the ruling be explained according to the view that upholds liability? — The ruling may refer to a case where the utensils had, for example, been placed very near to the wall so that were the animal to have jumped it would by jumping have missed them altogether; in which case there was not even negligence at the beginning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But mere accident all through. ');">¹⁹</span> R. Zebid in the name of Raba, however, said: There are certain circumstances where there will be liability even in the case of [the animal] falling down. This might come to pass when the wall had not been in good condition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The defendant is thus guilty of negligence. ');">²⁰</span> Still what was the negligence there? It could hardly be that the owner should have borne in mind the possibility of bricks falling down<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the wall, which the defendant kept in a dilapidated state. ');">²¹</span> [and doing damage], for since after all it was not bricks that came down but the animal that fell down, why should it not be subject to the law applicable to a case where the damage which might have been done by negligence at the inception actually resulted from accident?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where opinions differ. ');">²²</span> — No, it has application where the wall of the railing was exceedingly narrow.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or very sloping. It was thus natural that the animal would be unable to remain there very long, but should slide down and do damage. ');">²³</span> Our Rabbis taught: In the case of a dog or goat jumping [and doing damage], if it was in an upward direction<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An act unusual with any of them. ');">²⁴</span> there is exemption;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From full compensation, whereas half damages will be paid in accordance with the law applicable to Horn. ');">²⁵</span> but if in a downward direction there is liability.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., complete liability, as the act is usual with them and is thus subject to the law of Foot. ');">²⁶</span> In case, however, of man or poultry jumping [and doing damage], whether in a downward or upward direction, there is liability.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the act is quite usual with poultry, and as to man, he is always Mu'ad, v. supra p. 8. ');">²⁷</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 42:12. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.