Quoting%20commentary for Bava Kamma 38:15

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנו רבנן השן מועדת לאכול את הראוי לה כיצד בהמה שנכנסה לחצר הניזק ואכלה אוכלין הראויין לה ושתתה משקין הראויין לה משלם נזק שלם וכן חיה שנכנסה לחצר הניזק וטרפה בהמה ואכלה בשר משלם נזק שלם

half damages should [for the very reason] similarly not be imposed here as [there could be liability only when] Man created a pit but not [when] Cattle [created] a pit? — The Mishnaic ruling [regarding half damages] must therefore be applicable only to a case where the poultry made the string fly [from one place to another, where it broke the utensils, being thus subject to the law of Pebbles]; and the statement made by R. Huna will accordingly refer to a case which has been dealt with elsewhere [viz.]: In the case of an ownerless string, R. Huna said that if it had become attached of itself to poultry [and though damage resulted to an animate object tripping over it while it was still attached to the poultry] there would be exemption.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As there was no owner to the string, while the owner of the poultry could not be made liable for damage that resulted from a nuisance created by his poultry on the principle that Cattle, creating a nuisance, would in no way involve the owner in any obligation. ');">¹³</span>

Explore quoting%20commentary for Bava Kamma 38:15. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.