Commentary for Bava Kamma 5:22

היכי דמי אי דאפקרינהו בין לרב ובין לשמואל היינו בור

exempting thus cases where the cattle went of its own accord; it is, therefore, made known to us that this is not the case. The derivative of Tooth, what is it? — When [the cattle] rubbed itself against a wall for its own pleasure [and broke it down], or when it spoiled fruits [by rolling on them] for its own pleasure. Why are these cases different? Just as Tooth affords gratification from the damage [it does] and, being your possession, is under your control, why should not this also be the case with its derivatives which similarly afford gratification from the damage [they do] and, being your possession are under your control? — The derivative of Tooth is therefore equal to Tooth, and R. Papa's statement [to the contrary]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 2. ');">¹⁶</span> refers to the derivative of Foot. What is the derivative of Foot? — When it did damage while in motion either with its body or with its hair, or with the load [which was] upon it, or with the bit in its mouth, or with the bell on its neck. Now, why should these cases be different? Just as Foot does frequent damage and, being your possession, is under your control, why should not this also be the case with its derivatives which similarly do frequent damage and, being your possession, are under your control? The derivative of Foot is thus equal to Foot, and R. Papa's statement [to the contrary]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 6, n. 6. ');">¹⁷</span> refers to the derivative of the Pit. What is the derivative of Pit? It could hardly be said that the Principal is a pit of ten handbreadths deep and its derivative one nine handbreadths deep, since neither nine nor ten is stated in Scripture! — That is no difficulty: [as] And the dead beast shall be his<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 34. ');">¹⁸</span> the Divine Law declares, and it was quite definite with the Rabbis<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 50b. ');">¹⁹</span> that ten handbreadths could occasion death, whereas nine might inflict injury but could not cause death. But however this may be, is not the one [of ten] a principal [cause] in the event of death, and the other [of nine] a principal [cause] in the event of [mere] injury? — Hence [Rab Papa's statement] must refer to a stone, a knife and luggage which were placed on public ground and did damage. In what circumstances? If they were abandoned [there], according to both Rab and Samuel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra p. 150. ');">²⁰</span> they would be included in [the category of] Pit;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being, like Pit, a public nuisance. ');">²¹</span>

Explore commentary for Bava Kamma 5:22. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.