Quoting%20commentary for Bava Kamma 39:2
אמר אילפא בהמה ברשות הרבים ופשטה צוארה ואכלה מעל גבי חברתה חייבת מאי טעמא גבי חברתה כחצר הניזק דמי
Ilfa stated: In the case of an animal on public ground stretching out its neck and consuming food that had been placed upon the back of another animal, there would be liability to pay; the reason being that the back of the other animal would be counted as the plaintiff's premises. May we say that the following teaching supports his view: 'In the case of a plaintiff who had a bundle [of grain] hanging over his back and [somebody else's animal] stretched out its neck and consumed [the grain] out of it, there would be liability to pay'? — No, just as Raba elsewhere referred to a case where the animal was jumping [an act which being quite unusual would be subject to the law of Horn<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which could not be exempted from liability even on public ground. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
Explore quoting%20commentary for Bava Kamma 39:2. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.