Reference for Bava Kamma 35:19

אמר ליה רב סמא בריה דרב אשי לרבינא אימור דשמעת ליה לרבי יהודה בתם ונעשה מועד במועד מתחילתו

— No, the point at issue is that between Symmachus and the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., whether full or half damages are to be paid in the case of Pebbles. ');">¹⁶</span> Come and hear: In the case of a dog taking hold of a cake [with live coals sticking to it] and going [with it] to a stack of grain where he consumed the cake and set the stack on fire, full payment must be made for the cake,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being subject to the law applicable to Tooth, cf. supra p. 68. ');">¹⁷</span> whereas for the stack only half damages will be paid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 21b. ');">¹⁸</span> Now, what is the reason [that only half damages will be paid for the stack] if not on account of the fact that the damage of the stack is subject to the law of Pebbles?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the damage to the stack was not done by the actual body of the dog but was occasioned by the dog through the instrumentality of the coal, which, after having been put on a certain spot, spread the damage near and far. ');">¹⁹</span> It has, moreover, been taught in connection with this [Mishnah] that the half damages will be collected out of the body [of the tort-feasant dog]. [Does not this ruling offer a solution to the problem raised by Raba?] — But do you really think [the law of 'Pebbles' to be at the basis of this ruling]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of half damages for the stack. ');">²⁰</span> According to R. Eleazar [who maintains<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a Baraitha. ');">²¹</span> that the payment even for the stack will be in full and out of the body of the tort-feasant dog], do we find anywhere full payment being collected out of the body [of tort-feasant animals]? Must not this ruling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of half damages for the stack. ');">²⁰</span> therefore be explained to refer to a case where the dog acted in an unusual manner in handling the coal,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By taking it in its mouth and applying it to the stack, in which case it is subject to the law of 'Horn'. ');">²²</span> R. Eleazar being of the same opinion as R. Tarfon, who maintains<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra p. 59 and infra 24b. ');">²³</span> that [even] for the unusual damage by Horn, if done in the plaintiff's premises, the payment will be in full?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Though the payment will still be made out of the body of the tort-feasant animal.) ');">²⁴</span> — This explanation, however, is not essential. For that which compels you to make R. Eleazar maintain the same opinion as R. Tarfon, is only his requiring full payment [out of the body of the dog]. It may therefore be suggested on the other hand that R. Eleazar holds the view expressed by Symmachus, that in the case of Pebbles full damages will be paid; and that he further adopts the view of R. Judah who said<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 39a. 45b. ');">²⁵</span> that [in the case of <i>Mu'ad</i>, half of the payment, i.e.] the part of <i>Tam</i>, remains unaffected [i.e., is always subject to the law of <i>Tam</i>]; the statement that payment is made out of the body [of the dog] will therefore refer only to [one half] the part for which even <i>Tam</i> would be liable. But R. Samia the son of R. Ashi said lo Rabina: I submit that the view you have quoted in the name of R. Judah is confined to cases of <i>Tam</i> turned into <i>Mu'ad</i> [i.e. Horn],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 39a. 45b. ');">²⁵</span> whereas in cases which are <i>Mu'ad</i> ab initio<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as Foot (and Pebbles at least according to Symmachus). ');">²⁶</span>

Jastrow

Jastrow

Jastrow

Jastrow