כב לא
22 Raba said: This fits in very well with [the view of] Symmachus who maintains that [damage done by an animal's] force<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such as in the case of Pebbles. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> falls under the law applicable to [damage done by its] body;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is subject to the law of 'Foot'. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> but what about the Rabbis? If they too maintain that [damage done by an animal's] force is subject to the same law that is applicable to [damage done by its] body, why then not pay in full? If on the other hand it is not subject to the law of damage done by a body, why pay even half damages? — Raba [in answer] said: It may indeed be subject to the law applicable to damage done by a body, yet the payment of half damages in the case of Pebbles is a halachic principle based on a special tradition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' See also supra 8. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> Raba said: Whatever would involve defilement in [the activities of] a <i>zab</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one afflicted with gonorrhoea who is subject to the laws of Lev. XV, 1-15; 19-24. Defilement is caused by him both by actual bodily touch and indirectly. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> will in the case of damage involve full payment, whereas that which in [the activities of] a <i>zab</i> would not involve defilement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g when the zab throws some article on a person levitically clean. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> will in the case-of damage involve only half damages. Was Raba's sole intention to intimate to us [the law of] Pebbles?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is not this obvious? ');"><sup>22</sup></span> — No, Raba meant to tell us the law regarding cattle<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'calf'. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> drawing a waggon [over utensils which were thus broken].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That there is in such a case full payment, because if a zab were to sit in a waggon that passed over clean objects, defilement would have been extended to them — the damage and the defilement respectively being regarded as having been caused by the body and not by its force. ');"><sup>24</sup></span> It has indeed been taught in accordance with [the view expressed by] Raba: An animal is <i>Mu'ad</i> to break [things] in the course of walking. How is that? In the case of an animal entering into the plaintiff's premises and doing damage either with its body while in motion, or with its hair while in motion, or with the saddle [which was] upon it, or with the load [which was] upon it, or with the bit in its mouth, or with the bell on its neck, similarly in the case of an ass [doing damage] with its load, or again, in the case of a calf drawing a waggon [over utensils which were thus broken], the payment must be in full. Our Rabbis taught: In the case of poultry picking at a cord attached to a pail so that the cord was snapped asunder and the bucket broken, the payment must be in full. Raba asked: In the case of [cattle] treading upon a utensil which has not been broken at once, but which was rolled away to some other place where it was then broken, what is the law? Shall we go by the original cause [of the damage in our determination of the law], which would thus amount to damage done by the body,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being therefore subject to the law of 'Foot'. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> or shall only [the result, i.e.] the breaking of the utensil be the determining factor, amounting thus to Pebbles? — But why not solve the problem from a statement made by Rabbah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was a predecessor of Raba. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> For Rabbah said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. infra 26b. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> If a man threw [his fellow's] utensil from the top of a roof and another one came and and broke it with a stick [before it fell upon the ground. where it would in any case have been broken], the latter is under no liability to pay, as we say. 'It was only a broken utensil that was broken by him.' [Is not this the best proof that it is the cause of the damage which is the determining factor?]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that the latter is under no obligation to compensate, but the whole liability to pay is upon the one who threw the utensil from the top of the roof. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> — To Rabbah that was pretty certain, whereas to Raba it was doubtful. Come and hear: 'Hopping [with poultry] is not <i>Mu'ad</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The payment for damage will therefore not be in full. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> Some however say: It is <i>Mu'ad</i>.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Payment will thus be in full. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> 'Could 'hopping' [in itself] be thought [in any way not to be habitual with poultry]? Does it not therefore mean: 'Hopping that results in making [a utensil] fly [from one place to another so that it is broken] … 'so that the point at issue is this: The latter view maintains that the original cause [of the damage] is the determining factor<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Payment will thus be in full. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> but the former maintains that only [the result, i.e.,] the breaking of the utensil is the determining factor?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus constituting Pebbles, for which payment will not be in full. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> — No,