Bava Kamma 10

Chapter 10

א לכתוב רחמנא תרתי ותיתי אידך מינייהו הדר אמר חדא מתרתי לא אתי
1 Let Scripture record only two kinds of damage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Ox and Mab'eh. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב אמר רבא וכולהו כי שדית בור בינייהו אתיא כולהו במה הצד לבר מקרן משום דאיכא למיפרך מה לכולהו שכן מועדין מתחילתן
2 and from them you will deduce a further kind of damage?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Fire. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג ולמאן דאמר אדרבה קרן עדיפא שכוונתו להזיק אפילו קרן נמי אתיא
3 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. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד אלא למאי הלכתא כתבינהו רחמנא להלכותיהן
4 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. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ה קרן לחלק בין תמה למועדת
5 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. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ו שן ורגל לפוטרן ברשות הרבים
6 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. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ז בור לפטור בו את הכלים ולרבי יהודה דמחייב על נזקי כלים בבור לפטור בו את האדם
7 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. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ח אדם לחייבו בארבעה דברים
8 Tooth and the Foot, to be immune [for damage done by them] on public ground;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra p. 94. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ט אש לפטור בו את הטמון ולרבי יהודה דמחייב על נזקי טמון באש לאתויי מאי
9 Pit, to be immune for [damage done by it to] inanimate objects;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 52a. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> and, according to R. Judah who maintains liability for inanimate objects damaged by a pit,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 53b. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> in order still to be immune for [death caused by it to] man;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 54a. ');"><sup>11</sup></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. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> Fire, to be immune for [damage to] hidden goods;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 61b. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> but according to R. Judah, who maintains liability for damage to hidden goods by fire,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 61b. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> what [specific purpose] could be served?
Previous ChapterNext Chapter