Bava Kamma 10

Let Scripture record only two kinds of damage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Ox and Mab'eh. ');">¹</span>

and from them you will deduce a further kind of damage?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Fire. ');">²</span>

In response it was declared: Even from two kinds of damage it would not be possible to deduce one more.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the reason stated in the Mishnah. ');">³</span>

Raba, however, said: If you retain any one kind of damage along with Pit [in Scripture], all the others but Horn will be deduced by analogy;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the feature common in Pit and the other kind of damage. ');">⁴</span>

Horn is excepted as the analogy breaks down, since all the other kinds of damage are <i>Mu'ad</i> ab initio.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is usual for them to do damage, whereas Horn does damage only through excitement and evil intention which the owner should not necessarily have anticipated; cf. infra p. 64. ');">⁵</span>

According, however, to the view that Horn on the other hand possesses a greater degree of liability because of its intention to do damage,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra p. 11 and infra p. 64. ');">⁶</span>

even Horn could be deduced. For what purpose then did Scripture record them all? For their [specific] laws: Horn, in order to distinguish between <i>Tam</i> and <i>Mu'ad</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra p. 73. ');">⁷</span>

Tooth and the Foot, to be immune [for damage done by them] on public ground;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra p. 94. ');">⁸</span>

Pit, to be immune for [damage done by it to] inanimate objects;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 52a. ');">⁹</span> and, according to R. Judah who maintains liability for inanimate objects damaged by a pit,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 53b. ');">¹⁰</span> in order still to be immune for [death caused by it to] man;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 54a. ');">¹¹</span> Man, to render him liable for four [additional] payments [when injuring man];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra p. 473; cf. also supra pp. 12 and 13. ');">¹²</span> Fire, to be immune for [damage to] hidden goods;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 61b. ');">¹³</span> but according to R. Judah, who maintains liability for damage to hidden goods by fire,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 61b. ');">¹³</span> what [specific purpose] could be served?